MMOG Game Design Ideas: Part 2

[Brian Koontz]

Again, keep in mind that many of these posts (including this one) are several months old and that some "current events" are no longer so current.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

#1: First and Foremost: True DIFFERENCES in the way the game can be played. I'm not talking about the miniscule differences between being a Fighter and a Magic User, where the only difference is HOW you kill the monster, or if you heal your party member instead of bashing the monster's head in. I'm talking about things like this...

How about Player Run Governments? Yeah, that town is not lead by NPCs but by PCs. They make the rules, they can be overthrown by a rival government. They set the laws, they set the tax rate (houses can be located inside towns for protection). They determine the consequences for breaking the laws. They even do zoning (which areas of the town are commercial, residential, etc). The town leader appoints underlings to specific areas.

You should be able to spend your ENTIRE time within this sort of game managing/ruling a town. What MMOG can say that?

The Town Militia (like an army) can attack other towns and attempt to overthrow their government. This is similar to guild warfare nowadays except for the scope (guilds are small and towns large). Heck, a successful enough military could truly "take over the world" in such a game.

So you can be a ruler, or a fighter in an army, OR a regular "hack and slasher", or...

Maybe you spend all of your time in a town, breaking into people's homes. You don't fight monsters. Occasionally due to problems with the law you move to another town. You are truly a professional burglar. There might be 100 types of locks in the game, each requiring something different from the burglar, none of which he knows at the beginning of his career. A challenging but potentially rewarding profession.

These are merely examples... these are examples of TRUE differences in gameplay between characters. You could say such things are "games within the game".


#2: A real world with real consequences

Games keep "trying" to do this, with the GM-run "events" which amount to absolutely nothing.

The problem is that these events are INTERLUDES... its "ok, lets stop hacking and slashing for the moment and go check out the event".

Then soon after its over and its back to hacking and slashing AS IF NOTHING HAD HAPPENED.

And in truth, nothing had. Or maybe that Shield +5 you got counts as something. Whatever.

I'm talking here about creating a *real world*. Not just 10,000 people running around looking for the next kill to get the next gold piece to buy the next piece of equipment. I'm talking about a real world with real world consequences.

So a drought which hit a major agricultural center (yes, why not have actual weather effects in games?) means the food supply to stores is restricted and thus prices rise.

But some PCs own farms NOT in the drought region and benefit greatly... selling their normal production at much higher prices.

Real world effects with real world consequences.

And speaking of owning farms... is that not a game within the game? So you own the farm... you hardly want to be a farmer perhaps so instead of doing the farming yourself you hire an NPC (or a PC, it shouldn't matter) farmer. Of course he gets a salary but is he just a generic farmer?

Nope. Since farming is a game within the game that NPC has various character traits and skill levels. Maybe the NPC slacks whenever he is not being monitored. Maybe he's especially good with beets. Maybe he's having an affair with your wife on the side.

In what game now can you visit your farm and hear that your NPC farm manager took the day off and is at the local racetrack betting on horses?

So lets say you LEARN from the experience and the next time you hire an NPC Farmer you put him through a strict referral and interview process... you don't just take the first guy to come along like you did the first time.

Would you rather have that or would you rather have another "GM run event"?

So when a player enters the game he is just a chump, like in current MMOGs. He can begin a career as a burglar, or gets hired to do farming, or get into politics as a low level assistent to the town leader, or get into the town militia, etc... or he can design homes or or or...

These are NOT character classes... not the pathetically generic Fighter, Magic User, variations on the same theme (different ways to kill the same monsters or assisting someone else to kill the same monsters). These are multiple games within the same game. There should be no such thing as a character class in a MMOG.


#3: Destroying the Generic

This is a lead in to #4 about Epic Scopes...

The reason no current game can be epic is that everything in games is GENERIC. Any player can fight any monster (albeit some he'll be slaughtered by). He goes to fight Mr. Generic Monster for Level 5 Generic Fighters. Then after a while he goes to fight Mr. Generic Monster for Level 10 Generic Fighters.

How about some psychological depth here? Some characters should HATE Yetis. Maybe they want to rid the world of yetis and all snow-bound things (high mountain goats, polar bears, etc). The way to encourage this (after all, the player is pretty limited in his focus on snow-bound monsters) is to make the player a GOD in fighting these monsters... not just a generic (+1 to hit snow-bound creatures) thing. He is incredible within his snowy domain and weak outside it. So he sets up a home there perhaps where he is strong. Perhaps even a Training Hall for fighting these creatures, where aspiring Snow Fighters can come. The cold climate makes for a greater chance of contracting pneumonia and bronchitis (yeah I know, actual real ailments, what a novelty in gaming!)

What's the best a game of today can do? You get "diseased" and "healed" by a "Cure Disease" spell. Hello!... that has Generic written all over it. What exact disease do you have? Why does a single Cure Disease spell cure all diseases? Isn't Hepatitis different from the Flu different from Strep Throat (treating these things as diseases for the moment)? Yeah... you wouldn't think so by playing today's MMOGs. When you go to see a Doctor he doesn't cast "Cure Disease" on you... he first checks you out and then does what he thinks is most effective in combating your problem. Is it too much to ask Doctors in MMOGs to do the same? How about a game within the game... PC and NPC Doctors who check patients out and recommend a solution.


#4: Finally: An Epic Scope

You are an Explorer. You are beyond the boundaries of what has been mapped. Only your map-making skills give you any chance of making it back to "civilization" and the sharing of your newfound knowledge with others.

But... what is that knowledge? Perhaps you make it back, but part of the map is torn. And perhaps in one or two places your skills failed and future explorers using your map will run into a problem or two.

You are a Conqueror. Leading your Army you set out to a distant land to conquer what you find. But... that Town on the map is deserted and the fields have been burned... the land is worthless! And the food your caravan is carrying is running low. Shall you turn back and return in defeat and possibly be overthrown by a rival or head on, perhaps leading your entire army to starvation?

The reason no current game can be Epic is that everything is rendered to the level of the INDIVIDUAL. 10,000 individuals running around doing individual things for individual reasons in individual ways. Groups are just larger individuals, they can do nothing Epic either.

The reason no current game can be Epic is that there are NO "games within the game". There is only a SINGLE game (hack and slash). Get experience, get gold (or cash, irrelevant either way), get BORED OUT OF YOUR MIND.

The game creators always want CONTROL of the game. Allow the players to do EPIC things and they lose that control. What happens when a player takes over the world? What happens when the head of a massive farm conglomeration is assassinated and the world economy falls to shambles? What happens when a player is too pathetic to ever become more than a minor assistent to a minor town leader?

Isn't it VANITY that is standing in the way here? Aren't CURRENT MMOGs still addressing the "everyone wants to become God" mentality? ANYONE can become Level Bazillion if they play enough years and give the game creators enough money.

Anyone can succeed. And THAT is the problem. NOT everyone should be able to succeed no matter how much they play. There should be no such thing as GENERIC experience... all experience should be specific (becoming better as a doctor, or farmer, or politician, etc). Hack and Slash should perhaps not even exist, or at MOST just be another "game within the game".

How long do we have to put up with just another MMOG *derivative*? Another game hailed as "original" but with very little if anything actually original about it?

How long will the idiocy of Hack and Slash rule? How long will the idiocy of GENERIC game playing rule?

When will TRUE differences in gameplay occur? When will we have a real world with real world consequences? When will everything become Deep and Specific and NOT Generic and Shallow? When will the Epic become POSSIBLE? When will the "Anyone can become a god" mentality be destroyed?

When will we finally have a truly great MMOG?

[Raph Koster]

Based on the sorts of things you're asking for, between 3-6 years away.

Why?

Because the problems in simulation you describe have never been licked, be it in the world of muds or elsewhere.

Because the audience isn't ready for the degree of PvP that you describe.

Because permadeath isn't commercially viable at large scale right now, again because the audience isn't large and diverse enough for it yet.

I could go on, but basically my answer to your two posts thus far is "well, duh, of course." Only it's turning out much harder to pull off in practice.

You dismiss UO, but consider the things on your list that it tried:

Simulated ecology? Check, it blew up badly. Players affecting the world? Check, too bad most players do not want their worlds affected. Non-combat roles that were truly different, such as fisherman? Check, and players loved it, despite much derision in the press. We were working towards player governments. Freedom of PvP action, check. Fell flat on its face.

I'd note that EQ went on to add the trade skills, which were the only clear-cut "win" in UO and it has now bcome a de facto standard. Something that trade skills are not in the mud world.

I guess I can summarize my answer as "sure, we want to do all those things. And UO was too ambitious and fell on its face trying to do too much of it." You're describing a game with a 3-4 year dev timeline, massive expertise, and massive investment. We'll get there, but only incrementally.

-Raph

[Mark Asher]

"Players affecting the world? Check, too bad most players do not want their worlds affected."

I want to have an impact on the gameworld, and I mean "I" literally. The problem is that if another group does something that makes a change and I'm not involved, it's going to hack me off.

If players could change the gameworld, we'd be like a giant swarm of locusts attacking it. A few months and we'd have fucked with everything we could fuck with. We'd deforest forests, destroy cities, kill all the NPCs, etc. You'd have to reset the servers every month or two.

Maybe that's what Anarchy Online should have been -- real anarchy. Let players burn up the world every month, sort of like those people who pay $5 to whack a car with a sledgehammer.

[Kyle Wilson]

#1: SimBureaucracy.
#2: SimJobInterview.
#3: SimYetiPhobia.
#4: SimSheep. Baaa.

This is all starting to sound like a parody of a game design to me. I really don't want to log on, spend five hours in a chat room discussing whether what action parliament should take to keep the army from starving, then get killed instantly by the first person to get fed up and start swinging a sword (who presumably is building up his bureaucrat-slashing skill).

Of course I probably wouldn't be that lucky. I'd probably be one of the starving soldiers wondering what was keeping the committee from bringing us sandwiches. Eventually, I'd give up, stab my Sgt. in the back, and eat him.

#5: SimCannibalism.

[Chris Floyd]

This is as good a place as any to bring up a point I have spent a lot of time thinking about. Essentially, that point is this: Why are MMORPG players and developers so obsessed with the notion of creating a "real world"? I understand the desire for gameplay on that scale, but a desire for a fully functioning world leads everyone to think that realistic, simulated systems are better than contrived ones. And from there, everyone just wants everything to work realistically. They don't want creatures spawning out of nowhere, endless supplies of equipment, streamlined crafting, unaffectable governments, etc.

I know this sounds completely pompous, but I think there's a degree to which think the audience doesn't really know what it wants. It becomes so obsessed with realism and realistic interactions that it forgets what's either feasible or fun.

I'm not saying simulating a world isn't a worthwhile concept or it isn't something that has an audience out there. But MMORPGs are really about having fun playing a game with a bunch of friends, not necessarily building the perfect self-sustaining closed-system environment for living a virtual life...

[Xaroc]

I'm not saying simulating a world isn't a worthwhile concept or it isn't something that has an audience out there. But MMORPGs are really about having fun playing a game with a bunch of friends, not necessarily building the perfect self-sustaining closed-system environment for living a virtual life...

I agree, detail and realism in measures can be fun but too much detail and realism and it is like work.

-- Xaroc

[Doug Erickson]

Because a certain vocal element wants the game to completely sustain their fantasies, and to do that, it has to approximate a consistent "real-world" style of cause-and-effect. The "elf-pretenders", such as they are, are caught up in a bit of a paradox - they want to be the hero, and everyone else to be the supporting cast. That's a tough issue for any game designer to tackle.

I fall more into the Bruce Geryk camp of just wanting to hack things up and upgrade stats, hopefully acquiring swank new equipment I can strut on the virtual catwalk while my many admirers emote coos of appreciation. I'm pretty sure the majority of players fall into this category, and they're by and large happy with the current offerings like DAoC, server glitches and major game flaws aside. I'd suspect that the current gameplay angle works for them, although they'd like to see it become more streamlined. Note that this runs somewhat countercurrent to what the RP crowd wants, since they like "realistic" walking speeds and people having to monger fish for gold and detailed monster behaviors.

I think it all boils down to the "immersion" versus "gameplay" argument, and most MMORPG developers are playing both sides of the fence, with the end result being a bit of a disjointed feel.

[Troy S Goodfellow]

Yikes. The closer this thing approximates the real world, the less understanding I have of it. A government for this world? Great. Will their laws trump developers' desires? Realistic consequences for theft? Great. Unless the Thief is closely tied to the government, of course. Which will lead to complaints, which will lead to civil war. Unless the government is powerless to enforce its laws, in which case no one gives a damn.

Supply and demand? Fine. Who starts the famine in your example? Won't charges of price fixing by the game managers be epidemic? Like those diseases of yours, which I assume by your dedication to realism could be infectious. I guess if you hate Yetis you could give them blankets with smallpox on them.

I love the idea of player control in games. Options, alternatives and consequences mark all the finest games. But these choices have to be constrained somehow or the inmates take over the asylum. The more control players have over the content of the game, the more they will demand. To work well, your model requires a devotion to role-playing qua role-playing on the level of a Civil War re-enactor more than the Renaissance Fair that typifies most of the MMORPG community.

Interesting ideas, though.

[Jason Becker]

Look at how much work goes into a game like EQ. From the technical to the gameplay(which for EQ is pretty simple hack'n slash for the most part). Add in all the "stuff" you want and you have a potential nightmare for balancing. Remember that all these ideas you list have to be taken from the nice abstract stuff you lhave now to actual game mechanics.

[Mark Asher]

I can't imagine that a player-run government would be much fun for any but the leaders. I think this is one of those ideas that players get excited about but which make no sense at all. As a player, what would I need a government for? Wouldn't a government be likely to lay down rules I'd have to abide by? What fun is that?

[Raph Koster]

Because simulation is the only way we'll be able to generate self-refreshing content. We cannot even remotely do it by hand. And "a world that is always evolving" is one of the key selling points for these games.

[Qenan]

#1: SimBureaucracy.
#2: SimJobInterview.
#3: SimYetiPhobia.
#4: SimSheep. Baaa.

This is all starting to sound like a parody of a game design to me. I really don't want to log on, spend five hours in a chat room discussing whether what action parliament should take to keep the army from starving, then get killed instantly by the first person to get fed up and start swinging a sword (who presumably is building up his bureaucrat-slashing skill).

My thought exactly. I don't want to be a politician leading a town, or a farmer, or ... since when did this constitute "big fun"?

I have sort of the same reaction when Raph talks about "community". I'm not looking for a community, except in the very narrow sense of playing a game with others who like to play games. Mostly, I'm looking for a fun game.

I think there may be a disconnect between those of us who want to play a fun game with good gameplay and those who want to simulate life.

[balut]

There's a great thing out there for those looking for a real life simulator. It's called real life. You can be a criminal! You can find a job! You can earn money and accrue wealth! You can run for office! You can practice your social skills, find the right woman, get married, and start a family! You can practice your fishing skills and be a fisherman! You can be a professional burglar, fleeing the country when the heat gets too high! You can be a psycho-killer and face the consequences and experience permanent death! Wow, isn't this fun?? And guess, what? It's free! Sure there are incremental costs to Real Life, like the cost for food, shelter, electric, water, etc. But if you don't like that, you can see what it's like to play the role of a homeless person!

Real life does not necessary make a fun game.

- Balut

[mtkafka]

I think if there was a type of rules/gameplay for diplomacy, it could work to include some type of governmental stuff. Or controlling a small group of people. Its doable, and it could be fun. More interraction between thousands of players is what mmrpg's need. Not small groups bashing things day and nite. I still think emulating a 'real life' is the key. Not emulating the boring stuff of course. There has to be options. Theres loads of stuff that can be implemented in MMRPG's that could sell. I thnk the next big feature (!) will be a game within a game. That way if you're bored with the current game you play the game within a game, sorta like that Freecell type game in SS2... thats my idea at least. Like maybe an fps or sim or rts game within the mmrpg game. SWG supposedly IS releasing an addon pack that includes Xwing gameplay... might be cool.

Actually it might be hard to do... WW2online tried to do it but it failed horribly... though the self quests in AO were cool.

ANyway, I think current mmrpg's should be built to include new gameplay changes as easy as possible. ONe of the problems I have with current mmrpg's is that the gameplay never changes.

etc

[Chris Floyd]

Because simulation is the only way we'll be able to generate self-refreshing content. We cannot even remotely do it by hand. And "a world that is always evolving" is one of the key selling points for these games.

I'm not sure what you mean here, Raph. Sometimes the drive for realism can obliterate self-refreshing content. Take realistic creature ecologies. (Please! <rimshot>) This is pretty obviously a simulationist concept that leads to LESS content, not more. Designers could design around it and create systems that automatically build never-before-seen monsters, but is this necessary or efficient just for the sake of simulationism?

I understand that a more realistic economy, for example, is a more stable long-term model for an in-game economy. Maybe this is what you mean by self-refreshing?

As far as "a world that is always evolving," it's an interesting selling point considering that, by my humble evaluation, it's never been done. Most games do more evolving into chaos as their economies or player-grouping systems break down. The most popular game right now -- EQ -- is probably the most stable, the least dynamic. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think this might be another case of players not really knowing what is fun and feasible... and developers blindly following their lead.

[Mark Asher]

After seeing NWN, I don't see why MMOG developers just can't create new content and drop it in every few weeks. If they had good editing tools like NWN has, creating a new dungeon once a week would be trivial.

As a player, I don't see any real benefit to having another player create my new content vs. the developers doing it. It's one and the same to me.

In DAoC I spent several hours camping a graveyard because my cleric got a bonus against undead. I could recreate that graveyard in about 15 minutes with the NWN toolset.

Maybe this isn't the kind of content Raph is referring to, however. If the content isn't tied to killing stuff, I doubt I'd be interested in it.

[Raph Koster]

After seeing NWN, I don't see why MMOG developers just can't create new content and drop it in every few weeks. If they had good editing tools like NWN has, creating a new dungeon once a week would be trivial.

MMOG developers by and large do not have tools quite that nice. Game developers in general do not have tools that nice. After all, Bioware spent years on doing just the toolset. If it weren't the main selling point of the product, it would be hard to justify the investment vs getting a product out. A sad reality of game development: better tools is a very good thing, but you do have to ship a game.

-Raph

[Raph Koster]

My thought exactly. I don't want to be a politician leading a town, or a farmer, or ... since when did this constitute "big fun"?

The short answer is "different strokes for different folks." :)

I have sort of the same reaction when Raph talks about "community". I'm not looking for a community, except in the very narrow sense of playing a game with others who like to play games. Mostly, I'm looking for a fun game.

You (meaning the general "you," everybody basically) are less likely to stick with a fun game than with a community. We're all about getting people to stick.

I think there may be a disconnect between those of us who want to play a fun game with good gameplay and those who want to simulate life.

There is, but I also think there's a disconnect between people who assume that all of those things are about "simulating life." They're not. They're about alternate types of game or play.

-Raph

[Mark Asher]

After seeing NWN, I don't see why MMOG developers just can't create new content and drop it in every few weeks. If they had good editing tools like NWN has, creating a new dungeon once a week would be trivial.

MMOG developers by and large do not have tools quite that nice. Game developers in general do not have tools that nice. After all, Bioware spent years on doing just the toolset. If it weren't the main selling point of the product, it would be hard to justify the investment vs getting a product out. A sad reality of game development: better tools is a very good thing, but you do have to ship a game.

-Raph

How long will SWG have been in development by the time it ships? It seems awfully short-sighted to me to not create tools like the Aurora Toolset when you have a game you hope runs at least five years. Can't a behemoth like SOE afford a few extra developers devoted only to making a nice toolset?

I understand it's not easy, but it makes sense for MMOGs much more than for single player games. It's not like the SWG team is going to stop making content after the game ships. You'd experience savings in time and money if the ease of use of the tools were greater.

[Mark Asher]

"There is, but I also think there's a disconnect between people who assume that all of those things are about "simulating life." They're not. They're about alternate types of game or play."

I'm all for that. Casinos, card games, board games, etc. -- I could see all of these being in MMOGs and if themed right, fitting in and being fun. I'd love a Magic: the Gathering style of game in an MMOG where I collect cards as loot from monsters and then build decks and play other players. In SWG I'd like to play that game that Chewie and C3P0 play in the original Star Wars. All of that is good.

Players forming governments though? Bah. All that means is they're going to try to tell me what do. "You must pay a toll to use this bridge. We're trying to collect funds to build a tower." Double-bah.

Of course I don't get crafting either. I get the end result, but the actual process of crafting is just a bore. It's hard for me to understand how people put up with it.

[Desslock]

>Of course I don't get crafting either. I get the end result, but the actual process of crafting is just a bore. It's hard for me to understand how people put up with it.

I really, really don't get crafting.

Unlike some of you, I love more detailed gaming worlds with lots of ancillary, superfluous activities to do other than fight, so I really liked the Ultima 7/Ultima Online idea of making the world very interactive..bake bread, etc.

But that's not what crafting is like in MMORPGs such as EQ and DAOC - it's instead about sitting there and letting time tick by - I can't imagine anything more boring. I'd much rather those games didn't have crafting at all, since I wouldn't feel like I'm missing out on "cool stuff" because I don't want to waste half my time watching a timer going around, essentially stuck in a chat room with a bunch of schmoes doing the same.

[Matthew Gallant]

The problem with crafting is thus: when you fight, you get swinging swords, growling mosnters, flashing lights, etc., but when you craft you don't get any animation nor do you get sound effects. At least not in EverQuest. It's just another symptom of MMORPG designers pushing the players towards combat.

[Anonymous]

but isn't a lot of what he's suggesting being attempted by asheron's call2 and shadowbane? I haven't seen either except for previews but I'm sure there are people here who have. Shadowbane is supposed to allow you to build your own town, have npc cratfspeople, your own guards etc, at least it did the last preview I read, it may have changed. Asherons call2 will have the dynamic model of changing towns and locations based on player usage, I'm assuming throough monthly updates.

[Mark Asher]

but isn't a lot of what he's suggesting being attempted by asheron's call2 and shadowbane? I haven't seen either except for previews but I'm sure there are people here who have. Shadowbane is supposed to allow you to build your own town, have npc cratfspeople, your own guards etc, at least it did the last preview I read, it may have changed. Asherons call2 will have the dynamic model of changing towns and locations based on player usage, I'm assuming throough monthly updates.

My guess is Shadowbane will ship with a lot of that stuff "to be introduced later".

AC2 I'm more ready to believe. It sounds like the dev team will analyze data and make changes to the game world based on that, and given how they were able to continually change the game world in AC, I think they can pull it off.

The problem with dynamic worlds is that if I'm not involved with the change, it's somewhat meaningless to me. It's that whole MMOG vs. solo games thing -- I want to be the mover and shaker.

[Qenan]

The problem with crafting in both EQ and DAOC (the only games I tried it in) is that it is very, very boring, and seldom rewarding in the long run. Click click click click click click (are we there yet? no) click click click click click click...

To make crafting interesting they have to make each decision be interesting. That's impossible with the clickety-click model. I suppose someone somewhere might be able to create a fun crafting sub game, but it's going to be hard. A better alternative is to forget about simulating the process of crafting (which is just long, hard work) and instead give it some gameplay -- e.g., make deciding to craft an item easy, but have it cost experience to the player while he is doing it.

Or something. But Sid Meier got it right -- every decision needs to be an interesting one.

[Qenan]

The short answer is "different strokes for different folks." :)

I buy that, but it's all a matter of degree. I think the pool of folks lining up to play trash collectors is pretty small.

You (meaning the general "you," everybody basically) are less likely to stick with a fun game than with a community. We're all about getting people to stick.

I don't buy it; what's the statistical evidence? Where are the online MMOGs that emphasize gameplay over community that we can compare community-based games to? I still play Master of Orion, MoM, etc. I'm not playing Everquest... I have lots of respect for your knowlege, but it runs counter to my own (very limited) experience, is all.

But if it's true, that's truly depressing, because it suggests MMOG gameplay will continue to suck in favor of better chat-room features, etc.

[Mark Asher]

"To make crafting interesting they have to make each decision be interesting. That's impossible with the clickety-click model. I suppose someone somewhere might be able to create a fun crafting sub game, but it's going to be hard. A better alternative is to forget about simulating the process of crafting (which is just long, hard work) and instead give it some gameplay -- e.g., make deciding to craft an item easy, but have it cost experience to the player while he is doing it."

My idea would be to simply allow players to divert a percentage of XP gained from monster bashing towards raising their crafting skill. Rather than stay back at the castle fletching arrow after arrow, let them go on the hunt and raise their fletching skill as a byproduct of that. Leave in the boring clickety-click model for those that want it, but give the rest of us some relief. I really can't imagine any way to make crafting more interesting. Isn't it always going to be a matter of gathering materials and them combining them? Is that ever going to be anything more than busy work?

[Matthew Gallant]

They just don't make it interesting at all. I mean, even the tuning and such in Street Rod II can get old. It takes a matter of minutes the way EverQuest does it.

[Qenan]

My idea would be to simply allow players to divert a percentage of XP gained from monster bashing towards raising their crafting skill. Rather than stay back at the castle fletching arrow after arrow, let them go on the hunt and raise their fletching skill as a byproduct of that. Leave in the boring clickety-click model for those that want it, but give the rest of us some relief. I really can't imagine any way to make crafting more interesting. Isn't it always going to be a matter of gathering materials and them combining them? Is that ever going to be anything more than busy work?

Well, my idea was to divert XP into the items because then it raises questions. Want to try to make the ultimate sword of ass-whooping? Better divert a lot of experience for a long time... and maybe you'd have a better chance if you raised your skills by doing a little at a time. And every sword you sold would have some of your experience in it, which might cut down on mudflation a little bit.

But, I'll admit, making crafting fun is hard, because simulations of work are usually not interesting.

[Brian Koontz]

Based on the sorts of things you're asking for, between 3-6 years away.

Why?

Because the problems in simulation you describe have never been licked, be it in the world of muds or elsewhere.

My concern is that there is no attempt to lick them. Everquest and its clones do not strike me as attempts to lick them. If something is not attempted it will not succeed. How much progress (other than graphics) has there really been in the 7 years since MMOGs have existed?

Muds have had Permanent Death, Location-based damage (damage to any of various body locations with different effects), breaking-and-entering of houses, Player-run governments, God/Player interaction, complex combat, greatly different gameplay based on class, City sieges... MMOGs are currently a joke in comparison.

And sure, the argument that Avalon had 10 years to fine-tune the gameplay and flesh out the world is fine, but MMOGs have had 7 years and frankly, the difference between DAoC and Meridian 59 is NOT MUCH. If MMOGs were truly successful we wouldn't be talking about the "untapped potential" of the industry... we'd be talking about a fulfilled industry. Its untapped precisely because the industry is so lacking.

Because the audience isn't ready for the degree of PvP that you describe.

I envision a game where combat is not the primary feature. Permanent death combined with certain game design (enabling social structures to hinder dying, realistically) will result in a Non-PvP game (non *murder* anyway, there should be plenty of other PvP actions). Gameplay is based on Game Design... games like Everquest and Ultima Online are Hack 'N Slash because they are designed that way.

Because permadeath isn't commercially viable at large scale right now, again because the audience isn't large and diverse enough for it yet.

I do not propose that a game like Everquest have Permanent Death. I do propose that a game designed FOR Permanent Death have it. If the game is designed right, there will be a time and place for murder but the game will NOT be Hack 'N Slash even for players whose lives are combat-based (combat exists in a larger context).

I could go on, but basically my answer to your two posts thus far is "well, duh, of course." Only it's turning out much harder to pull off in practice.

Sure... anything innovative (where you cannot use an existing template from a currently existing game or engine) is difficult. My concern is not whether its difficult (although I never promote something that I think cannot be coded) but whether its DESIRED and *attempted*. My concern is that the industry not say "Look at how well Everquest sells... lets imitate it". I am also greatly concerned with the extreme lack of progress made in 7 years in the MMOG industry. Game designers of MMOGs have failed... perhaps because they've failed to take RISKS.

There have been hundreds of MUDs but only a few stand out to me (the name of the one with the breaking-and-entering of houses eludes my memory). Most flat out suck and are entirely derivative.

But MUDs are usually made on almost no budget, with part-time programmers, etc, off a generic DIKU base in most cases. They have very little *chance* to distinguish themselves.

Graphical MUDs have no such excuse. The only excuse they offer is that SINCE they have a large budget, they cannot afford to take risks.

And that attitude had led us to where the industry is now. Less distinguished than the industry that they were supposedly an improvement upon!

You dismiss UO, but consider the things on your list that it tried:

Simulated ecology? Check, it blew up badly.

The attempt in UO was on intelligent behavior for mobiles. To make them attracted to food and gold (differentials based on type of monster). I'm not really sure if you can call this "simulated ecology" ;).

I respect UO well enough, but maybe that is the problem. You know what I was thinking when UO was being developed?

I looked at the website, and thought it was COOL. I mean, as far as MMOGs went there was a lot of (attempted) innovation (from Meridian 59 and The Realm). I thought if they could pull off what the marketing said things would be great. I'm beginning to think now that even if they had, things would have been less great than I thought at the time.

My problem then was not having high enough expectations. Why shouldn't a graphical version of Avalon be produced? Perhaps if MMOG developers had BEGUN with an attempt of that (and then moved on from there) things would be much different today.

As long as players see MMOGs as a *novelty* they won't care that the gameplay sucks. Once the novelty wears off and the "drunken stupor" wears off will come a sobering "lets get something *better* to play" attitude.

Players affecting the world? Check, too bad most players do not want their worlds affected.

Only because *their* world is *everyone's* world.

The notion of privacy in a MMOG is non-existent. The notion of player created content that is experienced by only a FEW players is non-existent.

In real life when I create something it is experienced by very few people. There are billions of people in the world... how many of them are reading this very post?

And when I post on this forum, I am SPECIFIC and I write *for* this forum. Don't you think that if such an experience is *transplanted* onto a MMOG that there won't be many complaints?

The keys here are *locality* and *context*. Globalism should die. People should not be able to traverse the world in a teleport or by running for a couple hours. That's much of the reason behind having a single action affecting everyone... MMOGs are SMALL worlds.

But that's only because travel is so very fast and easy. Make travel realistic and what you *produce* is a world of localities. Of cities which are not GLOBAL but rather have a special relationship with a neighboring city, and are enclosed entities in themselves.

So in short, players should have vast power to *create* in a MMOG, but it should be very difficult (though not impossible) for that creation to affect a large number of players due to Localism. Once you kill off Globalism social aspects and communities become much more important.

Non-combat roles that were truly different, such as fisherman? Check, and players loved it, despite much derision in the press. We were working towards player governments. Freedom of PvP action, check. Fell flat on its face.

I'll make this clear.

Hack and Slash as a BASE for gameplay (regardless of whether other "options" are available) has to die. Combat is fine but it should not provide the fundamental basis for gameplay.

UO is designed as a hack and slash game, and it offered other things to do as well.

My kind of game is designed NOT as a hack and slash game, although one of the "other things to do" is to "hack and slash". That's the difference.

One of the major game design elements to make a non hack and slash game is permanent death, since it (and other game design elements like player-run governments with their desire to maintain a populous city) provides an incentive not to be killed (and by extension, not to enter into combat).

Players get TOTAL PvP freedom in my game. It is purely the responsibility of the game designer to design the game to make PvP non-dominant. It can easily be done with good game design, a game that SETS OUT to do so.

The key is to provide incentives to the players to NOT kill each other. Permanent Death combined with economic value of human life (through taxation by player-run goverments) provides those incentives.

PvP is so common in MMOGs because frankly, that's where the FUN is. The alternative is fighting monsters (**yawn**).

Make the fun *somewhere else* and VOILA, the players will go to that other place.

Players are not "natural born killers", they are "natural born fun seekers".

I'd note that EQ went on to add the trade skills, which were the only clear-cut "win" in UO and it has now bcome a de facto standard. Something that trade skills are not in the mud world.

Some muds have character classes (Enchanters generically) who create and/or modify weapons and armor, but I agree that by and large trade skills were brought to the table by UO.

So of all the things I listed as successes of MUDs, I guess MMOGs haven't been *totally* useless.

I think one of the mindsets the industry has to move away from if progress is to be made is the D&D model. Hack and Slash, Loot and Experience. I played my share of D&D and more than my share of computer games based on the D&D model and I can see that MMOGs should not use it as inspiration.

I guess I can summarize my answer as "sure, we want to do all those things.

Based on the disappointing history of MMOGs, that is debatable.

And UO was too ambitious and fell on its face trying to do too much of it." You're describing a game with a 3-4 year dev timeline, massive expertise, and massive investment. We'll get there, but only incrementally.

Based on the 7 year history of MMOGs, incrementally looks like it will take another 30 years.

The technology is there now. All that is necessary is a developer brave enough to take the jump.

How deeply unfortunate it is that a game such as I describe will likely only happen if The Sims Online is successful, due to the parallels with non Hack 'N Slash gameplay.