MMORPGs - Do the Designers have it backwards?

[Sharpe]

Having played several of the mass-market MMORPGs, and having been left dissatisfied by all of them in one way or another, I'm really beginning to wonder if designers have it completely backward on the issue of time commitment and rewards for time spent in these games. Wagner James Au in that Salon article referenced the debate regarding catering to hardcore gamers vs casual gamers. I think that's one aspect of the problem but sort of misses the point.

Overall, most designers so far have focused on "extending" the life of their games by requiring vast amounts of time to achieve high level/skill/accomplishment. A game that allows players to "max out" in less time would be considered way too easy. Designers seem to think that the way to maximize subscription income is to drag out the game, delay the players, defer gratification, and generally slow things to a tedious level grind. I am now convinced that this is completely bass-ackwards and foolish.

First myth: players will "max out" then quit and cancel their subscription. My view: if the game itself is enjoyable, hitting max level does NOT cause players to quit. If a game is a boring mess, some players may grind on to max level out of a sense of obsession, obligation, anal-ness or whatever. When they hit max, they will quit. BUT, the reason they are quitting is NOT that they maxxed out (thats just the symptom) - the underlying cause is that they stopped enjoying the game a bunch of levels ago. Of all the MMORPGs I've played I have not had one close friend quit due to maxxing out - in fact, when folks quit its usually well before max, when they find the grind too damn boring. Those players quit with a bad feeling about the game, feeling like they never got to experience the entire product b/c the high levels were too damn hard to get to.

Second Myth: if players max out quickly they will turn into annoying griefers, resource hogs etc. The griefer issue is a legitimate one, but the key is to design the game so that players have only limited impact on causing grief to others: design it so that high levels cannot hog resources from low levels, cannot kill/steal or interfere with low levels, and then have good CS to deal with harassment. I fully believe that this myth is a classic example of the 20/80 law: 20% of the people cause 80% of the problems. The hardcore types burn to max level, then get bored, use up a lot of server time, and go looking for exploits / loopholes / grief opportunities. Why NOT just let them quit? Let the 20% burn through the game and quit, leaving a smaller subscription base that generates a LOT less problems? I strongly believe that the cost/benefit ratio is in favor of having a lower time commitment and letting the fanatical players just move along to the next attraction.

Third Myth: If players max out quickly they will have nothing to do and will be forced to quit, even if they still enjoy the game. My view: complete BS. People still enjoying the product will find ways to keep playing: socializing with friends, helping others, trading/econ stuff, mass-player activities etc. Most importantly, all MMORPGs to date have offered multiple character options: I strongly believe that when players max out, the vast majority would enjoy starting over with a different character, IF they did not face another multi-hundred (or multi-thousand) hour level grind.

I would really like to see a company design a game that a player could hit the high levels in a relatively low amount of time, say 50 to 100 hours of play (which would be considered a hefty time investment for a single player game) but that prevented the max levels from ruining the game for low levels, and that provided many different character/race/class/skill/etc options for re-playing. I strongly believe you would see a game that would have a LOT lower ratio of the problems that plague other MMORPs (whining about imbalance, whining about difficulty, whining about PvP, whining about trade skills, etc etc).

Bottom line: let the hardcore, 250 hour per month types max the game and move on. Allow the 50 to 100 hour per month types to advance at a nice quick rate so they feel rewarded each time they play. The game will have a less problematic player base and IMO a longer staying time.

Given the harsh competition and winnowing that I expect in the field, I think any of the upcoming non-major-license games that DONT follow this formula will end up on the bargain bin: I doubt very much that we will see a non-major player replicate the success of UO, EQ, or even DAOC, if they rely on the levelling treadmill. There's just too much competition, and too many thousands of hours previously invested by gamers to want to do that same old grind all over again.

Dan

[Robert Sharp]

I agree with all that, especially point 3. I love trying new characters in these games. In fact, in DAOC, I don't play characters past level 20 or so, and instead start new ones to try a different type of player. Those levels after 20 are WAY too hard for a gamer like me to get. I don't have time to play 40 or 50 hours a week for 6 months to get to level 50.

[Jason Becker]

"I'm really beginning to wonder if designers have it completely backward on the issue of time commitment and rewards for time spent in these games."

Since UO, EQ and DAOC(so far) have done extremely well the designers would disgree with you I'd suspect. They went for a style of play and it obvioulsy clicks for some people. Hopefully we'll see some diffrent stuff with games like World of Warcraft.

[Jim F.]

The problem, I think, most people need to "win" games. In an MMOG, people view winning as maxxing out their level/skill/bank account. So they play these games with that goal in mind. When that goal takes too much work, they get frustrated and quit the game. When it's too easy, they get bored and leave the game. The problem is, striking the balance.

The easiest way to mitigate the frustration and keep people playing is to offer little goals along the way. For example: in EQ, you get new skills and spells as you level. So a monk may be a bit frustrated with level 15, but he knows that at 17th level he gets Feign Death, which he knows is cool and he really wants. Once he hits 17th, he knows that at 20th he gets flying kick, so that keeps him playing some more. There are these little goals to strive for for every class, especially for spell casters.

There is also the goal of "I want to hunt in this really cool place someday". You know Lower Guk is a great place. You know there are some amazing items that drop there. The problem is, you're only 28th level and you can't hunt there without dying constantly. So you continue hunting where you are, trying to level to the point where you can see this cool zone that you've never been able to hunt in.

EQ also has the goals of "epic" encounters. Huge beasts that require 20 - 40 people working together to kill, or Planes, other worlds where the gods live. To get into a Plane, you have gto be 45th level, so many people use this as a goal in the 40 - 49 grind area.

And, of course, there is the item incentive for EQ. There is always something better than what you have. In order to get it, you need to play the game. You need to level, you need to make friends, and you need to improve your skills. Yet another goal that keeps people playing.

So as long as people have goals and don't realize they're just on a "get more exp so I can get better items so I can get more exp so I can get better items" treadmill, they keep playing. The damn game has had be captured for 3 years now (although I have taken several breaks ranging from a month to 9 months). There is always something else to do, somewhere new to go, something new to get. And the damn zones and creatures just look cool, so they are things I want to see! I want to go deep in the Ssra temple so I can kill the Chancellor. I want I fight the Ssra Emporer, so I gather Ssra bane smithing equipment and working on my blacksmithing skill so I can make it myself. There is always something else driving me on.

DAoC didn't have that for me. I leveled really really fast. Equipment was so easy to get since it drops fairly commonly, and what pieces I didn't get from drops I could get by handing a few plat to a blacksmith. I managed to get to 41st level in less than 2 months without any real marathon sessions. I saw every area of Albion and Midgard in that 2 months. The last month I played I explored all of Hibernia and leveled a Mentalist to 34th level. There was nothing else for me to do at all. New neat new spells to try for, because every spell was simply a better version of the spell I already had. No neat new monsters to kill, because there weren't any "epic" creatures in the game. All of the dungeons looked the same, with the same looking creatures, so there was no incentive to keep leveling so I can go deep in The Barrows because I already saw everything there was to see by exploring all of The Crypt.

The PvP aspect of the game was supposed to drive me on, but it just wasn't much of a goal for me. The fights I had been involved in, even the ones involving 20 v 20, were over so fast that it was ridiculous.

So DAoC was EQ made easier...and that's what blew it for me. No challenge meant no feeling of struggle, and no feeling of accomplishment. This was also mirrored in the quests of the game. I have had EQ quests that take me 3 months and tons of work to complete, while the so called "epic" quests of DAoC were just Fed-Ex quests that took me a max of 3 hours to finish.

(I hear DAoC has improved a lot. New zones, epic mobs, etc. But after the boring experience I had with it, I can't convince myself to try it again)

As I'm sure you can guess, I'm probably considered a hard core gamer. I love my computer, and I love games. I play around 10 - 20 hours of EQ a week, with the occasional week of 0 - 5 hours when the weather is nice. But, I can say that EQ's goal system works for casual gamers too. I talked my Mom of all people into trying the game out. She played RTS games in the past and loved them (there isn't an AI she can't defeat. Blizzard should hire her as a playtester), but she hates FPS and RPG games. It took some work, but I finally told her that I'd buy the game for her, she could use the free month, and I would take the account as a secondary account if she didn't like it.

It took her a while to get the hang of the game. As I said, she hates FPS games, so she wasn't too keen on moving around in first person view. Over the next week I got her used to the controls and set her lose on the world. She called me up the next morning, ecstatic because she was now 7th level and could hunt in Blackburrow. Then she discovered quests, and she was hooked for good. Bear after bear is killed in her quest for a rabid bear pelt so she can get some new boots. The idea of killing creatures with a purpose other than exp hooked her and hasn't let go. She's been playing for almost 2 months now, is 19th level, and she has only seen about 10% of the first continent. When I told her how little she saw, her reaction was that she wanted to level some more so she could see everything else. EQ has another convert, and I have a Mom with a hobby we can talk about.

(and, of course, my wife plays. But she was playing EQ before we even met. It was a strange experience. We met at a party, started dating, and one day she called while I was playing EQ. Told her what i was doing and got a "no way! I play that too". I had no idea she even played computer games. It makes things much easier for me, since I never have to hear "are you playing that damn game again?" like I got from a couple of old girlfriends)

So, to get back on topic (and to wrap up a HUGE post), I think the games already have it right. I've played the easy games, and they do indeed get boring. Without there being goals to strive for, the game loses all appeal for me. If I can kill everything I see after just a month of playing, then that first free month is all I'll play. If you want me to pay month after month, make it a challenge and give me tons of goals that keep me interested.

[Supertanker]

"Bottom line: let the hardcore, 250 hour per month types max the game and move on. Allow the 50 to 100 hour per month types to advance at a nice quick rate so they feel rewarded each time they play."

How about some methods for the 20-30 hour per month players? If the more casual players still must devote 50-100 hours a month, then I doubt the MMORPG market will expand much more. 50-100 hours is my entire gaming time for a month, and many people would think I spend too much time gaming. With other games competing for my attention, there is no way I'm spending 100 hours a month on a single game. If I do that anyway and still remain unable to play in all areas, or uncompetitive in some fashion, forget it.

[Jack]

In partial response to Jim F.'s post (not a flame, only a point): I think that small, incremental goals is certainly a viable strategy too keep a player interested and the EQ example of the Monk is a good example... but it's a matter of how long one has to play to reach a level.

I, too, read the Salon article and it left me with a similar sentiment to the original poster of this topic. I am also a veteran of UO and EQ. I quit UO because of the violent, possibly sexually frustrated teens who gravitated to the game. I quit EQ after a couple years because the tedium was mind-numbing (also, my group of RL friends I hung out with in EQ no longer played as a group).

Tedium isn't the only evil.

I doubt I'll play another MMORPG because the entire system is fatally flawed with anonymity. We live in an age where Road Rage is explained because we're coccooned safely inside our cars, so many folks don't think twice about flipping off fellow drivers or pedestrians. Having the anonymity of a MMOG exponentially increases this lack of conscience. I've encountered great rudeness, lying, cheating and thievery only because they aren't held personally accountable. There is no shame among anonymous teenagers.

Sorry if this seems like too much of a rant, but I feel the MMORPG developers have been much too lax with anti-social behavior in a game that focuses on social interaction. I understand the fear of losing money by banning players, but by not taking firm action, they probably lose several players to every one griefer (not a real statistic, but a griefer spreads discontent like a disease).

[Jim F.]

I agree that the "jerk factor" is becoming much worse in MMOGs these days. And, really, I don't have a solution for it.

I had the same experience in UO that you did, Jack. I started playing the game, enjoyed it for a while, then got sick of "I powned joo, n00b" when I got ganked by some adolesent taking out his frustrations of his recent Jr. High beating on me. PvP should never be forced upon the player, but it constantly was in UO.

Some day I know I'll completely burn out on EQ. I had taken a 9 month break before the release of Shadows of Luclin drug me back in. And when Planes of Power is released in October, I know it will keep be interested for even longer. But some day I'll just lose interest. I'll hit my DAoC syndrome where I'll have accomplished everything that I think I can accomplish and won't have any more goals in mind.

My one big problem with EQ right now, and what will probably be the death of the game, is MUDflation. Every release introduces better and better equipment, completely trivializing the old equipment in the game. Items that used to be highly sought after by 40th level people are now deemed unworthy of even being given to a 20th level newbie. It also makes the old zones a bit too easy since the equipment you're now using is geared towards the newer zones. This, for me, reduces my selection of fun hunting grounds.

[Jack]

Good point, Jim. Since I bailed just before Shadows was introduced, I'd only seen the obsolete equipment problem on a smaller scale with Kunark.

A related problem is the whacked economy caused by these new items. I can remember when 100 pp was a good amount of money - lol.

Not to turn this thread into an EQ rant -- I'm sure these problems either do or will plague all MMORPGs, unless a solution is found.

[Mark Asher]

The in-game economic issues are tough to deal with. You have to take money out of the player's pocket, yet there doesn't seem to be a good ongoing way to do this that isn't irritating to the player. Who wants items to decay in a virtual world? Only the game developers, not the players. Who wants to pay a fee to restore constitution loss? Only the developers, not the players.

Then of course in these games everyone eventually becomes a "millionaire" as they reach the high levels. Money becomes devalued.

Small MMOGs may be the best bets in the long-run for hardcore players that don't want to put up with dweebs. I played on an NWN persistent world server last night and had the best time so far with the game. Unfortunately, it can only hold 10 players at a time and the lag is quite bad. The point is that these kinds of smallish persistent world games would be much easier to police. Get a player who's a jerk? Ban him.

[Ben Sones]

I agree with pretty much all of Sharpe's points. I think that the game model based on relentless character progression is inadequate, at least in it's current form, for this type of game. It's taken from finite, single-player games in which your player progresses towards final closure at the end of the game. But developers don't want their online games to end. They want people to keep playing them forever, so a gameplay model taken from games that DO end is like trying to force a square peg through a round hole.


If players max out quickly they will have nothing to do and will be forced to quit, even if they still enjoy the game. My view: complete BS.

If the only thing to do in a game is level your character, then players are indeed going to be bored when they can no longer do that. Most online games are like that now. What they need to do is shift the focus away from the level grind and make the gameplay more rewarding in and of itself. I'd like to see an online game with NO character levels, not because I think character levels can't work in such a game, but simply because their removal would force the designers to give more consideration to aspects of this type of game that they currently ignore.

What if your character never "improved," at least not in the way that characters typically do in RPGs? Would that really be so bad? Let the player make the type of character they want from the start, with points or something, and then leave it at that. Shooters don't feel the need to march the player ever closer to godhood. Most give you better equipment as you go on, but some of them don't even do that. Static character abilities would solve many of the problems that online RPGs contend with.


I doubt I'll play another MMORPG because the entire system is fatally flawed with anonymity.

That's a good point. It's not insurmountable... or at least I hope it's not. But it's a good point.

[Jack]

Yes, they would be easier to police and easier to personalize. That's probably an excellent solution. Maybe MMORPGs should change to MORPGs -- just bone these huge player bases down into many, many smaller clones of those large multi-player worlds. Lag would also be reduced.

Overall, it would be a better experience to play with 100 - 200 players in EQ's world rather than 5,000; just increase the amount of monsters and scripting complexity for the NPCs.

[Jason McCullough]

"I'm really beginning to wonder if designers have it completely backward on the issue of time commitment and rewards for time spent in these games."

Since UO, EQ and DAOC(so far) have done extremely well the designers would disgree with you I'd suspect. They went for a style of play and it obvioulsy clicks for some people. Hopefully we'll see some diffrent stuff with games like World of Warcraft.

They're all taking the same approach, though, so there's nothing useful with which to compare.

[Rob de los Reyes]

I'm not sure about that "static" character thing, Ben. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just not sure. Can you really compare a 15-20 hour shooter to a 15-20 month MMORPG? That is, unless the argument is that MMOG developers should give up on trying to hold subscribers ad infinitum and start acting more like "regular" games with a finite life span.

It may be that, at a minimum, MMOGs have to stop trying to be all things to all people (assuming you want to bust into the mainstream). Maybe some of the social problems would go away if the griefers had a game that suited them and the rest of us played something else. Right now, the choices are limited in that regard, but this next big wave of development might change that. Maybe all the hardcore PKers will go to Dragon Empires (I'm picking that game at random) and all the "team players" will go to City of Heroes (again, random). The everything for everyone model is fine in a niche market, but maybe we just need some good old fragmentation if interest is to spread.

[Ben Sones]

I'm not sure about that "static" character thing, Ben. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just not sure. Can you really compare a 15-20 hour shooter to a 15-20 month MMORPG?

No, but by the same token, you can't really compare it to a 20-40 hour RPG, either. But if people find the levelling process dull, why not remove it? I don't think it's too much to ask for a game that provides fun things to do other than bump up your character's stats a tiny bit every day.

"Static" was probably a bad choice of words, but I think you could find other ways to develop characters aside from making them increasingly powerful in combat (which is what the level grind boils down to).

[Jack]

Another, more personal note about MMORPGs (and something that has been discussed about MMORPG design): I enjoy solo play. I've had fellow EQers ask me why the heck I'm playing a MMORPG if I like playing alone. The short answer is that I enjoy sharing a world with many other players (assuming their not griefers :) ), but I don't like needing to team up to enjoy all the game has to offer. Playing a single-player game can be quite lonely when all you get is scripted responses from every other person in the world.

The reason I don't necessarily like teaming up with people I meet online is because my gaming time is limited, as opposed to most MMORPG players I've met. I can't tear away from RL for too long.

I understand that forcing group play is a strategy for MMORPG companies. If they force you into a social structure, you'll be more inclined to play the online game for hours and hours rather than play the game of Real Life. :-)

[Alan Au]

<soapbox>
Actually, I think that the current convention of 'levelling up' is dumb. I would much rather see a system where player experience translated into more customizeabilty and specialization (a la Shadow Watch or Deus Ex) rather than straight stat and skill increases (e.g. most traditional single player cRPGs). As it stands in most systems, a level 2 character is approximately twice as good as a level 1 character. Similarly, a level 10 character is better than ten level 1 characters. This creates an arbitrary class boundary, which in turn leads to segregation of the player population. People gain prestige not so much by accomplishment, but by time spent killing rats (for instance). The payoff is better loot (which causes economic issues - a whole separate topic) and character improvement, but the character improvement creates less interaction rather than more interaction. Take for example RvR combat in DAoC, where a discrepancy of only a few character levels creates a massive imbalance. Similarly, the XP system in Everquest encourages people to group by level. I perceive this as an unneccessarily restrictive system. Why should level be important? Why should it matter that one player spends 10 hours a day online while another spends 10 hours a week online? Yes, you want to reward the player and entice them with new content. However, I believe that there must be a way to do so without resorting to the traditional level-up and equipment-based schemes.
</soapbox>

- Alan

[Doug Erickson]

Another, more personal note about MMORPGs (and something that has been discussed about MMORPG design): I enjoy solo play. I've had fellow EQers ask me why the heck I'm playing a MMORPG if I like playing alone.

Hence, we have Morrowind.

[Jason Cross]

I think there's a lot of progress to be made in an online RPG (or other such game) with...stay with me here...NO LEVELS.

In fact, no character progression at all.

Think of a game like, say, Soul Calibur. People play it for dozens of hours, because the actual act of playing is fun. Not for long-term rewards, or to max out anything. Just to get better, and enjoy some finely-tuned action and bitchin' graphics.

That's what I feel is missing from all the online RPGs. If you ignore the fact that the world is populated by 1,000 other people, they're all the worst RPGs ever! Rediculously simple and trite quests, mind-numbingly bad monster AI, a world that feels very static, horrible NPC interaction... They're like Might and Magic VIII with a bunch of people in a chat room.

Let's say they made an online RPG where you picked attributes, maybe through a point-buy system or something, and they never changed. You never got a "better" weapon, or better spells, or better skills. You could find or buy different weapons/spells to try 'em out, and use 'em if you like 'em, but a two-hour old character wouldn't be any better than a 200-hour old character, statistically.

Maybe you'd have short-term rewards for quests and whatnot that are temporary boosts. Finish the quest for your mage guild leader and you get double spell points for two gameworld days (use 'em or lose 'em). Do the blacksmith's quest and he'll make your sword flaming for the next two hours of real-world time. Whatever.

But doing such a game would require a total shift in development ideals (and maybe technology). That actual act of combat would have to be fun, not just the results. Monsters would have to run around and do interesting things in the world, not just stand there or walk in a straight line waiting for you to enter their radius and attack. I'm talking about coming up on a goblin camp where they're actually doing camp things: moving in and out of tents, stopping to chat or roast some meat on a fire, training for the next raid, etc.

You'd keep playing not to improve your character, but because of the ever-changing world. The actions of the players as a whole would actually affect the world, and it would become OBVIOUSLY different if you didn't log on for two weeks. Not different like "oh look, Clan Breakclaw is now fifth on the rankings of the richest clans" or "I see they tweaked the prices of arrows." I mean different like, "oh my god, this part of the world that was wasteland and overrun by orcs is now peaceful and has a town in it, and that dungeon over there is a diamond mine, and some evil wizard has dried up this major river..." All the results of players who did or did not accomplish major tasks in the world.

If you had a game where the minute-to-minute act of playing was actually fun and in which the entire environment was far more dynamic, you might have a reason to play beyond levelling up in a fancy 3D virtual chatroom. And the $15 a month you'd pay would be for the privelage of enjoying it with a couple thousand other people and for the massive service required to create content, quests, events, and artwork for a dramatically changing world.

[Rob de los Reyes]

"Static" was probably a bad choice of words, but I think you could find other ways to develop characters aside from making them increasingly powerful in combat (which is what the level grind boils down to).

Gotcha. Fair enough. And, of course, the $64,000 question is what those "other ways" are.

Interestingly, The Sims points to one answer, but one that many of the board dwellers here don't find appealing. (In the interest of full disclosure, I'm in the camp that doesn't really enjoy The Sims but certainly appreciates the achievement it represents.) The nice thing about "leveling" as a device is that it's an interchangeable part. Character development involving deeper psychological progress or shifts in attitude seem, to me at any rate, awfully hard to represent without a story driving it. MMOGs have, so far, had trouble with central stories. Leveling, then, is a form of user-driven individual story-writing where everybody uses the same writing tools. I think the process of writing your own character's story through the advancement choices you make has always been the core element of a leveling system. That's why it's so horribly frustrating to need 30 hours to go from level 23 to level 24 -- your story is stuck in an giant lacuna.

[Ben Sones]

The problem is that levelling isn't really any better. It's illusory progress. The monsters that I can fight change over time, and that's really the only affect that it has. The actual fights are all pretty much the same; it's just as difficult for a 1st level character to kill something that cons yellow as it is for a 10th level character to kill something that cons yellow. So is it any wonder that it all starts to feel superficial, and players get bored? It IS superficial. The world stays exactly the same, and my character changes in ways that don't have any effect on the experience of playing.

As Jason said, they need to make the actual experience of playing into the reward. What's the extra reward that you get for playing 30 hours a week rather than for 3 hours a week? 27 extra hours of game time. That would require a major rethinking, because as Jason also pointed out, current MMORPG game worlds are dull and unchanging. Players need to be able to interact with the world, and alter it through their interactions. They also need to be able to interact with each other; the game needs to encourage and support inter-player conflict rather than damning and preventing it, and it needs to provide opportunities for different types of inter-player conflict beyond merely allowing players to kill each other. Currently the fact that these worlds are massively multiplayer is meaningless, because you only interact with a handful of other players--sometimes not even that many (if you like to adventure alone)--and there is only one type of interaction available (group to share XPs from combat).

So yeah, it gets dull pretty fast. I played DAoC until I was level 10, and then gave up on it.

[Tyjenks]

I think there's a lot of progress to be made in an online RPG.....NO LEVELS.

What are you insane? These games would not be the same. The infravision and ranger abilities inherent...

Ohhhh, my bad, I thought you said, "No ELVES".

[Jason McCullough]

As Jason said, they need to make the actual experience of playing into the reward.

I agree, but this statement is pretty hilarious when you look at it. All this time, and they forgot to make the actual gameplay fun.

[Alan Au]

To be honest, that's exactly why I lost all interest in MMOGs. Social interaction aside, it was painfully apparent that no matter what I did or how long I played, I had absolutely no impact on the game world whatsoever. It didn't matter if I played 100 hours a week or 0 hours a week, so I opted for 0 hours.

I'm all for the "no levelling" viewpoint, although I think it'd still be nice to give the player some semi-permanent reward, even if it's just the choice of tunic color, etc.

I agree that the concept of a "persistent" world is completely wasted though. An EQ playing friend of mine was telling me about some dragon-slaying event he was going to participate in. They were going to attempt to mug some dragon to get its quest item, and then wait for the dragon to respawn (after 10 hours) so they could get more copies for the other guilds. Sounds more like an amusement park ride than an RPG if you ask me.

- Alan

[Desslock]

> think there's a lot of progress to be made in an online RPG (or other such game) with...stay with me here...NO LEVELS. In fact, no character progression at all

I completely agree - it's been one of the things I've been advocating in RPGs for a long time, but a lot of people seem pretty set in their view that character development is a condition precedent to RPGs. That's ridiculous, of course, since the only requirement of an RPG is the ability to meaningfully play a personalized role -- character development is only one way (a cheap way) developers have historically used to personalize that experience.

I get that experience from Morrowind -- sure there's character development, but that becomes pretty meaningless relatively early on -- yet the game, for me at least, is still a ton of fun just "living" and role-playing in that world. I do think it'd be a lot harder to recreate that experience in a manner that a lot of people would enjoy in a MMORPG.

[Robert Sharp]

My wife and I play DAOC (never played EQ, played UO and hated it, and played AO and got bored real quick) and we have a good time with it. We do a lot of quests and such and a lot of roleplaying, especially within our RP guild. I have no idea how you manage to get to level 40 something in a couple of months. I don't have that kind of time, nor would I enjoy the game if I worked at leveling all the time. I enjoy the atmosphere and the world and wandering about killing things and talking to people and solving quests and such.

That said, while it sounds like EQ has more to offer in some ways, it sounds like it would take even longer to get anywhere for someone like me. If there are people who can get through DAOC in a couple of months, but can play EQ for a year and not be done, I am not sure I could get anywhere in that game. I would just like to see a game that is willing to keep the same basic dynamic but cater to more casual (or time constrainted) gamers.

As for the Morrowind comment above, while Morrowind is now in my list of top 5 games of all time (it is an INCREDIBLE game) it isn't the same xp as a MMORPG at all. The size may be similar, but that's all. I do wish MMO games would include so much history and back story though. It would add a lot to the worlds.

Star Wars Galaxies is removing the leveling dynamic in favor of skills, which are limited over a life time. However, while you can only gain so many skills, you can let skills go to try a different approach to the game. There are also ways to advance in the game besides improving your character's stats/skills, such as political moves, businesses (which are being done in a very interesting way so that you can finally be a craftsman and level up that way), and transport/smuggling. It could be very interesting, if they pull it off.

[Rob de los Reyes]

As Jason said, they need to make the actual experience of playing into the reward.

Well, I'm certainly not going to disagree with the proposition that gameplay should fun and not merely a chore endured for the sake of a gold sticker. I suppose my only point was that, like many other fundamental game mechnics, I'm not entirely convinced that the whole notion of a leveling system is flawed. Certainly a leveling system is not mutually exclusive of good gameplay (notwithstanding gripes about the current crop of MMOGs). Shadowbane seems to me to be most overtly seeking to tell a world story -- what I take to be your meaning with respect to a world that changes with the players. I think Dragon Empires is doing that, too. I wish them luck. Games will be better if they succeed.

I don't mean to be an apologist for poor games, but some of the things we're talking about here are much easier to conceptualize in the abstract than they are to implement in an MMOG setting (as opposed to a single player setting). How do you implement politics without it being boring or annoying to the apolitical? Do you want some 13-year-old senator changing your game rules every day? How do you conduct the widespread dialogue you're after (how do you do that in the real world?)? The question of what other types of conflict there can be besides killing is at the core of nearly every gaming project, online or otherwise. In the end, except on the limited question of whether leveling should be rejected altogether, I think you're probably right. I gave up on DAoC when it became clear I couldn't both play it and earn a living. Hopefully, cleverer people than I (a low bar to be sure) can find ways to turn mechanistic code into organic responsiveness.

[Ben Sones]

To be honest, that's exactly why I lost all interest in MMOGs. Social interaction aside, it was painfully apparent that no matter what I did or how long I played, I had absolutely no impact on the game world whatsoever.

Bob Mayer always calls MMORPGs a "Groundhog Day" experience. You just keep reliving the same day, over and over. Nothing important ever changes, or can be changed.


I agree that the concept of a "persistent" world is completely wasted though. An EQ playing friend of mine was telling me about some dragon-slaying event he was going to participate in. They were going to attempt to mug some dragon to get its quest item, and then wait for the dragon to respawn (after 10 hours) so they could get more copies for the other guilds. Sounds more like an amusement park ride than an RPG if you ask me.

Pretty much, yeah. Line up to kill the monster.

[Jason McCullough]

I'm not entirely convinced that the whole notion of a leveling system is flawed. Certainly a leveling system is not mutually exclusive of good gameplay

I don't mean to be an apologist for poor games, but some of the things we're talking about here are much easier to conceptualize in the abstract than they are to implement in an MMOG setting (as opposed to a single player setting).

Leveling systems aren't inherently unfun, they're just currently used *instead* of gameplay. It's like Lucy yanking the football away from Charlie Brown in an infinite loop.

I agree it'll be hard to change, but hey, that's what we pay game designers for.

[Mark Asher]

The problem is that levelling isn't really any better. It's illusory progress. The monsters that I can fight change over time, and that's really the only affect that it has. The actual fights are all pretty much the same; it's just as difficult for a 1st level character to kill something that cons yellow as it is for a 10th level character to kill something that cons yellow.

snip

It's not illusory, though. Your character does become more powerful. That snow orc that you couldn't beat a couple of levels ago you can now slaughter.

Also, if the game is designed right, you get new abilities for the life of your character that make the game play a bit different. That's one of DAoC's shortcomings -- with just an exception or two you have your basic spells and abilities by levels 15-20. All the levels after just give you more powerful versions of same.

Finally, it should be noted that we play these MMOGs far, far longer than we do most other games. It's not surprising that at some point we bet bored.

Anyway, the basic EQ formula of making your character more powerful as you play is quite appealing. We'll see how the opposite approach works with a game like Planetside which doesn't have leveling.

[wumpus]

But doing such a game would require a total shift in development ideals (and maybe technology). That actual act of combat would have to be fun, not just the results. Monsters would have to run around and do interesting things in the world, not just stand there or walk in a straight line waiting for you to enter their radius and attack. I'm talking about coming up on a goblin camp where they're actually doing camp things: moving in and out of tents, stopping to chat or roast some meat on a fire, training for the next raid, etc.
Which is exactly what I've been saying all along, in at least three different threads on the old Q23 boards. RPG mechanics are almost always dull, statistical, dice-rolling affairs that haven't really changed since the early 80's.

I want combat to be more like Severance, or to use your example, Soul Caliber. Not because I'm a twitch gaming freak, but because it's simply more fun that way. Clicking on a monster and watching the results scroll by in plaintext doesn't do it for me any more.

[Jim F.]

Worlds you can change are good and all, in theory. But when you are watching the world be changed by the 2999 other people on the server, it's just annoying. Permanent changes don't work in an MMOG for that very reason. In a limited enviornment of, say, 20 people, you're golden. However, that really limits the player interactions since you're forcing people into 20 person mini-servers...but then I think you also lose the first M (massively) from the MMOG title.

It's all a tradeoff.

Now I can see a non-persistant world enviornment working for that. 20 person server limit, game world is active and alive but only lasts while your game is going on. Kinda like NWN, but more smart and alive.

I just can't see it working for a persistant world MMOG.

[Ben Sones]

It's not illusory, though. Your character does become more powerful. That snow orc that you couldn't beat a couple of levels ago you can now slaughter.

But you won't, because the game no longer gives you any reward for it. The only progress that your new power delivers is the ability to fight a new batch of monsters that are just as matched to your skills as the last batch. And you are right--it is progress. It's just the most shallow, meaningless kind of progress I can imagine. We all laugh at Progress Quest, but online RPGs aren't much more sophisticated.


Finally, it should be noted that we play these MMOGs far, far longer than we do most other games. It's not surprising that at some point we bet bored.

Typically, I play them less. I played DAoC for about 25 hours, all told. I did slightly more with EverQuest, but not by much.

[Jim F.]

"Typically, I play them less. I played DAoC for about 25 hours, all told. I did slightly more with EverQuest, but not by much."

I gaurantee that you didn't really experience either of the games. If you're basing your opinion that the games are boring based on 20 hours of slaughtering rats and bats, well, then I would be hard pressed to call it an informed decision.

The first time you have a 6 person team having to work well together in order to control a hostile enviornment, then you hit the joy of an MMOG. Until that point, you're just playing a single player RPG with a bunch of other people walking around you. The group play is the strength off all of the MMOGs I've played so far. Without it, you might as well play System Shock 2 and call it a day.

[Ben Sones]

If I have to play a game for more than 25 hours to get to the fun part, then it's not a game that I want to play.

[Jim F.]

I'm just saying that 25 hours is hardly enough time to get to know an MMOG. These things are huge.

How many races/classes have you tried? I, personally, found my first character to be a complete bore (human mage). Played him for 12 levels then stopped playing for a couple of weeks because I thought the game sucked. Got lured back in, started a dark elf cleric, and found my niche character that really opened the game up. Started doing some real exploring, taking chances, getting involved in what other folks were doing.

The variety of options in these games are staggering and you might not have found a combination that worked for you. Couple that with the frustration of learning a new world and a new system of doing things and it's hard to imagine enjoying yourself without really giving it a chance.

Or maybe it's just not a genre you'll never enjoy. I can't stand simulation games, no matter how many times I blow $50 on one. People wouldn't shut up about how great European Air War was, but I found it tedious, boring, and a waste of time.

[Anonymous]

How about this alternative to levelling:

What if they simply limited the number of characters per level; 30% of players would be "apprentices", 20% "journeyman", etc... up to 1% would be "Master Wizard (or swordsman, or whatever)". As you increased in experience relative to other players your ranking would go up and you would become more powerful.

There would be a finite pyramid of power, since you automatically lock people into different levels, but it would be like a gigantic game of king of the hill. Levelling up would be second in importance--getting taken down a rung would be even more compelling!

And I think with such a rigid hierarchy you could probably customize areas, equiptment, and encounters so that it is actually more interesting to be higher up; maybe master swordsmen automatically get henchmen. Master Wizards can produce artifacts (destroyed when the "master" is de-levelled).

You dig?

[Sharpe]

The whole issue of levelling systems vs other forms of advancement or vs non-advancement based systems is a separate question from what I was getting at. I would certainly like to see some games try some of these different approaches, like skill systems, status rewards, customization rewards, etc. Also the point that levelling is a substitute for gameplay is a valid one, and the point that the gameplay itself should be enjoyable is crucial.

My point is that one of the ways to make the gameplay itself enjoyable is allow the player to more rapidly alter (and advance) their character. In EQ, your character will gain new and different abilites over time so that playing a 60th monk is VERY different from playing a 10th or even 20th level monk. However, to go from level 1 to level 60 will take what? 1200 hours? 800 hours for a serious veteran? 2000 hours for a newbie? I'm not sure but its far more hours than I'm willing to even contemplate spending, not just by a little but by a factor of 10 or so.

What I'd like to see is the ability to "fully develop" my character, and see a WIDE variety of opponents, areas, treasures, adventures, quests, etc, in about one tenth the time it currently takes. I strongly feel that the current paradigm rewards players far too slowly and that the vast time investment is a serious limitation on the long term staying power of future entries in the MMORPG market.

Please note: I am talking about FUTURE games. I don't believe my analysis applies to UO or EQ as I believe those games have had vast success based upon their place in the market, the total lack of competition for long stretches of time and their general place as MMORP monopolies. DAOC has replicated some of EQs success but I agree with Mark that DAOC is very fragile: I suspect it will fall to competition before UO does and that EQ may outlast everybody.

EQ I think is a special case. There are 400,000 accounts but probably only about 250,000 current players. Its just that each player has more than 1 account on average these days. If you were to add up the /played time for all characters on an active players current account, I suspect the actual /played time since release would average over 100 hours/month for most players. I believe that there are some players who have exceeded 8K and even 10K in total /played hours in the 40 months since release, which is far more time than a full time job. Because of the massive time investment veteran players have in EQ we may NEVER see EQ totally fold until its completely obselete. Frankly, if Sony wanted to make some real money, they'd figure out how to charge the current members hundreds of $$ to transfer their level 60s to EQ2 (as level 60s), b/c I strongly believe that tens of thousands would go for it. Once you've put 2 or 3 or 4 years of real labor into a game, getting hit for a few hundred bucks is no biggie to a lot of players. And of course, most players will completely balk at being required to put in ANOTHER 2,000 hours to hit level 60 in a new game.

That last point is where I'm going: if a game let you really experience the full game with less time investment that game would have both happier players and players willing to replay. The key is that if people are re=playing with a different class or character but are having a good time, you will have players subscribing for just as long, but with less frustration over the "grind".

Also, faster advancement rates alleviate many problems: class imbalances are less painful if EVERYONE advances faster, travel time, group disorganization and other issues are less painful if it requires less time to reach your goals, etc etc.

Also, on the issue of DAOC being easier (and hence less fun) than EQ - I think that's only partly true. I think DAOC IS EQLite but in the sense of "lite" content. DAOC is less rewarding than EQ (for PvE play) b/c there is FAR less content, less treasure, less variety of opponent, less variety of graphics, less quests, less of everything. Its not that DAOC is too easy, its that DAOC gives you too little for your time. EQ may take tons of time but it also gives you a LOT of character reward.

Dan

[Mark Asher]

"I want combat to be more like Severance, or to use your example, Soul Caliber. Not because I'm a twitch gaming freak, but because it's simply more fun that way. Clicking on a monster and watching the results scroll by in plaintext doesn't do it for me any more."

I don't want that in my MMOGs, though, because then I'm at a disadvantage with those who are better at that kind of reflex-style gaming or those who have faster connections.

You can make combat more interesting by giving the player more input into the process without making it overly reliant on twitchy gameplay. NWN, for example, gives fighters feats such as knockdown, disarm, parry, etc. It can involve you a bit more in the process as a result.

[Jason McCullough]

But doing such a game would require a total shift in development ideals (and maybe technology). That actual act of combat would have to be fun, not just the results. Monsters would have to run around and do interesting things in the world, not just stand there or walk in a straight line waiting for you to enter their radius and attack. I'm talking about coming up on a goblin camp where they're actually doing camp things: moving in and out of tents, stopping to chat or roast some meat on a fire, training for the next raid, etc.
Which is exactly what I've been saying all along, in at least three different threads on the old Q23 boards. RPG mechanics are almost always dull, statistical, dice-rolling affairs that haven't really changed since the early 80's.

I want combat to be more like Severance, or to use your example, Soul Caliber. Not because I'm a twitch gaming freak, but because it's simply more fun that way. Clicking on a monster and watching the results scroll by in plaintext doesn't do it for me any more.

Single player RPGs based on this stuff is just fine; the actual gameplay there is fun. The MMORPG approach isn't.

[Ben Sones]

I'm just saying that 25 hours is hardly enough time to get to know an MMOG. These things are huge.

Even so, I think it's a legitimate complaint. Most of these games make the early bits really dull and tedious--it's like some sort of half-assed initiation period. I don't need that. I paid $40 for the game, and I want to start having fun (and lots of it) during hour number one.


How many races/classes have you tried? ... The variety of options in these games are staggering and you might not have found a combination that worked for you. Couple that with the frustration of learning a new world and a new system of doing things and it's hard to imagine enjoying yourself without really giving it a chance.

I tried three; two in Midgard, and one in Albion. And I didn't hate the game, I just became convinced that after twenty five hours I wasn't going to see much more besides slight variation on what I'd already seen. Different monsters to fight, new skills to fight them with, new places to fight them in. But it's still just an endlessly repeating process of searching for things that con yellow and then killing them and taking their stuff. Everything else is just changes in scenery.

I want to play a game where the orcs over the next rise are a serious threat to my village, and maybe I have to work together to fight them because they aren't that easy to kill. Maybe the orcs are even played by other players. My dream online RPG is one in which there are no NPCs--every civilized race and monster in the game is another player, and I could choose to be the dragon marauding the countryside or the band of humans trying to slay it. All the conflict in existing MMORPGs is "player vs. the game." It's a missed opportunity.


Or maybe it's just not a genre you'll never enjoy. I can't stand simulation games, no matter how many times I blow $50 on one.

No, it's just one particular approach that I don't enjoy. I've been playing role-playing games, tabletop and PC alike, for over twenty years. I love 'em. And I love the idea of a massively multiplayer game. I just don't care much for the ones we've seen so far.

[Aszurom]

Well, I think something that WOULD make RPG combat more interesting would be a "rock/paper/scissors" approach.

You can choose an action for each combat round. As you gain skill with your weapon, more powerful options are available. For example, as a beginning swordfighter, you might have buttons for "attack, shield block". Get a couple levels and you get a "parry" thrown in there. A few more, and after a successful parry you can hit "Riposte".

Now, I'm not talking about the sort of special attacks that DOAC implemented. Maybe a little similar, but without the "dependency tree" for things that I can't imaging occuring very often. Like, how often am I going to block, then be blocked, then parry so I can try to remember real quick to hit some other special? Nah, that doesn't work for me. That's like trying to play "Simon" with a sword. I'm talking about just the basic skills, and not really dependent response actions like DAOC uses.

What would be key here is an "advantage" counter. It would be sorta like initiative in a p&p RPG. However, successful counter-attacks and sophisticated styles would swing the advantage in your direction. Thus, you could go on the attack and force your opponent to block for a while (if he's smart). It would be like a fighter running up to an orc and bashing him repeatedly with his axe... the orc starts blocking and waiting for an opening to counter-attack. Once the advantage-meter gets in his favor from successful blocks, he can use that bonus to parry and then riposte. That would swing advantage further his way if he hits, and then he can press an attack and force Mr. Fighter to block for a while.

It's a little too number-intensive for a p&p RPG, but hey, computers do math just fine.

[Jessica M.]

To be honest, that's exactly why I lost all interest in MMOGs. Social interaction aside, it was painfully apparent that no matter what I did or how long I played, I had absolutely no impact on the game world whatsoever. It didn't matter if I played 100 hours a week or 0 hours a week, so I opted for 0 hours.

This is the real key. Leveling vs. skill-based, etc, are far less relevent than giving the players ways and means to have an actual and persistent impact on the world. Now that we're exiting the current "me, too!" phase of MMOG development projects, we'll start to see more thinking about this kind of thing.

Some of what Raph Koster & crew are doing to for Star Wars Galaxies and Gordon Walton and crew are doing for The Sims Online take this into account. I'm especially intrigued by Raph's discussion of how craft and trade skill items will work in SWG. The player that makes the item will get credit when another player uses the item, rather than from skill use.

This rather turns the current equation in online RPGs on it's head; it isn't enough now to turn out 100 Slightly Bad Blaster Pistols for the skill or experience points and sell them at a store for quick cash; you have to make them well enough that people want to actually use them.

As the industry gains more experience, we'll see more such interesting mechanics and features. It is part of the process.

I disagree that that these games shouldn't try to be all things to all people, in the sense that you have to try to attract multiple play styles to make a virtual world work right, and these games are virtual worlds.

It is impossible to please every player or have all the features the four main playing styles want. Pick 2 or 3 of those styles, or pick some features from each of the 4, and you have the starting basis of a design that might cause people to actually pay for your game.

[Matthew Gallant]

It's not illusory, though. Your character does become more powerful. That snow orc that you couldn't beat a couple of levels ago you can now slaughter.

That is an illusion though, first because there's no game reason to do so, and second in fact it is grief play, because the lower level players will be there trying to kill those orcs because of the overcrowding.

[Rob de los Reyes]

It is impossible to please every player or have all the features the four main playing styles want. Pick 2 or 3 of those styles, or pick some features from each of the 4, and you have the starting basis of a design that might cause people to actually pay for your game.

At the risk of being persnickety (never a crime on the Q to 3 boards :wink: ), I think that's what it means not to try to be all things to all people. But I take your meaning. In any event, I think we're about to find out whether the genre is ripe for a bit of sub-genre-ing (ouch) and whether this narrowing (perhaps analogous to efforts at mass customization) might produce the somewhat counterintuitive result of an enlarged player base in the genre overall.

Good lord I'm tired. I hope that made some sense.

[wumpus]

You can make combat more interesting by giving the player more input into the process without making it overly reliant on twitchy gameplay. NWN, for example, gives fighters feats such as knockdown, disarm, parry, etc. It can involve you a bit more in the process as a result.
In the end, doesn't this boil down to turn-based vs. real-time? And we all know how well turn-based games are doing in other genres. It's just taking a LONG time for RPGs to catch up, which is historically par for the course.


That's like trying to play "Simon" with a sword. I'm talking about just the basic skills, and not really dependent response actions like DAOC uses.
Another point I brought up in a previous Q23 thread on this subject. Multiplayer Simon is not a gameplay mechanic I would choose to build a game on. But if it works for DAOC, more power to 'em.

[Anonymous]

My dream online RPG is one in which there are no NPCs--every civilized race and monster in the game is another player, and I could choose to be the dragon marauding the countryside or the band of humans trying to slay it.

And what happens when your dragon gets busy at work and can't make it for a few weeks? Or the orcs are all played by slacker college kids who are on all the time and waste your village at 10 in the morning when most of the citizens (who happen to be productive adults) are at work? The idea of a persistent MMOG in which everything is played by an actual person falls apart because no one HAS to show up for the game. And if you try to force them to (or else their village gets sacked, etc.) you'll always get situations where someone doesn't make it and the whole thing collapses. And then what is happening on DAOC servers where one realm is dominating will happen in your game: people will stop playing the "losing side." Are people going to want to pick up the pieces of the village after 100 hours of play and start again somewhere else? Maybe, but probably not.

Having persistent PCs that matter in a MMOG is impossible because unlike real life, you only play the game when you want to. And if someone goes missing, there's a hole in the game. And if a lot of people go missing, you get a big problem.


All the conflict in existing MMORPGs is "player vs. the game." It's a missed opportunity.

You're completely wrong. There is plenty of PvP action in UO, EQ, and DAOC. In DAOC it's the whole point of the game at the high levels. And now with the PvP servers (Andred and Mordred) it's the whole point of the game (on those two servers). And Shadowbane is going to be all about cooperation and conflict on a player-player level. Maybe you should play Shadowbane.

[Ben Sones]

And what happens when your dragon gets busy at work and can't make it for a few weeks? Or the orcs are all played by slacker college kids who are on all the time and waste your village at 10 in the morning when most of the citizens (who happen to be productive adults) are at work?

There'll always be another dragon to take his place, and other villagers to fill in. You may not stop the orc assault personally, but someone will.

Or they won't, and the town will be overrun by orcs, and next time you log in you'll have something interesting to do. Do you really think a static, unchanging world of repetition and tedium is a better alternative?


Are people going to want to pick up the pieces of the village after 100 hours of play and start again somewhere else? Maybe, but probably not.

Maybe. Or perhaps they'll do something different. Who cares? The idea is that spending 100 hours building the village isn't the goal. I don't want the game to award gold stars to players for clocking hours.


Having persistent PCs that matter in a MMOG is impossible because unlike real life, you only play the game when you want to. And if someone goes missing, there's a hole in the game. And if a lot of people go missing, you get a big problem.

That's a legitimate issue, but it's one that most of these games have dealt with by having PCs that don't matter. That's a dumb solution. If someone doesn't find a better one, then I'm going to lose interest in this genre.


You're completely wrong. There is plenty of PvP action in UO, EQ, and DAOC. In DAOC it's the whole point of the game at the high levels.

True. It's a pretty rudimentary sort of conflict, however, and the players have absolutely zero control over it. Oh, they control the ebb and flow of the battle, but they have no input into the war itself. Why do the Midgardians hate the people of Albion, or vice versa? There's no way to know, and like the rest of the game, no way it will ever change. It's a conflict with no possible resolution, a carrot on a stick that always dangles 2.3 feet in front of you, no matter how fast you run.

[Mark Asher]

Asher: You can make combat more interesting by giving the player more input into the process without making it overly reliant on twitchy gameplay. NWN, for example, gives fighters feats such as knockdown, disarm, parry, etc. It can involve you a bit more in the process as a result.

Wumpus: In the end, doesn't this boil down to turn-based vs. real-time? And we all know how well turn-based games are doing in other genres. It's just taking a LONG time for RPGs to catch up, which is historically par for the course.

What game with real-time combat has 430,000 subscribers paying $13 a month to play it? None that I know of.

EQ uses a simultaneous turn-based system of combat that lets you queue commands like "taunt" and "kick", etc. It seems to be doing pretty good with that kind of system.

Also, if interesting combat is what you're after, the complexity of group combat in games like EQ and DAoC may be unmatched in any game. I don't think you've ever played these games, or not played them enough, to appreciate the complexity involved.

The problem isn't that real-time combat would be more interesting, but that any combat system will become stale after you've fought 10,000 battles, which is a number quite easy to reach in these games.

[Sharpe]

Also, if interesting combat is what you're after, the complexity of group combat in games like EQ and DAoC may be unmatched in any game.

The problem isn't that real-time combat would be more interesting, but that any combat system will become stale after you've fought 10,000 battles, which is a number quite easy to reach in these games.

This is one of the points I was trying to make. The sheer massive repetition in a game like EQ or DAOC can be mind blowing. Obviously one solution is to shift away from the paradigm of repetition and move to non-level based systems, as previously discussed. I haven't really seen such a system working well yet so I am not counting on that.

My own solution is to change the game so that a much lower number of combats is required for each character development and allow the player to replay the game (swiftly) as a different character. Even if you are fighting the same battles, if you playing a different role in the battle (ie healer instead of slugger) the tactical experience will be very different.

I wonder if the new crop of non-major license games realize this will be an issue? I strongly feel that for every game that does not have a surefire license, if the designers expect players to dump hundreds or thousands of hours into the game they will be shocked by their failure in the soon to be crowded & competitive market.

Of course games like SWG have the market power to write their own rules.

Dan

[Mark Asher]

True. It's a pretty rudimentary sort of conflict, however, and the players have absolutely zero control over it. Oh, they control the ebb and flow of the battle, but they have no input into the war itself. Why do the Midgardians hate the people of Albion, or vice versa? There's no way to know, and like the rest of the game, no way it will ever change. It's a conflict with no possible resolution, a carrot on a stick that always dangles 2.3 feet in front of you, no matter how fast you run.

I'm not sure what you can do about this kind of issue, though. You could have a game set up so a side could win and then the server would reset, but players would raise hell if they had to start new characters again, so you might have a situation where the same side keeps winning all the time.

Then there's the liklihood that the novelty of winning will wear off after you participate in the process a few times. After all, it becomes just as pointless as no one ever winning if all winning means is that the server is reset.

[Mark Asher]

Also, if interesting combat is what you're after, the complexity of group combat in games like EQ and DAoC may be unmatched in any game.

The problem isn't that real-time combat would be more interesting, but that any combat system will become stale after you've fought 10,000 battles, which is a number quite easy to reach in these games.

This is one of the points I was trying to make. The sheer massive repetition in a game like EQ or DAOC can be mind blowing. Obviously one solution is to shift away from the paradigm of repetition and move to non-level based systems, as previously discussed. I haven't really seen such a system working well yet so I am not counting on that.

My own solution is to change the game so that a much lower number of combats is required for each character development and allow the player to replay the game (swiftly) as a different character. Even if you are fighting the same battles, if you playing a different role in the battle (ie healer instead of slugger) the tactical experience will be very different.

I wonder if the new crop of non-major license games realize this will be an issue? I strongly feel that for every game that does not have a surefire license, if the designers expect players to dump hundreds or thousands of hours into the game they will be shocked by their failure in the soon to be crowded & competitive market.

Of course games like SWG have the market power to write their own rules.

Dan

I sorta want what you suggest. Faster leveling or a faster path to the endgame, whatever that is, so I can experience the game through several different characters.

I'd also like to play an MMOG for six months and then dump it for a new one. I really don't want to play the same game for a year or more. I've done that with EQ. Once is enough. DAoC won't last me that long. I think I've probably given up on it after probably 6-7 months of active play with some breaks mixed in.

[Sharpe]

One more thought, in response to Ben Sones ideas about player vs player conflict / events etc.

I recently returned to DAOC after 6 months off and its SHOCKING how abandoned the game feels. Part of that is caused by the new PvP servers, which as a novelty are drawing away a good chunk of the playerbase on older servers. But its also true that the older servers in general have tiny number of people online (about 1/3 to 1/2 what it was in January) even during peak hours. And the few times I've gone out to check out RvR it was a real waste: nobody to fight.

One of the huge problems with a game dependant on player vs player intereaction is that there is no way to guarantee the participation of players in equal (or appropriate) numbers on each side. DAOC had problems early in with Midgard dominating RvR due to the number of powergamers who gained levels faster, and Hibernia was weakest due to the number of RPers who gained slower. However, over time the Midgardians have left the game at a higher rate (IMO b/c powergamers burn out faster and move on to greener pastures quicker) and Hibernia is now the most populated realm, and is dominating overall in RvR.

I have not yet heard a good solution to this problem? What happens if you throw a war and nobody shows up to fight? When Ben said "there will always be someone to play the dragon" I have to disagree. Based on DAOC it seems like the dragon might just decided to take his ball and go home :).

Dan

PS - Based on the above I believe that games based on pure player vs player interaction are only viable in minimally multiplayer games like NWN. For MMORPGs I believe that at least SOME PvE content is required, and games that rely too heavily on PvP will have HUGE issues keeping the participation levels balanced (and thats not even counting the nasty issues of class, race, realm, and play-style balancing).

[Qenan]

Sorry if this seems like too much of a rant, but I feel the MMORPG developers have been much too lax with anti-social behavior in a game that focuses on social interaction. I understand the fear of losing money by banning players, but by not taking firm action, they probably lose several players to every one griefer (not a real statistic, but a griefer spreads discontent like a disease).


Rants are good, they get the issues discussed. I agree with you. I burned out on EQ because 1) it was tedius and 2) way too many jerks, especially later on in the life of the game.

I've played EQ, AC, AO, DAOC. Each time I've played for a shorter period (DAOC was about 3 weeks). I'm having a hard time imagining playing another MMOG. I'm sure I will -- I like the idea of the thing. But the implementations are lacking. And I'm pretty sure I don't want to deal with any games with PVP...

[Ben Sones]

I'm not sure what you can do about this kind of issue, though. You could have a game set up so a side could win and then the server would reset, but players would raise hell if they had to start new characters again...

Only because the game relies on a levelling system that requires players to endure countless hours of tedium to create the characters they want. But that wasn't really what I had in mind, anyway.


Then there's the liklihood that the novelty of winning will wear off after you participate in the process a few times. After all, it becomes just as pointless as no one ever winning if all winning means is that the server is reset.

I agree. The pointlessness comes not from the fact that the war can't be won, but from the fact that the players are not the ones that started it. If you are going to fight the same, mandatory war over and over again, then yeah--it'll feel meaningless after a while, win or no win. The key is to encourage players to create and resolve their own conflicts. The specific conflicts change, and the resolution always feels more personal to those involved. I'm not saying it's easy... but I am saying it's more interesting.


One of the huge problems with a game dependant on player vs player intereaction is that there is no way to guarantee the participation of players in equal (or appropriate) numbers on each side.

Why not? Team-based shooters do it. If you don't have to invest a million hours to build a character, then there is more incentive to try multiple characters. And it would be really easy to work in a self-balancing system that only allows you to join with certain characters if there are too many of one type currently logged into the game. So if the ratio of orcs to humans is too high, you can't use your orc character right now.

That's one possibly solution, anyway. I'm sure you could come up with others.

[Mark Asher]

"One of the huge problems with a game dependant on player vs player intereaction is that there is no way to guarantee the participation of players in equal (or appropriate) numbers on each side. DAOC had problems early in with Midgard dominating RvR due to the number of powergamers who gained levels faster, and Hibernia was weakest due to the number of RPers who gained slower. However, over time the Midgardians have left the game at a higher rate (IMO b/c powergamers burn out faster and move on to greener pastures quicker) and Hibernia is now the most populated realm, and is dominating overall in RvR."

Yep, it's a serious problem and Mythic has no idea how to correct this. Besides the realm imbalances, there are also some server imbalances. On Lancelot, for instance, Albion has as many players as the other two realms combined, and those numbers are getting more imbalanced as time goes by and Hibbies and Middies on Lancelot get tired of losing all the time and move to other servers or just quit.

[mtkafka]

Yeah the hibernians do well at the time I dont play the game anymore... figures... bastards! :x

But anyway, its obvious people want something new/original/fun and less of mots in the mmrpg games. Even today I still think UO is the best feature based mmrpg to almost still appear 'new'. Making a UO 3d with last years graphics (ie up to par with UT) is fine by me (SWG?). Stupid EA has no idea how well a fully 3d updated version of UO could do. They are stupid... considering they didnt want to release The Sims...

etc

[Murph]

I'd have to side with those who want characters to advance more quickly. I really enjoyed UO when I played it in college, and would kinda like to get back to it (I really like the way their skill system works), but I do agree that it takes way too long to advance.

[Anonymous]

What about a system where, for example, you can only gain so many levels per week? That would encourage the hardcore players to go do something else (quests? other gameplay inventions?) and allow casual gamers to not be left behind after two nights of play.

[Mark Asher]

What about a system where, for example, you can only gain so many levels per week? That would encourage the hardcore players to go do something else (quests? other gameplay inventions?) and allow casual gamers to not be left behind after two nights of play.

That's interesting, but I suspect the hardcore players would be upset that the time they put in isn't rewarded.

I guess you could have separate servers with different rules. Some have unlimited leveling and others limit you to a level a week, or two levels a week, etc.

[Jason Cross]

How about this alternative to levelling:

What if they simply limited the number of characters per level; 30% of players would be "apprentices", 20% "journeyman", etc... up to 1% would be "Master Wizard (or swordsman, or whatever)". As you increased in experience relative to other players your ranking would go up and you would become more powerful.

You dig?

Talk about punishing those who come in late. If you join the game after it's been going for about a year, you'll never get beyond "appretice."

Another benefit of the "no character improvement at all" idea: the entire world is open to you. With any level progression, you can only realistically "use" a small portion of the game world. The rest of the world is too easy for you and doesn't give you enough rewards, or too hard for your character to tackle.

If every character were statistically equal in power and only differentiatedy by the way they look, their chosen profession/weapons/spells, and the skill and play style of the people controlling them, then you'd have the entire world open to you at all times.

[Mark Asher]

I enjoy watching my character become more powerful, though. Without some kind of character advancement system, it's medieval Planetside.

I think the problem we have is that we're convinced that an MMOG isn't an MMOG unless it's designed for us to play for at least a year. Why should I spend a year playing Star Wars Galaxies? I didn't spend a year playing Tie Fighter. Let me go from zero to the top in 2-3 months with a character, and if the game is good enough I'll do it again with a different character. If it's not, I'll play something else.

It was really irritating when Mythic nerfed the XP code so we'd level slower. It more or less drove a lot of players from the game, despite their 200,000 subscriber base -- numbers I suspect are inflated by players buying a six-month subscription block who no longer play.

[xahlt]

I think the problem we have is that we're convinced that an MMOG isn't an MMOG unless it's designed for us to play for at least a year. Why should I spend a year playing Star Wars Galaxies?

That's a problem for us -- Verant thinks that's just peachy :D I can see very little business reason for them to prefer that you "win" the game in 3 months with a character and then hope you found it fun enough to do it a few more times, when they've got that "one more hour" hook until your character is uber or what have you.

The only limiting factor I see is that the slowing the experience down almost undoubtedly makes the experience less fun overall, and eventually less fun = less customers = less revenue. But they'll push it

[Qenan]

I think there are fundamental problems with organizing MMOGs around levels. At the beginning, all the newbie hunting grounds are overcrowded and the high-end ones are unused. As players spread, the bulge moves through the belly of the beast until most players are in the end game and the newbie levels are underused. Since not having enough content is one of the worst problems in these games, the level-based design almost guarantees player unhappiness. And when players get to the end game, the current games don't really have a compelling reason to keep playing, since they are built around leveling.

I understand a lot of players still enjoy that sensation of getting more powerful, though. (You never are, relative to the foes you must fight, but having a goal helps lots of players.)

[algahar]

this is way i love it here, many good ideas and great posts.

in MMO these days, its just like MtG, if u have money u get good cards, if u have time u get good gears / high levels. this kind of format is suitable for hardcore players or people with all day to spend etc. i have a feeling that the majority of gamers out there are not hardcore. and slowly these people are being taught a lesson that MMOs are not designed for them and they will ignore the genre, aka shrinking the community.

however, MMOs needs to accomodate both types of players in the same place. thats a very difficult thing to keep the game fun for everyone. how can a game keeps the players playing / paying and simultaneously takes relatively little time and still let the players feel that they are progressing and at the same time not boring and provide a challenge?

im so glad im not a designer... :wink:

[mtkafka]

Theres actually a reason to keep the treadmill... it keeps the players playing. But in the case of EQ, I think its underestimated how GREAT it is as a group social game. The group dynamics in EQ are the best in any mmrpg. In fact, playing in a good group in EQ while going against risky odds is one the best experiences in gaming I've ever had. Also the downtime in EQ actually enhances the social aspect, whereas the fast spawns in DAoC constantly keeps the characters on there toes, never letting them in for a breather. I think its a problem of balancing downtime/ with reward, EQ being too slow but is made up with its increased group dynamic strategies and chattiing.

I think focusing on what might be popular to 'casual' players shouldnt be a complete focus. If you a build a good game with sound design (yes very easy to say!), I'm sure the players will come. A problem I have with games like the Sims and World of Warcraft is that they seem to be worrying TOO much about the so called 'casual' audience, which isnt so different from Hollywood making movies like... you know stupid stuff, dumbed down stuff like SW Episode 2!

I think making a game accesible without sacrificing the complexity is more important than worrying about some casual gamer that might not exist. For instance many games some of my friends or family play I never thought would click with them, but they play it anyway. Like OFP, Civ 3 and some 'complex' fps games like Deus Ex or Thief. Maybe casual Joe likes more smarter complex games!

etc

[Qenan]

...in the case of EQ, I think its underestimated how GREAT it is as a group social game. The group dynamics in EQ are the best in any mmrpg. In fact, playing in a good group in EQ while going against risky odds is one the best experiences in gaming I've ever had.
Yes, I agree with you. There's a reason EQ leads the pack in subscriptions, and this is it. The problem (or limitation) is that if you can't play enough to really get good groups, the game is very boring and unsatisfying. It's the same old division between obsessive gamers and those who play less (hobbyist or casual gamers)...


Also the downtime in EQ actually enhances the social aspect, whereas the fast spawns in DAoC constantly keeps the characters on there toes, never letting them in for a breather. I think its a problem of balancing downtime/ with reward, EQ being too slow but is made up with its increased group dynamic strategies and chattiing.

While the downtime in EQ was excessive, I agree with you that some downtime is actually a good thing; it promotes conversation and gives folks a chance to do things like run to the restroom.

As long as we're talking about EQ... it also had, by far, the best dungeon design of any of the games I've played (EQ, AC, AO, and DAOC), the best spells and spell names, the best back-story, the most varied regions... overall, the most attention to detail. Unfortunately, their customer service wasn't very good at all, but it was still a great effort as a product.

But I don't have any desire to go back to EQ, because I know I am not willing to put in 20 hours a week at this point. (Probably not ever again...) And that's a problem I think MMOG's are going to face -- they are burning out their target market.

[Anonymous]

It was really irritating when Mythic nerfed the XP code so we'd level slower. It more or less drove a lot of players from the game, despite their 200,000 subscriber base -- numbers I suspect are inflated by players buying a six-month subscription block who no longer play.

If you look at the actual in-game numbers, they have actually gone down since January. There used to be well over 30,000 players on at peak times, while now it's in the high twenties.

[Jason McCullough]

While the downtime in EQ was excessive, I agree with you that some downtime is actually a good thing; it promotes conversation and gives folks a chance to do things like run to the restroom.

This is just a bit of Vison (tm) propaganda. If players want downtime to talk or run to the bathroom, they'll make downtime. Forcing them to do it is exactly what's wrong MMORPGs.

[Dr Fear]

While the downtime in EQ was excessive, I agree with you that some downtime is actually a good thing; it promotes conversation and gives folks a chance to do things like run to the restroom.

This is just a bit of Vison (tm) propaganda. If players want downtime to talk or run to the bathroom, they'll make downtime. Forcing them to do it is exactly what's wrong MMORPGs.

Nah, they'll just force downtime on the other players who don't want it, by vanishing when they are needed. If you have a regular group that might not be an issue, but if you're just with a bunch of strangers, trying to force downtime when the game doesn't call for it (i.e. your all healed up and ready to go but some people aren't moving yet) is a great way to break up a group.

[Qenan]

This is just a bit of Vison (tm) propaganda. If players want downtime to talk or run to the bathroom, they'll make downtime. Forcing them to do it is exactly what's wrong MMORPGs.

I don't agree; I enjoyed some of the downtime. There was just too much of it. Maybe I'm not as impatient as you are.

[Mark Asher]

This is just a bit of Vison (tm) propaganda. If players want downtime to talk or run to the bathroom, they'll make downtime. Forcing them to do it is exactly what's wrong MMORPGs.

I don't agree; I enjoyed some of the downtime. There was just too much of it. Maybe I'm not as impatient as you are.

The downtime was social time in EQ. DAoC really isn't as social of a game as EQ as a result. I'd like to see a balance between the two -- a bit less downtime in EQ, a bit more in DAoC.

The other thing DAoC lacks is an OOC across zones form or communication. You can send messages to an individual or set up chat groups or have guild chat if you're in a guild, but the OOC stuff in EQ was permanent, so all you had to do was tune in. I always enjoyed people yelling at each other, asking questions, telling jokes, etc. If I was soloing, it still felt like I was playing a game with a lot of other people in it. A lot of players asked Mythic for one but they refused to implement it, even though it could easily be turned off by individual players if they found it annoying. I think they were worried about their RvR being affected by instant communications. They did a lot of dumb things in the name of RvR.