mmorpg design theory
Friday, July 2, 2010
Back
After a lengthy hiatus, I'm ready to begin posting again. It may be a while before I put my first "real post" back on this thread. I have no format in mind and no specific subject I'm dying to talk about, so when the time comes, I'll simply begin somewhere.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Core Talent Games
If you haven't heard of Core Talent Games, it's time to go get familiar with them: http://www.coretalentgames.com/
They are attempting to reshape the way games are made. I sent an e-mail encouraging them in what they are attempting and received a very nice response from their COO, Robert Crandall.
Their website includes some very nice links and resources as well as a basic format for a game design submission, should you be interested.
I have been very busy lately with non-game related stuff, but will hopefully find the time to post a more substantive entry in the next couple of days.
They are attempting to reshape the way games are made. I sent an e-mail encouraging them in what they are attempting and received a very nice response from their COO, Robert Crandall.
Their website includes some very nice links and resources as well as a basic format for a game design submission, should you be interested.
I have been very busy lately with non-game related stuff, but will hopefully find the time to post a more substantive entry in the next couple of days.
Friday, July 24, 2009
"Elegance"
I missed a couple days of posting due to being very busy with real world things. To top it off, I've been taking Benadryl to treat a vaccination not knowing that it induces sleep. Finally I became suspicious and found out that it is the reason I've had the overwhelming desire to go to sleep at 6 pm the last couple of days.
I'd as might as well come out honestly: I'm in a bit of an off mood. Why am I in an off mood? Well, it certainly isn't lack of sleep. The book "Art of Game Design" has suddenly lost a great deal of its luster for me, and I am beginning to find more and more of its claims and tools to often be useless and sometimes downright misleading. Of course, even recognizing these things takes a great deal of thought, and such thought does stimulate new ideas, so I cannot completely hate what the author is saying. What I do hate, however, is the author's relentless apologetic tone, and his incessant insistence on trying to cover his butt with claims such as "Of course, there are many other things not listed here..." and "There are many other ways of looking at..." and my favorite "Many people will disagree with..." These statements are not manly. [*Gasp* he must be a sexist!] Call me what you want, but I look for an author to take ground and stand on it firmly and with conviction, not prance around with lawyer-esque caveats. I'm finding this aspect of the book more and more difficult to get over.
Furthermore, many of the book's lenses strike me as completely useless. Now, in order to write a book, one is expected to fill a certain number of pages - this I understand. However, the author on the one hand caveats many of the true things he says with politically correct counter-statements (the differences between males and females is one of the grossest examples), and will on the other hand take a statement riddled with unproven implications as if it were an obvious assumption. I'm not going to quote specific examples because I'm simply not in the mood. If you think I'm incapable of backing claims with quotes from the book then this must be the first thing I've written that you've read.
Instead of discussing the book, I'd like to veer off into some of my own opinions of MMORPG game worlds. By actually taking a stance on specific issues, I am knowingly making myself vulnerable to attack. What good is writing that takes no stance or has no vulnerability? I'm ready to defend anything I've said here, and am equally willing to admit defeat and change my attitude or opinions. That goes for this entire blog now and to come.
Mr. Schell does mention one thing I'm going to use as a jumping-off point: Often times players don't know what they want. This fact rings truer in MMORPGs than in any other genre. Players have no idea what they want to do, they only know how they want to feel. Getting from point A to point B requires a deep knowledge of the way human beings experience life, of which I will touch upon a very small aspect here.
The vast majority of people simplify all of life's problems into convenient tests in order to decide what to do next. A racist will reduce complex disagreements between individuals into the simple formula: which one is closer to my race; I will agree with them. A gender bigot will ask who's gender is their own. A political activist will ask which side wears their colors. A religious zealot will ask which side is kafir. An environmental elitist will ask which side is called "green" by other elites. The sad majority of human beings reduce all complex questions down to considerations that have virtually nothing to do with the questions actually at hand. More often than not, this reduction leads to answers that are based largely, and often entirely, on the social structure in which they reside. Racists reside with others of their race, genderists commune with members of their gender, political ideologues surround themselves with other ideologues, religious zealots congregate with other zealots, environmental elites groupthink with other elites, and on and on it goes.
Why do I bring this up? Well, for one thing, most people have no understanding of just how widespread this phenomenon is. It permeates every corner of every society in the world. If you think game designers are any different, then you are lying to yourself.
One thing that has continually angered me as I've written/read about MMOs on various forums is the confusion over "elegance." I recall once I was on the IRC chat for the upcoming game Mortal Online, and there was some debate going on over how to punish griefing in the game. There are many ways to accomplish this, and many games have attempted a large variety of them. Admittedly, now that everyone and their pet gerbil plays WoW, I doubt most people reading this even know what true griefing is. In any case, I thought back to a MUD known as Major MUD, it must have been one of the most popular truly harsh MUDs there ever was. It was not merely full PvP and full loot, it was also perma-death. You could die a certain number of times, and gained new "lives" as you leveled, but eventually, you had to start over. This gave the game extreme intensity and competition.
Now, the way that MUD dealt with griefing was fairly simple. If you killed too many people unprovoked, you became evil, and God would strike you with a lightning bolt completely randomly. This bolt could come at any time, and generally did significant damage to the player, albeit not killing him. In the IRC chat, I voiced this possibility as one that they had probably not considered (the game's head developer was in the channel talking with us at the time). The head developer, who is an entrepreneur with no prior development experience, thought it was a fascinating idea worth some consideration. The head moderator, who is an elitist snob, exclaimed that there is an answer to every problem, its the elegance of the solution that is important. The lightning bolt was not elegant enough for him, and thus was not worth consideration. It's worth noting that "elegance" itself falls under many guises aside from that word alone, but that is the most common means of expressing it.
I think that this reaction is worth exploring. I'm not going to claim that the lightning idea is a great one, or that it is a poor one, because although it was relevant to the question when it was asked, it is hardly relevant to the discussion of the reactions it induced. First, let's consider the head developer, the entrepreneur with no prior design experience. He has not socialized with game developers for the last 20 years of his life, he has become wealthy through a wide range of activities, and has made his fortune considering every possible solution to every problem based on its merits alone. His sentiment was that it was a fascinating solution that was simple and easy to implement. The head moderator, who has socialized with gamers and developers for years, instantly dismissed the idea over a vague concept called "elegance." This notion of elegance, like the racist's notion of skin color or the politician's notions of political parties, is a complete and total reduction of the question down to something so low and void of detail that it cannot answer any logical concerns about how the conclusion of rejection was actually arrived at. In other words: it is a wholly emotional conclusion, foregone by the bias of said moderator.
Let us consider the elegance, or lack thereof, of the lightning solution to the problem of griefing. What makes this decision inelegant: well, the primary reason seems to be that it is detached from other mechanics and lore surrounding the game. While respawning itself may be the result of a focusing stone that the player binds their soul to, there may be no mention of "God" in the game's lore, or very little. God may play little to no role in the game other than this mysterious lightning effect, and this may leave the player with the feeling that the mechanic is slipshod and poorly sewn together. Furthermore, the randomness itself may be considered lacking elegance, since it is outside of the player's skilled control. All of this may be true, but sadly we can only speculate over why this person felt the mechanic was not elegant. However, let's look at what does make the design elegant: For starters, it is incredibly easy to code in the rules for it. Second, the lore surrounding it can easily be matched to fit the game world of Mortal Online. For example, if players bind their souls to bindstones, killing another player may instead cause his soul to burn yours, which could manifest itself as "soul burn" rather than lightning. Perhaps in this manner "God" could be left out altogether. Players who witnessed a player-killing could then stalk the culprit, and as soon as they witnessed him take soul-burn, pounce on him in his moment of weakness, which gives even randomness an aspect of skill. This might even create very interesting patterns of sneaking for "evil" players, and of stalking for "good" ones, which may help turn the tables for griefing in a larger sense - the whole goal of what we are trying to accomplish.
So, is the idea elegant, or not? You see, the question of elegance is a completely useless one, because the application of it is so broad as to have no real meaning. Oftentimes a web of seemingly patchwork game mechanics can form a very well-balanced gaming experience, and, conversely, design rules that on the surface appear completely seamless can be wrought with loopholes. I recall in the game Asheron's Call, there was a problem with players logging out while they were being attacked by other players. The cause was that player vs player combat was becoming pointless, since the losing player would log out during combat and not log in for an hour or more. The solution? Make the player logging off take several seconds to log off, undergo a very bright animation that allowed players nearby to see that he was logging off, and cause all damage dealt to him to be about 4x normal damage. Does this sound elegant to you? Does it tie in with game lore, or any other mechanics? Either way, it completely fixed the problem.
The overarching notion of simplified reasoning, and game designers' (and programmers’) particular obsession with "elegance" is at best a distraction and at worst a baseless reason to reject an idea out of jealousy or other equally emotional grounds. The problem appears to permeate MMORPGs in particular, probably because they are designed to have several interlocking kinds of experiences and a whole myriad of features. There is an old saying that basically states that a good philosophy is one that only takes a few sentences to explain. MMORPG designers have an apparent obsession with applying that worldview to game mechanics to the point where they no longer consider the implementation's actual impact on play. Stated another way, they often don’t stop to consider what "elegance" means as it applies to the experience itself, instead often exhibiting a misguided tendency to focus on its application to the game's code or theory, which are both mere means to a greater end: the experiences they produce.
I'd as might as well come out honestly: I'm in a bit of an off mood. Why am I in an off mood? Well, it certainly isn't lack of sleep. The book "Art of Game Design" has suddenly lost a great deal of its luster for me, and I am beginning to find more and more of its claims and tools to often be useless and sometimes downright misleading. Of course, even recognizing these things takes a great deal of thought, and such thought does stimulate new ideas, so I cannot completely hate what the author is saying. What I do hate, however, is the author's relentless apologetic tone, and his incessant insistence on trying to cover his butt with claims such as "Of course, there are many other things not listed here..." and "There are many other ways of looking at..." and my favorite "Many people will disagree with..." These statements are not manly. [*Gasp* he must be a sexist!] Call me what you want, but I look for an author to take ground and stand on it firmly and with conviction, not prance around with lawyer-esque caveats. I'm finding this aspect of the book more and more difficult to get over.
Furthermore, many of the book's lenses strike me as completely useless. Now, in order to write a book, one is expected to fill a certain number of pages - this I understand. However, the author on the one hand caveats many of the true things he says with politically correct counter-statements (the differences between males and females is one of the grossest examples), and will on the other hand take a statement riddled with unproven implications as if it were an obvious assumption. I'm not going to quote specific examples because I'm simply not in the mood. If you think I'm incapable of backing claims with quotes from the book then this must be the first thing I've written that you've read.
Instead of discussing the book, I'd like to veer off into some of my own opinions of MMORPG game worlds. By actually taking a stance on specific issues, I am knowingly making myself vulnerable to attack. What good is writing that takes no stance or has no vulnerability? I'm ready to defend anything I've said here, and am equally willing to admit defeat and change my attitude or opinions. That goes for this entire blog now and to come.
Mr. Schell does mention one thing I'm going to use as a jumping-off point: Often times players don't know what they want. This fact rings truer in MMORPGs than in any other genre. Players have no idea what they want to do, they only know how they want to feel. Getting from point A to point B requires a deep knowledge of the way human beings experience life, of which I will touch upon a very small aspect here.
The vast majority of people simplify all of life's problems into convenient tests in order to decide what to do next. A racist will reduce complex disagreements between individuals into the simple formula: which one is closer to my race; I will agree with them. A gender bigot will ask who's gender is their own. A political activist will ask which side wears their colors. A religious zealot will ask which side is kafir. An environmental elitist will ask which side is called "green" by other elites. The sad majority of human beings reduce all complex questions down to considerations that have virtually nothing to do with the questions actually at hand. More often than not, this reduction leads to answers that are based largely, and often entirely, on the social structure in which they reside. Racists reside with others of their race, genderists commune with members of their gender, political ideologues surround themselves with other ideologues, religious zealots congregate with other zealots, environmental elites groupthink with other elites, and on and on it goes.
Why do I bring this up? Well, for one thing, most people have no understanding of just how widespread this phenomenon is. It permeates every corner of every society in the world. If you think game designers are any different, then you are lying to yourself.
One thing that has continually angered me as I've written/read about MMOs on various forums is the confusion over "elegance." I recall once I was on the IRC chat for the upcoming game Mortal Online, and there was some debate going on over how to punish griefing in the game. There are many ways to accomplish this, and many games have attempted a large variety of them. Admittedly, now that everyone and their pet gerbil plays WoW, I doubt most people reading this even know what true griefing is. In any case, I thought back to a MUD known as Major MUD, it must have been one of the most popular truly harsh MUDs there ever was. It was not merely full PvP and full loot, it was also perma-death. You could die a certain number of times, and gained new "lives" as you leveled, but eventually, you had to start over. This gave the game extreme intensity and competition.
Now, the way that MUD dealt with griefing was fairly simple. If you killed too many people unprovoked, you became evil, and God would strike you with a lightning bolt completely randomly. This bolt could come at any time, and generally did significant damage to the player, albeit not killing him. In the IRC chat, I voiced this possibility as one that they had probably not considered (the game's head developer was in the channel talking with us at the time). The head developer, who is an entrepreneur with no prior development experience, thought it was a fascinating idea worth some consideration. The head moderator, who is an elitist snob, exclaimed that there is an answer to every problem, its the elegance of the solution that is important. The lightning bolt was not elegant enough for him, and thus was not worth consideration. It's worth noting that "elegance" itself falls under many guises aside from that word alone, but that is the most common means of expressing it.
I think that this reaction is worth exploring. I'm not going to claim that the lightning idea is a great one, or that it is a poor one, because although it was relevant to the question when it was asked, it is hardly relevant to the discussion of the reactions it induced. First, let's consider the head developer, the entrepreneur with no prior design experience. He has not socialized with game developers for the last 20 years of his life, he has become wealthy through a wide range of activities, and has made his fortune considering every possible solution to every problem based on its merits alone. His sentiment was that it was a fascinating solution that was simple and easy to implement. The head moderator, who has socialized with gamers and developers for years, instantly dismissed the idea over a vague concept called "elegance." This notion of elegance, like the racist's notion of skin color or the politician's notions of political parties, is a complete and total reduction of the question down to something so low and void of detail that it cannot answer any logical concerns about how the conclusion of rejection was actually arrived at. In other words: it is a wholly emotional conclusion, foregone by the bias of said moderator.
Let us consider the elegance, or lack thereof, of the lightning solution to the problem of griefing. What makes this decision inelegant: well, the primary reason seems to be that it is detached from other mechanics and lore surrounding the game. While respawning itself may be the result of a focusing stone that the player binds their soul to, there may be no mention of "God" in the game's lore, or very little. God may play little to no role in the game other than this mysterious lightning effect, and this may leave the player with the feeling that the mechanic is slipshod and poorly sewn together. Furthermore, the randomness itself may be considered lacking elegance, since it is outside of the player's skilled control. All of this may be true, but sadly we can only speculate over why this person felt the mechanic was not elegant. However, let's look at what does make the design elegant: For starters, it is incredibly easy to code in the rules for it. Second, the lore surrounding it can easily be matched to fit the game world of Mortal Online. For example, if players bind their souls to bindstones, killing another player may instead cause his soul to burn yours, which could manifest itself as "soul burn" rather than lightning. Perhaps in this manner "God" could be left out altogether. Players who witnessed a player-killing could then stalk the culprit, and as soon as they witnessed him take soul-burn, pounce on him in his moment of weakness, which gives even randomness an aspect of skill. This might even create very interesting patterns of sneaking for "evil" players, and of stalking for "good" ones, which may help turn the tables for griefing in a larger sense - the whole goal of what we are trying to accomplish.
So, is the idea elegant, or not? You see, the question of elegance is a completely useless one, because the application of it is so broad as to have no real meaning. Oftentimes a web of seemingly patchwork game mechanics can form a very well-balanced gaming experience, and, conversely, design rules that on the surface appear completely seamless can be wrought with loopholes. I recall in the game Asheron's Call, there was a problem with players logging out while they were being attacked by other players. The cause was that player vs player combat was becoming pointless, since the losing player would log out during combat and not log in for an hour or more. The solution? Make the player logging off take several seconds to log off, undergo a very bright animation that allowed players nearby to see that he was logging off, and cause all damage dealt to him to be about 4x normal damage. Does this sound elegant to you? Does it tie in with game lore, or any other mechanics? Either way, it completely fixed the problem.
The overarching notion of simplified reasoning, and game designers' (and programmers’) particular obsession with "elegance" is at best a distraction and at worst a baseless reason to reject an idea out of jealousy or other equally emotional grounds. The problem appears to permeate MMORPGs in particular, probably because they are designed to have several interlocking kinds of experiences and a whole myriad of features. There is an old saying that basically states that a good philosophy is one that only takes a few sentences to explain. MMORPG designers have an apparent obsession with applying that worldview to game mechanics to the point where they no longer consider the implementation's actual impact on play. Stated another way, they often don’t stop to consider what "elegance" means as it applies to the experience itself, instead often exhibiting a misguided tendency to focus on its application to the game's code or theory, which are both mere means to a greater end: the experiences they produce.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
What to look for when hiring a game designer.
I ran across an article written for prospective game designer employers on how to spot bad designers. Naturally, I read it. It can be found here:
http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2008/10/opinion_how_to_hire_a_good_gam.php
While this seems like a mostly correct article, there are a couple points I take issue with.
1) Suggesting that good designers should have modding experience is narrow minded. I need no rant to go with this point - it's that cut and dry. Modding experience has nothing to do with the talent of the designer that's sitting in front of you at an interview. Modding is one of many ways to obtain design experience, and probably one of the less efficient ones at that.
2) "Beware of Ideas Man." What a terrible thing to advise an employer. Game design is all about ideas, many, many ideas. How can a supposed professional not know this? More bluntly: how could it not be true? If he means simply to beware bad attitudes, then he should have simply said it. I've read more than once that game designers who are afraid to have an opinion are far from desirable. Game designers are by necessity leaders, and therefore must have opinions, and not only opinions but on occasion downright mandates, else they are useless to the team.
3) Stating that game designers should be spending every waking moment of free time playing games is not only incestuous, its downright neurotic. Game designers need to aquire inspiration from everywhere, not only games. In fact, other games are probably one of the least important places to look, after all, who wants to just innovate or merge stale ideas? Don't we want brand new ones if at all possible? Isn't that what Mr. Schell, the author of "The Art of Game Design," meant when he described the greatest juggler in the room as being the one who wasn't the most technically skilled at juggling, but the one who got all of his inspiration from outside of the juggling circles? In fact, the juggler specifically said that the reason he was better than the others wasn't because he was a more technically skilled juggler, it was specifically because he didn't spend much time watching his peers.
It is interesting that he says game designers have a credibility problem, the reason he gives being that ideas are a dime a dozen and anyone on the team either could, or "feels" they could, create their own. Of course, in reality, the game designer is not just a ferreter of ideas, he is a leader.
It could be said that any leadership position has a credibility problem at first. After all, anyone who takes such a position has by necessity not held it before, at least at some point, and therefore all of their subordinates or peers will view them with narrowed eyes - until they earn the respect of the team. Consider the young officers of our military who, straight out of college, are given units of upwards of 30 men and women to lead, many of which are older and have more experience (sometimes by decades) than said officer. Such officers are in fact entrusted with these men and women's lives. Don't you think there is a credibility problem there, too? Don't you think his or her subordinates often feel that they could do a better job? This kind of problem is so old and so prevalent, that the fact that the author seems to think it is somehow novel to the game design industry leaves him the only one in the room with less credibility than they walked in with. Such an absurd viewpoint is, ironically, borne of the highly limited breadth of the author's knowledge and experience.
Such is the inevitable result when one spends "every waking moment immersed in gaming."
http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2008/10/opinion_how_to_hire_a_good_gam.php
While this seems like a mostly correct article, there are a couple points I take issue with.
1) Suggesting that good designers should have modding experience is narrow minded. I need no rant to go with this point - it's that cut and dry. Modding experience has nothing to do with the talent of the designer that's sitting in front of you at an interview. Modding is one of many ways to obtain design experience, and probably one of the less efficient ones at that.
2) "Beware of Ideas Man." What a terrible thing to advise an employer. Game design is all about ideas, many, many ideas. How can a supposed professional not know this? More bluntly: how could it not be true? If he means simply to beware bad attitudes, then he should have simply said it. I've read more than once that game designers who are afraid to have an opinion are far from desirable. Game designers are by necessity leaders, and therefore must have opinions, and not only opinions but on occasion downright mandates, else they are useless to the team.
3) Stating that game designers should be spending every waking moment of free time playing games is not only incestuous, its downright neurotic. Game designers need to aquire inspiration from everywhere, not only games. In fact, other games are probably one of the least important places to look, after all, who wants to just innovate or merge stale ideas? Don't we want brand new ones if at all possible? Isn't that what Mr. Schell, the author of "The Art of Game Design," meant when he described the greatest juggler in the room as being the one who wasn't the most technically skilled at juggling, but the one who got all of his inspiration from outside of the juggling circles? In fact, the juggler specifically said that the reason he was better than the others wasn't because he was a more technically skilled juggler, it was specifically because he didn't spend much time watching his peers.
It is interesting that he says game designers have a credibility problem, the reason he gives being that ideas are a dime a dozen and anyone on the team either could, or "feels" they could, create their own. Of course, in reality, the game designer is not just a ferreter of ideas, he is a leader.
It could be said that any leadership position has a credibility problem at first. After all, anyone who takes such a position has by necessity not held it before, at least at some point, and therefore all of their subordinates or peers will view them with narrowed eyes - until they earn the respect of the team. Consider the young officers of our military who, straight out of college, are given units of upwards of 30 men and women to lead, many of which are older and have more experience (sometimes by decades) than said officer. Such officers are in fact entrusted with these men and women's lives. Don't you think there is a credibility problem there, too? Don't you think his or her subordinates often feel that they could do a better job? This kind of problem is so old and so prevalent, that the fact that the author seems to think it is somehow novel to the game design industry leaves him the only one in the room with less credibility than they walked in with. Such an absurd viewpoint is, ironically, borne of the highly limited breadth of the author's knowledge and experience.
Such is the inevitable result when one spends "every waking moment immersed in gaming."
Monday, July 20, 2009
regarding my last entry, and progression...
First, before anyone points it out, I know that my last entry is not a boat-rocking masterpiece of design. However, I made a statement a couple of entries ago that I was sure that some brilliant designers could come up with something that would work for player-generated content. I was certain it could be done. An anonymous poster rightly called me out on this. After all, who am I to say that it can be done if I cannot do it? That’s a load, and not worthy of my own respect, let alone yours. So, I decided to put my money where my mouth is and come up with a basic structure for player-generated content (see my last entry if you care to read it). It is really the only aspect of next-gen MMOs that I haven't felt I've been able to fully flesh out. To be honest, I haven't seen a whole lot of people give it a shot, but would love to read other ideas. I don't think mine is really a bad start. The way I see it, there will likely always have to be some developer-made content, but if we can keep it to a minimum, and keep players themselves the primary content as much as possible, then we have succeeded in creating something new and outstanding.
Second, for those curious, I would like to define my ideal progression system. It is a skill-based system that, at first, appears to be level-based.
It's important to understand that levels mean nothing in my system other than to allow the player to gain more skill points, which can then be utilized to train new skills. Any skills. There are no classes. A level means two things and two things only: that your total experience pool is between x and y, x being the lower limit of total experience for that level, y being the upper limit just before you reach the next one. The other thing your level indicates is how many total skill points you have earned. That is all.
So, a level 5 player will have earned 5 additional skill points, and a total of between 20,000 and 25,000 xp (assuming those are the upper and lower limits of xp for that level). Beyond that, you would have to be the player to know the precise xp level. This means that the player may have spent those 5 skill points to unlock (aka train) a new skill of any kind that requires 5 skill points or less, as well as upgraded any of their trained skills with 20,000 to 25,000 total worth of xp. They may have put all of their experience into one skill, we'll assume sword, and completely neglected every other trained skill they have. Hence, a level 20 who has put all of their experience into sword, could still have higher sword skill than a level 50 swordsman who split his experience between sword, acrobatics, tracking, smell, and a magic school. Thus, in pure sword, the level 20 would have the advantage in that ability. The player’s "level" itself means nothing, other than that the level 50 has probably unlocked more skills, and has put more experience points into his skills in some completely unknown manner.
If the level 50 spent 90% of his experience on jump, then he may be able to jump like an Olympian, but that's about all he can do.
It should be clear why no one is actually pigeon-holed at all, even though this system utilizes "levels" in a very superficial way. It is really a skill-based system. “Well then what is the point of this system?” you, my astute reader, may ask.
The advantage of this system is the way it causes macro'ers to behave. You see, in pure skill-based systems, where skills are raised only by utilizing said skill, macro's of extreme simplicity can be created that are actually far more efficient than playing the game. Creating a macro that, for example, swings the sword repeatedly is just as efficient as playing, if not more so. Creating a macro that runs in circles in order to up player run skill is at least as efficient as running in circles yourself. So why play the game at all? Nothing you do will be as efficient as a good macro. This is exactly what I saw, and in fact did, in Darkfall. Playing that game helped me to see that this flaw is inherent in such a skill system. You can add constraints that say "you must impact with sword for skill to increase." Believe me, it doesn't work. My friends and I had a macro in a single day that stood at respawn making our characters kill each other repeatedly. There was no reason to play, because this was far faster.
The advantages of levels are several. First, to gain significant experience, the player must either kill other players, kill mobs, or complete quests – all of which must be equivalent to his level of power to mean anything to him. All of these require much more sophisticated programs than “skill-based” macros to automate. Second, the player must be modestly equipped in order to hunt and kill mobs, players, or complete quests, even if they have a macro sophisticated enough to do it. This means that another enterprising young player who happens upon a macro has a very high incentive to kill and loot it, and the macro'er thus has an incentive not to macro. Furthermore, the efficiency of macro'ing in level-based PvP games is virtually never as high as actually playing, which tends not to be true in skill-based ones. Level-based MMOGs are inherently more resistant to macros in full PvP worlds, I say this based both on experience, and sound theory.
The level-based design I have described is at its core a skill-based system, but employs levels enough to curb macro's and provide a way to allow characters to unlock new skills over time. Those are its only functions. Is this what you think of when someone says "level-based MMO?" I doubt it.
So, you probably found yourself wondering a little bit earlier: “If the level 20 has more sword skill than the level 50, what does that mean for him?” Good question. What it means is that the level 20 may have more pure sword moves unlocked than the level 50, and that he is able to utilize well crafted swords to their full potential, or at least more so than the level 50 with less sword skill. This means his base sword damage can be better, assuming he has a sword good enough to take advantage of it. I would like to note that this damage increase would not be massive. The level 50, however, if he were more well rounded, may have things like backflips, wall-jumps, rolls, and other sophisticated acrobatics, he may be able to smell the level 20 from a distance (an ability that I may reveal in a future entry), he likely has some spells to influence combat, as well as possibly some mana-using sword-based moves that are only unlocked when a certain minimum of both sword and magic skill is present. So, who has the advantage here? The level 20 with a high sword skill, or the well-rounded level 50? It depends on how well each knows their character, their limits, and the limits of their opponent. It also depends on how much practice they have.
This system is thus actually ability-based. Players evolve by primarily gaining additional abilities, or tools. Levels are superficial representations of overall experience gained, and skill points accumulated. In a pure skill-based system, assigning players a number based on how many total skill points they had increased over the life of their character would be equivalent, and yet the system would still be “skill-based.” Thus, do not be fooled by the presence of “levels” in this system into automatically believing it is your standard level-based progression system, because it isn’t.
Cheers.
Second, for those curious, I would like to define my ideal progression system. It is a skill-based system that, at first, appears to be level-based.
It's important to understand that levels mean nothing in my system other than to allow the player to gain more skill points, which can then be utilized to train new skills. Any skills. There are no classes. A level means two things and two things only: that your total experience pool is between x and y, x being the lower limit of total experience for that level, y being the upper limit just before you reach the next one. The other thing your level indicates is how many total skill points you have earned. That is all.
So, a level 5 player will have earned 5 additional skill points, and a total of between 20,000 and 25,000 xp (assuming those are the upper and lower limits of xp for that level). Beyond that, you would have to be the player to know the precise xp level. This means that the player may have spent those 5 skill points to unlock (aka train) a new skill of any kind that requires 5 skill points or less, as well as upgraded any of their trained skills with 20,000 to 25,000 total worth of xp. They may have put all of their experience into one skill, we'll assume sword, and completely neglected every other trained skill they have. Hence, a level 20 who has put all of their experience into sword, could still have higher sword skill than a level 50 swordsman who split his experience between sword, acrobatics, tracking, smell, and a magic school. Thus, in pure sword, the level 20 would have the advantage in that ability. The player’s "level" itself means nothing, other than that the level 50 has probably unlocked more skills, and has put more experience points into his skills in some completely unknown manner.
If the level 50 spent 90% of his experience on jump, then he may be able to jump like an Olympian, but that's about all he can do.
It should be clear why no one is actually pigeon-holed at all, even though this system utilizes "levels" in a very superficial way. It is really a skill-based system. “Well then what is the point of this system?” you, my astute reader, may ask.
The advantage of this system is the way it causes macro'ers to behave. You see, in pure skill-based systems, where skills are raised only by utilizing said skill, macro's of extreme simplicity can be created that are actually far more efficient than playing the game. Creating a macro that, for example, swings the sword repeatedly is just as efficient as playing, if not more so. Creating a macro that runs in circles in order to up player run skill is at least as efficient as running in circles yourself. So why play the game at all? Nothing you do will be as efficient as a good macro. This is exactly what I saw, and in fact did, in Darkfall. Playing that game helped me to see that this flaw is inherent in such a skill system. You can add constraints that say "you must impact with sword for skill to increase." Believe me, it doesn't work. My friends and I had a macro in a single day that stood at respawn making our characters kill each other repeatedly. There was no reason to play, because this was far faster.
The advantages of levels are several. First, to gain significant experience, the player must either kill other players, kill mobs, or complete quests – all of which must be equivalent to his level of power to mean anything to him. All of these require much more sophisticated programs than “skill-based” macros to automate. Second, the player must be modestly equipped in order to hunt and kill mobs, players, or complete quests, even if they have a macro sophisticated enough to do it. This means that another enterprising young player who happens upon a macro has a very high incentive to kill and loot it, and the macro'er thus has an incentive not to macro. Furthermore, the efficiency of macro'ing in level-based PvP games is virtually never as high as actually playing, which tends not to be true in skill-based ones. Level-based MMOGs are inherently more resistant to macros in full PvP worlds, I say this based both on experience, and sound theory.
The level-based design I have described is at its core a skill-based system, but employs levels enough to curb macro's and provide a way to allow characters to unlock new skills over time. Those are its only functions. Is this what you think of when someone says "level-based MMO?" I doubt it.
So, you probably found yourself wondering a little bit earlier: “If the level 20 has more sword skill than the level 50, what does that mean for him?” Good question. What it means is that the level 20 may have more pure sword moves unlocked than the level 50, and that he is able to utilize well crafted swords to their full potential, or at least more so than the level 50 with less sword skill. This means his base sword damage can be better, assuming he has a sword good enough to take advantage of it. I would like to note that this damage increase would not be massive. The level 50, however, if he were more well rounded, may have things like backflips, wall-jumps, rolls, and other sophisticated acrobatics, he may be able to smell the level 20 from a distance (an ability that I may reveal in a future entry), he likely has some spells to influence combat, as well as possibly some mana-using sword-based moves that are only unlocked when a certain minimum of both sword and magic skill is present. So, who has the advantage here? The level 20 with a high sword skill, or the well-rounded level 50? It depends on how well each knows their character, their limits, and the limits of their opponent. It also depends on how much practice they have.
This system is thus actually ability-based. Players evolve by primarily gaining additional abilities, or tools. Levels are superficial representations of overall experience gained, and skill points accumulated. In a pure skill-based system, assigning players a number based on how many total skill points they had increased over the life of their character would be equivalent, and yet the system would still be “skill-based.” Thus, do not be fooled by the presence of “levels” in this system into automatically believing it is your standard level-based progression system, because it isn’t.
Cheers.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
player-generated content
I'm going to cut the fluff and propose a solution by which MMORPG content may be generated by players. If you read my last post, particularly the first 2/3 or so, you already have a basic idea.
Essentially, the system works like this:
First, quest creation is a skill. The skill's level is based on the secondary attributes of the player. These secondary attributes may be raised by putting experience points in them. The quest creation skill level will be based on a simple formula of these secondary attributes, such as (concentration+intelligence)/3 This will determine your base skill in the skill of quest creation. Quest creation itself cannot be increased by putting experience points into it, unless the player "trains" the skill. What this means is that the player allocates a limited number of skill points to unlock the skill, which then allows them to increase it beyond its base level by pouring experience into it in order to "raise" it.
This is how all skills will work. At character creation, the player is able to unlock various skills from the beginning, based on a set number of skill points allotted, such as 50. Each skill requires its own unique number of skill points based on its overall "power." As I said in my last entry, lock pick would cost far less to "train," or "unlock," than sword or war magic. Quest creation will be one of the most expensive.
Quest creation (called lore mage, lore master, artist of the devilish mysteries, whatever floats your boat) will work by employing its own window on the screen when the character wishes to create a quest. The window will work by allowing the player to choose from a number of primary options, which are: surface, global, and dungeon. Within each option, which can be thought of as a "tab," are a number of sub-options. Sub-options for the "surface" tab will include quests such as: defeat a certain mob, visit a specific NPC, or retrieve a specific item. Upon selecting the sub-option, the player must then physically select the NPC, mob, or item that must be obtained. This means they must be in its presence, which will require travel. The player must also have an item on their person for the selection “spell” to be successful, and will have a skill check based on the difficulty level of said MOB/item.
Global sub-options will include things such as: kill a specific player, kill a specific number of players, kill a specific number of players of a specific level or greater, craft a specific item, gather intelligence on a specific player's inventory or guild chest, and so forth. Intelligence gathering will employ a specific "snapshot" function, upon which a player with the skill necessary to view a players inventory, guild vault, etc., can create an authentic list by this function, and return it as part of a quest (if such a quest were made). This intelligence will then become public knowledge via various NPCs.
Dungeon sub-options will include a dungeon creation page, that will employ a top-down two dimensional view of a dungeon. The player is then able to map out a dungeon using various pre-built pieces that fit together. The player places stairwells, mobs, traps, grand rooms, and the like. The end of the dungeon features proof that the dungeon quest was completed, with a “boss” of sorts that drops the proof. These dungeons are not instanced, players will fight for them.
Each of these major categories requires a specific degree of skill in quest-creation before it is unlocked. Surface-based quests are the easiest and require the lowest skill, then global, and then dungeon. Within each major category, the various sub-options will also only become unlocked when the quest creator's skill is sufficiently high. Furthermore, as alluded earlier, the quest creator slowly gains a library of mobs and NPCs that they may utilize in their quests by actually physically visiting the NPCs, obtaining the items, ensnaring the mobs (a skill unique to those with the quest-creation skill), and visiting and completing various quests inside catacombs that gradually unlock new dungeon-making abilities. On top of this, the quest creator will be required to have on their person certain rare and valuable items in order to create the more powerful quests. If they cease to do so, the consequences will be dire which I will explain shortly.
The way the general quest formula will work, assuming all the prerequisites are met, will be something like this: Complete [quest component] and [quest component] or [component] then [component], etc. Each [quest component] is one of these defined goals, which, as stated, may be to travel to a specific NPC and obtain his seal, craft an item, obtain a mob-dropped item (a scalp, for example) or a number of them, kill a player of a certain level, complete a dungeon, etc. These components are then strung together, and may be done so in a specific order (then statements), any order (and statements), as options (or statements), or any combination. The total number of statements able to be strung together would be based on several factors, such as skill in quest creation, enhancement items worn by the creator, number of times quests have been completed by players, and so forth.
Quest creators may also demand one final kind of quest, which I call "resultant components." These are simply placing into the equation, that the player must also obtain [the results of player "x"s quest called _____]. This means that players may incorporate each other's lesser quests into their own.
Upon accepting and completing a quest, the player will then travel to the NPC that handles the quest. (Quest creators choose what NPC or NPCs handles their quest, they may choose multiple if the have the prereqs.) Upon creation of the quest, the game will determine the kind of reward that the quest will generate, which is based on the quest creator's preference: weapon, armor, gold, experience, potions, enchanted jewelry, totally random, etc. The most skilled quest generators will be able to specify weapon types, armor types, etc. The game will then choose what "tier" weapon, armor, etc will be generated by the quest's completion.
The item will be based on a specific formula. If a high level player must be killed during the quest, then the power of the weapon will be enhanced greatly, if a fire type creature must be killed, then the weapon will gain fire type damage, if a great deal of distant NPCs must be visited, the weapon will bestow speed on its wielder, etc. More difficult quests will result in better rewards. The same quests will not drop the same items over and over, they will generate randomly based on said formula (which I just simplified for the sake of discussion).
In addition, the top tiers of quest generation will allow quests to be built where the “boss” mob at the bottom is an actual replicate of powerful player in the world, with its same abilities and items. The creator must first have the player’s scalp, which means someone must kill them for it. The mob will require decent AI, but nothing out of this world. This further gives the community a feeling of being part of the world.
This next part is important: Players who generate quests decide who will be allowed to partake in them. A player, upon generating a quest, may specify specific players to be allowed to accept it, all players, all players except specific clans or players, specific clans, specific clans and their allies, or all clans currently at war with a specific clan or clans. Note that once the quest is generated, changes in politics will not change who is able to accept the quest unless the creator chooses to “recompile” the list. It is for this reason that quest creation will be a fiercely political practice. Clans will seek the best quest creators for themselves and their allies, in order to generate new wealth for themselves. In return, these quest generators will gain their protection, because it is very likely that their demise should become part of enemy quest-creator’s quests.
In addition, quest creators must log on for a specific amount of time/week for their quest to remain active. The total amount of time depends on the “tier” level quest is presently active. This fact, combined with the fact that the quest creator must maintain a series of items on their person for their quest to stay intact, will cause them to be widely sought after by warring clans. If they no longer have the requisite items, the quest will “recompile” anew, minus whatever components it no longer has. This may cause the dungeon to shut out, the awarded items to diminish greatly, and so forth.
If a quest creator cancels a quest, everyone who has already accepted it will have one week to complete it. No additional players may accept it. The quest creator may immediately begin forming a new quest, but may not cancel their next until the timer is up on the last. Thus, they may have a maximum of one in the world, and one in deletion.
The best items in the game will be produced by the most advanced quest creating players.
For reasons that I have not explained here, the game will encourage small clans of around 20 active players online at any given time, which will be done mainly via experience bonuses. Larger than that (commonly known as “zerg” clans) will be punished with heavy experience penalties. This encourages small guild-on-guild politics, which nourishes political intrigue. These clans may form alliances, however, but alliances may require upkeep (I haven't decided yet).
Lastly, the game will incorporate lore into these quests. Quest creators will have a series of mad-lib type choices in order to splice together lore. Lore will be based on player politics, not on made up developer content. Thus, the lore will generally revolve around attacking a player or clan’s reputation, or building it up. This lore will merely provide a sense of humor and comic relief in general, as the real lore will be in the actual guild politics themselves.
Ok, this whole concept of player-generated content is something I'm new to tackling. However, tt seems certain to me that the next truly revolutionary MMOG will incorporate some form of it. Simply by being full PvP, the amount of content generated by players in the form of politics will be enormous. This is something that I think most players and developers alike do not realize, as most have not played one. Giving them a way to further the political intrigue with their own quests, either in a system like this or some other, seems like it may very well be possible.
If you have feedback on this concept I'd love to hear it. Ideas are welcome.
Essentially, the system works like this:
First, quest creation is a skill. The skill's level is based on the secondary attributes of the player. These secondary attributes may be raised by putting experience points in them. The quest creation skill level will be based on a simple formula of these secondary attributes, such as (concentration+intelligence)/3 This will determine your base skill in the skill of quest creation. Quest creation itself cannot be increased by putting experience points into it, unless the player "trains" the skill. What this means is that the player allocates a limited number of skill points to unlock the skill, which then allows them to increase it beyond its base level by pouring experience into it in order to "raise" it.
This is how all skills will work. At character creation, the player is able to unlock various skills from the beginning, based on a set number of skill points allotted, such as 50. Each skill requires its own unique number of skill points based on its overall "power." As I said in my last entry, lock pick would cost far less to "train," or "unlock," than sword or war magic. Quest creation will be one of the most expensive.
Quest creation (called lore mage, lore master, artist of the devilish mysteries, whatever floats your boat) will work by employing its own window on the screen when the character wishes to create a quest. The window will work by allowing the player to choose from a number of primary options, which are: surface, global, and dungeon. Within each option, which can be thought of as a "tab," are a number of sub-options. Sub-options for the "surface" tab will include quests such as: defeat a certain mob, visit a specific NPC, or retrieve a specific item. Upon selecting the sub-option, the player must then physically select the NPC, mob, or item that must be obtained. This means they must be in its presence, which will require travel. The player must also have an item on their person for the selection “spell” to be successful, and will have a skill check based on the difficulty level of said MOB/item.
Global sub-options will include things such as: kill a specific player, kill a specific number of players, kill a specific number of players of a specific level or greater, craft a specific item, gather intelligence on a specific player's inventory or guild chest, and so forth. Intelligence gathering will employ a specific "snapshot" function, upon which a player with the skill necessary to view a players inventory, guild vault, etc., can create an authentic list by this function, and return it as part of a quest (if such a quest were made). This intelligence will then become public knowledge via various NPCs.
Dungeon sub-options will include a dungeon creation page, that will employ a top-down two dimensional view of a dungeon. The player is then able to map out a dungeon using various pre-built pieces that fit together. The player places stairwells, mobs, traps, grand rooms, and the like. The end of the dungeon features proof that the dungeon quest was completed, with a “boss” of sorts that drops the proof. These dungeons are not instanced, players will fight for them.
Each of these major categories requires a specific degree of skill in quest-creation before it is unlocked. Surface-based quests are the easiest and require the lowest skill, then global, and then dungeon. Within each major category, the various sub-options will also only become unlocked when the quest creator's skill is sufficiently high. Furthermore, as alluded earlier, the quest creator slowly gains a library of mobs and NPCs that they may utilize in their quests by actually physically visiting the NPCs, obtaining the items, ensnaring the mobs (a skill unique to those with the quest-creation skill), and visiting and completing various quests inside catacombs that gradually unlock new dungeon-making abilities. On top of this, the quest creator will be required to have on their person certain rare and valuable items in order to create the more powerful quests. If they cease to do so, the consequences will be dire which I will explain shortly.
The way the general quest formula will work, assuming all the prerequisites are met, will be something like this: Complete [quest component] and [quest component] or [component] then [component], etc. Each [quest component] is one of these defined goals, which, as stated, may be to travel to a specific NPC and obtain his seal, craft an item, obtain a mob-dropped item (a scalp, for example) or a number of them, kill a player of a certain level, complete a dungeon, etc. These components are then strung together, and may be done so in a specific order (then statements), any order (and statements), as options (or statements), or any combination. The total number of statements able to be strung together would be based on several factors, such as skill in quest creation, enhancement items worn by the creator, number of times quests have been completed by players, and so forth.
Quest creators may also demand one final kind of quest, which I call "resultant components." These are simply placing into the equation, that the player must also obtain [the results of player "x"s quest called _____]. This means that players may incorporate each other's lesser quests into their own.
Upon accepting and completing a quest, the player will then travel to the NPC that handles the quest. (Quest creators choose what NPC or NPCs handles their quest, they may choose multiple if the have the prereqs.) Upon creation of the quest, the game will determine the kind of reward that the quest will generate, which is based on the quest creator's preference: weapon, armor, gold, experience, potions, enchanted jewelry, totally random, etc. The most skilled quest generators will be able to specify weapon types, armor types, etc. The game will then choose what "tier" weapon, armor, etc will be generated by the quest's completion.
The item will be based on a specific formula. If a high level player must be killed during the quest, then the power of the weapon will be enhanced greatly, if a fire type creature must be killed, then the weapon will gain fire type damage, if a great deal of distant NPCs must be visited, the weapon will bestow speed on its wielder, etc. More difficult quests will result in better rewards. The same quests will not drop the same items over and over, they will generate randomly based on said formula (which I just simplified for the sake of discussion).
In addition, the top tiers of quest generation will allow quests to be built where the “boss” mob at the bottom is an actual replicate of powerful player in the world, with its same abilities and items. The creator must first have the player’s scalp, which means someone must kill them for it. The mob will require decent AI, but nothing out of this world. This further gives the community a feeling of being part of the world.
This next part is important: Players who generate quests decide who will be allowed to partake in them. A player, upon generating a quest, may specify specific players to be allowed to accept it, all players, all players except specific clans or players, specific clans, specific clans and their allies, or all clans currently at war with a specific clan or clans. Note that once the quest is generated, changes in politics will not change who is able to accept the quest unless the creator chooses to “recompile” the list. It is for this reason that quest creation will be a fiercely political practice. Clans will seek the best quest creators for themselves and their allies, in order to generate new wealth for themselves. In return, these quest generators will gain their protection, because it is very likely that their demise should become part of enemy quest-creator’s quests.
In addition, quest creators must log on for a specific amount of time/week for their quest to remain active. The total amount of time depends on the “tier” level quest is presently active. This fact, combined with the fact that the quest creator must maintain a series of items on their person for their quest to stay intact, will cause them to be widely sought after by warring clans. If they no longer have the requisite items, the quest will “recompile” anew, minus whatever components it no longer has. This may cause the dungeon to shut out, the awarded items to diminish greatly, and so forth.
If a quest creator cancels a quest, everyone who has already accepted it will have one week to complete it. No additional players may accept it. The quest creator may immediately begin forming a new quest, but may not cancel their next until the timer is up on the last. Thus, they may have a maximum of one in the world, and one in deletion.
The best items in the game will be produced by the most advanced quest creating players.
For reasons that I have not explained here, the game will encourage small clans of around 20 active players online at any given time, which will be done mainly via experience bonuses. Larger than that (commonly known as “zerg” clans) will be punished with heavy experience penalties. This encourages small guild-on-guild politics, which nourishes political intrigue. These clans may form alliances, however, but alliances may require upkeep (I haven't decided yet).
Lastly, the game will incorporate lore into these quests. Quest creators will have a series of mad-lib type choices in order to splice together lore. Lore will be based on player politics, not on made up developer content. Thus, the lore will generally revolve around attacking a player or clan’s reputation, or building it up. This lore will merely provide a sense of humor and comic relief in general, as the real lore will be in the actual guild politics themselves.
Ok, this whole concept of player-generated content is something I'm new to tackling. However, tt seems certain to me that the next truly revolutionary MMOG will incorporate some form of it. Simply by being full PvP, the amount of content generated by players in the form of politics will be enormous. This is something that I think most players and developers alike do not realize, as most have not played one. Giving them a way to further the political intrigue with their own quests, either in a system like this or some other, seems like it may very well be possible.
If you have feedback on this concept I'd love to hear it. Ideas are welcome.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
comment response - breaking the mold
I slept for 11 hours last night. I'm thinking it must be my body fighting the immune shots I had because I haven't slept like that in ages. I haven't had time to read any more of the book yet, but I think my last post was one of my better ones. It's my belief that reading makes us better writers, and writing makes us better readers. When you write, you learn the labor of the art, which cannot but give enhanced insight into what others are trying to convey. When you read, you absorb new styles with which to express your own thoughts. The two activities produce a positive feedback loop that to me seems undeniable.
I just received an anonymous comment, and since I wasn't exactly sure what I was going to put into today's entry, I thought that a response to it would make for a good one. It didn't hurt that the comment was articulate and well reasoned. I'm only going to quote the latter part, since it sets up the question well enough:
"When you create an MMOG, you're not really creating a world that naturally evolves over time (and is naturally enjoyable), you're actually just writing one perpetuating "section of time" - a world that exists only in the past and continually loops after a certain point. Only the first wave of players actually get to experience what you intended.
So we add more content in monthly mini-expansions.
Well, adding new content as fast as we can only goes so far since that's a race against the players we cannot hope to win...
In the end, the only saving grace for our industry may be new technology in 'constantly (and consistently) generating new content procedurally.'
What are your thoughts on this procedural content generation?"
This is a perfect description of today's class-based skill-less MMOs. This comment reminds me of the article Will Armstrong showed me that can be found here: http://www.buzzcut.com/archive/article.php~story=20060303211856230.html
The fact is that this is the sad state of main-stream MMORPGs. As long as lore is one-dimensional, quests are nothing but treasure hunts with arrows pointing the way to the next clue, players are pigeonholed into one of several class-based roles, and combat is about who put the most time in grinding, this will never change.
The only way to fix the state of MMORPGs is to do several things:
First, make the players the content. By this I mean make the players create the content by virtue of what they do. This would require some really brilliant minds to put their heads together, but I'm convinced that it can be done. First of all, the world needs to be 100% player vs player. I am absolutely convinced that this is the only way to free up honest tendencies of social interaction enough so that real, believable player interaction can take place, and believable societies and factions can form. Being a moron must have consequences, which will also serve to teach players real world social skills. Tact goes a long way in a complete PvP world where death means loss. I say this because I’ve played it.
In addition, creating quests needs to be a skill that players can learn. Players must be able to obtain in-game tools for creating their own content, with a very sophisticated and open content-generating system. The system will work by allowing players to take external variables within the world and produce unique, individual quests with them. Such quests will involve members of one society killing members of another, and returning a degree of proof, they may involve theft, they may involve intelligence gathering, they may involve crafting a needed item, or going to a distant place and acquiring an item and returning without dying, it could be a chess tournament, destroying an amazing monster somewhere, or combinations of these and many other things.
The way to look at it is this way: What is a "quest" in a real-world sense? It is nothing more than a demand. If I want you to go get something for me, or do something for me, then I am demanding certain goods or services. If the player does these things, then he is supplying the goods or services, for a fee, which is the reward in the gaming sense. The goal should be to set up a world that has the potential to be vibrant enough to where the supply of certain goods and services is so difficult for some players to obtain, easy enough for others, that there is a real market for these quests for both parties. Another important aspect is that both the creation of quests must be fun and exciting (sort a quest all by itself), as well as the quest that is generated by it. The more difficult the quest is to generate, the more rewarding it is for both parties when it is concluded. The quest creator must invest in their quest in some manner (obviously it all boils down to time), but their investment should be returned and then some when the quest is completed. It seems reasonable to me that the quest generator might not even know every aspect of the quest they create, which serves to keep everyone honest (some variables are outside their control).
An idea I am tossing around is something like this: First, there is your standard open world where most of the MMORPG world takes place. This is where the cities are, the land has its mobs, whatever NPCs are needed, bind stones, etc. The standard infrastructure that the game requires.
Then, there is a kind of "basement" of the MMO. This basement is the potential dungeon land that the quest-generators of the game are able to utilize for quest-building. It will be the clay with which dungeon quests can be created. These quests will not be instanced, they will be standing dungeons that players will war over and war inside of. In all likelihood, you enter such a quest by entering some sort of “portal,” which is located perhaps based on where the quest creator places it, or perhaps where the game deems is appropriate based on its estimated difficulty. Now, not everyone will be able to just build wonderful dungeons with tough mobs. To the contrary, quest creators will have to actually acquire a library of possible monsters, items, and dungeon size and architecture over a long period of time. The number of such dungeons that they can have built at once will be extremely limited, which means they will be rebuilding quests as they become better at their craft - both literally and in the gaming sense. You may ask: "Why in the hell would someone waste time creating content like this?" The answer is because everyone has an innate desire to create experiences for other people. Everyone wants to be a designer. I say let them have at it. These dungeon quests would also interplay with the surface world, creating quests much more complex than a simple dungeon crawl. They may require several visits to the same dungeon, visits to multiple smaller ones, visits to multiple towns across the surface map, or may even incorporate other quest-creator’s items, quests, and dungeons.
You could even set the system of as a sort of quest-generating guild. In this system, aspiring quest-creators would form guilds that would enhance their overall power. Top members in the guild require a certain number of followers before they can move up in their tier of content generation (surface world quests, to complex surface worlds quests, to basic dungeons, and so forth). The lesser members of the guild could serve lesser roles within those same quests, i.e. maintain items for it (in the case of they not generating automatically), obtaining mobs, generating small content features, and just generally maintaining the most complex and difficult quest aspects. These guilds may be some of the most lucrative in the game, and may hold huge political sway (putting up hits on players, giving secrets about their ever-changing quests, etc.). They may require the protection of other, combat-oriented clans. For example, perhaps members of the guild must have an expensive item on their person in order for content to stay intact, and killing them causes them to drop said item. Perhaps they must be online a certain amount of time/week for their quests to stay active, and other quest guilds can put hits on them to set back their competitors. The possibilities are really endless.
On top of this dungeon layer of quest creation, surface quests would be made as well. As I said, these quests would generally revolve around players hunting other players (but not limited by it).
In addition, by also having quests that involve players hunting one another, quests become more complex as players continue to learn, evolve, become stronger, more loyal to one another, and more protective of each other. Players gradually become the epic mobs. This adds an entirely new element to questing and the role-play aspect of the game. Ensuring that this system is not abused would require careful thought, but it is doable.
The second major change that must come to MMOs is that the combat system must become skill-based. By this I do not mean that there should be no levels, in fact, I believe levels to be the best possible system. However, the fights themselves must be based on player skill, and not simply who is more geared out or has higher skills. Let me explain my idea of the best system:
First, the progression system should be very similar to that of Asheron's Call. I do not say this simply because I liked the game. I actually sat down to think up what I felt was the best progression system from the ground up, and as I formed it, I suddenly realized that it was extremely similar to the system AC used. For this reason, there is no doubt in my mind that AC's skill system was thought up from the ground up. The way it works is this: Players have one experience pool, and all the experience they acquire goes into that pool. In addition, at character creation, players are allowed to "train" and "specialize" in 50 skill points’ worth of skills. Each skill requires a unqiue number of skill points based on its overall power within the game - lockpick required far less than war magic, for example. Specializing a skill takes twice as many skill points as training it, but requires a somewhat less exponential curve to increase when dumping experience into it. Once trained, you are then able to dump experienced into any such trained skill you want. Every time you level, you get a skill point, up to a certain level, then its every 3 levels, then ever 5 levels, etc. Thus, as you progress, you save these up to obtain new skills, and your skills get better as you allocate experience in each. There is no "class" in the game, everyone can create their character however they want to. The player also puts experience points into each of their secondary attributes (strength, coordination, quickness, etc) and primary attributes (health, stamina, mana). In this manner each player becomes totally unique.
However, the next generation of MMO must go farther than this. First off, the game must be collision detection (as AC was). Dodging spells/ranged attacks must be possible. Next, the game must employ multiple melee stances, and multiple attacks within each stance. Think Jedi Knight II. Each stance is learned as a new "skill," and when points are put into the stance, the attacks gain the potential of dealing more damage (depending on weapon quality). New special attacks within stances also sometimes require a skill to be a certain level in various magics or acrobatics as well as said stance, may require specific items be on the player's person, may require base level attributes, and many many other things that would take too long to explain in detail. I'm typing very quickly right now, there is a great deal to say about the way this system works and putting it all here would take quite a bit of time. Suffice it to say that the combat mechanic seen in Jedi Knight II is a good example of the general sort of combat that the game would have: fast-paced melee-oriented combat, with crowd control spells that can be used during melee combat, as well as ranged weaponry that is deflectable with both sword and spells. There would, of course, also be offensive spells, but due to balancing issues they would only be castable with a wand equipped. I've also designed an additional mana pool I call "essence"...ok I'm rambling a bit. You get the picture. The player gets more powerful by gaining new tools of combat, not by gaining more powerful ones, per se. Although old tools do get stronger, it is not to an extreme degree. A player that is high in level has the primary advantage of more stances, more attacks within each stance, more and stronger spells, more acrobatics, etc. But a low level player with good enough timing will still win, even with his more limited toolset.
The overall point here is that the game must be skill-based. This is not the same thing as "twitch-based." Twitch combat mean who gets their reticule on the opponent's head first and pulls the trigger. Again, look at Jedi Knight II. The game is kind of twitch, but it is much more a game of chess: if your opponent pulls a gun, pull it out of his hands and into yours, or deflect the shots with your saber, or throw your saber and jump towards him, or push him away for distance, or pull him towards you and close on him. If you are the one pulling the gun, then you can attempt to hit your opponent low where he can't block, you can keep him at a distance by pushing him, you can pull your saber just as he closes on you and surprise him. Once the melee battle has started, it becomes a complete chess-match, each move having different reaches, different commitment times (times until you are reset back to stance and can block or attack again), different coverage areas, etc. Add the acrobatics of back flips, wall flips, wall running, high-jumps, kicks, etc. and, constant spells thrown in, and the melee is far more chess than twitch. I know this because I bothered to get extremely good at the game, as I haven't found as intricate an FPS/TPS melee game yet. This sort of combat, in my opinion, must be the game's overall core mechanic. Content generation would be a close runner-up, since both would have to be conceived and balanced brilliantly.
Finally, there should be no limit to player level. Even though the game is level-based, the max level should be so high that it is either never reached, or takes years to get to. Again, Asheron's Call had this progression system, and it took two years for anyone to hit max level. If it weren't for experience chains in that game, I don't think it would have ever happened. XP was passed up from followers, with increasing gains, all the way up to monarchs, which allowed them to amass unimaginable amounts of xp over time. It took monarchs with thousands of followers two years to hit max level, and that was when max level was only 126, it was later increased to 275.
I've done a lot of rambling in this post about a lot of specifics that I have only half-explained. MMO's are complex, intricate things to discuss, and it is hard to convey the mechanics of one without writing many, many pages. I'm sure much of what I just wrote was not written well enough to convey what I mean, and for that I apologize and hope to clarify things in coming entries.
Thanks for the question! Let me know what you think.
I just received an anonymous comment, and since I wasn't exactly sure what I was going to put into today's entry, I thought that a response to it would make for a good one. It didn't hurt that the comment was articulate and well reasoned. I'm only going to quote the latter part, since it sets up the question well enough:
"When you create an MMOG, you're not really creating a world that naturally evolves over time (and is naturally enjoyable), you're actually just writing one perpetuating "section of time" - a world that exists only in the past and continually loops after a certain point. Only the first wave of players actually get to experience what you intended.
So we add more content in monthly mini-expansions.
Well, adding new content as fast as we can only goes so far since that's a race against the players we cannot hope to win...
In the end, the only saving grace for our industry may be new technology in 'constantly (and consistently) generating new content procedurally.'
What are your thoughts on this procedural content generation?"
This is a perfect description of today's class-based skill-less MMOs. This comment reminds me of the article Will Armstrong showed me that can be found here: http://www.buzzcut.com/archive/article.php~story=20060303211856230.html
The fact is that this is the sad state of main-stream MMORPGs. As long as lore is one-dimensional, quests are nothing but treasure hunts with arrows pointing the way to the next clue, players are pigeonholed into one of several class-based roles, and combat is about who put the most time in grinding, this will never change.
The only way to fix the state of MMORPGs is to do several things:
First, make the players the content. By this I mean make the players create the content by virtue of what they do. This would require some really brilliant minds to put their heads together, but I'm convinced that it can be done. First of all, the world needs to be 100% player vs player. I am absolutely convinced that this is the only way to free up honest tendencies of social interaction enough so that real, believable player interaction can take place, and believable societies and factions can form. Being a moron must have consequences, which will also serve to teach players real world social skills. Tact goes a long way in a complete PvP world where death means loss. I say this because I’ve played it.
In addition, creating quests needs to be a skill that players can learn. Players must be able to obtain in-game tools for creating their own content, with a very sophisticated and open content-generating system. The system will work by allowing players to take external variables within the world and produce unique, individual quests with them. Such quests will involve members of one society killing members of another, and returning a degree of proof, they may involve theft, they may involve intelligence gathering, they may involve crafting a needed item, or going to a distant place and acquiring an item and returning without dying, it could be a chess tournament, destroying an amazing monster somewhere, or combinations of these and many other things.
The way to look at it is this way: What is a "quest" in a real-world sense? It is nothing more than a demand. If I want you to go get something for me, or do something for me, then I am demanding certain goods or services. If the player does these things, then he is supplying the goods or services, for a fee, which is the reward in the gaming sense. The goal should be to set up a world that has the potential to be vibrant enough to where the supply of certain goods and services is so difficult for some players to obtain, easy enough for others, that there is a real market for these quests for both parties. Another important aspect is that both the creation of quests must be fun and exciting (sort a quest all by itself), as well as the quest that is generated by it. The more difficult the quest is to generate, the more rewarding it is for both parties when it is concluded. The quest creator must invest in their quest in some manner (obviously it all boils down to time), but their investment should be returned and then some when the quest is completed. It seems reasonable to me that the quest generator might not even know every aspect of the quest they create, which serves to keep everyone honest (some variables are outside their control).
An idea I am tossing around is something like this: First, there is your standard open world where most of the MMORPG world takes place. This is where the cities are, the land has its mobs, whatever NPCs are needed, bind stones, etc. The standard infrastructure that the game requires.
Then, there is a kind of "basement" of the MMO. This basement is the potential dungeon land that the quest-generators of the game are able to utilize for quest-building. It will be the clay with which dungeon quests can be created. These quests will not be instanced, they will be standing dungeons that players will war over and war inside of. In all likelihood, you enter such a quest by entering some sort of “portal,” which is located perhaps based on where the quest creator places it, or perhaps where the game deems is appropriate based on its estimated difficulty. Now, not everyone will be able to just build wonderful dungeons with tough mobs. To the contrary, quest creators will have to actually acquire a library of possible monsters, items, and dungeon size and architecture over a long period of time. The number of such dungeons that they can have built at once will be extremely limited, which means they will be rebuilding quests as they become better at their craft - both literally and in the gaming sense. You may ask: "Why in the hell would someone waste time creating content like this?" The answer is because everyone has an innate desire to create experiences for other people. Everyone wants to be a designer. I say let them have at it. These dungeon quests would also interplay with the surface world, creating quests much more complex than a simple dungeon crawl. They may require several visits to the same dungeon, visits to multiple smaller ones, visits to multiple towns across the surface map, or may even incorporate other quest-creator’s items, quests, and dungeons.
You could even set the system of as a sort of quest-generating guild. In this system, aspiring quest-creators would form guilds that would enhance their overall power. Top members in the guild require a certain number of followers before they can move up in their tier of content generation (surface world quests, to complex surface worlds quests, to basic dungeons, and so forth). The lesser members of the guild could serve lesser roles within those same quests, i.e. maintain items for it (in the case of they not generating automatically), obtaining mobs, generating small content features, and just generally maintaining the most complex and difficult quest aspects. These guilds may be some of the most lucrative in the game, and may hold huge political sway (putting up hits on players, giving secrets about their ever-changing quests, etc.). They may require the protection of other, combat-oriented clans. For example, perhaps members of the guild must have an expensive item on their person in order for content to stay intact, and killing them causes them to drop said item. Perhaps they must be online a certain amount of time/week for their quests to stay active, and other quest guilds can put hits on them to set back their competitors. The possibilities are really endless.
On top of this dungeon layer of quest creation, surface quests would be made as well. As I said, these quests would generally revolve around players hunting other players (but not limited by it).
In addition, by also having quests that involve players hunting one another, quests become more complex as players continue to learn, evolve, become stronger, more loyal to one another, and more protective of each other. Players gradually become the epic mobs. This adds an entirely new element to questing and the role-play aspect of the game. Ensuring that this system is not abused would require careful thought, but it is doable.
The second major change that must come to MMOs is that the combat system must become skill-based. By this I do not mean that there should be no levels, in fact, I believe levels to be the best possible system. However, the fights themselves must be based on player skill, and not simply who is more geared out or has higher skills. Let me explain my idea of the best system:
First, the progression system should be very similar to that of Asheron's Call. I do not say this simply because I liked the game. I actually sat down to think up what I felt was the best progression system from the ground up, and as I formed it, I suddenly realized that it was extremely similar to the system AC used. For this reason, there is no doubt in my mind that AC's skill system was thought up from the ground up. The way it works is this: Players have one experience pool, and all the experience they acquire goes into that pool. In addition, at character creation, players are allowed to "train" and "specialize" in 50 skill points’ worth of skills. Each skill requires a unqiue number of skill points based on its overall power within the game - lockpick required far less than war magic, for example. Specializing a skill takes twice as many skill points as training it, but requires a somewhat less exponential curve to increase when dumping experience into it. Once trained, you are then able to dump experienced into any such trained skill you want. Every time you level, you get a skill point, up to a certain level, then its every 3 levels, then ever 5 levels, etc. Thus, as you progress, you save these up to obtain new skills, and your skills get better as you allocate experience in each. There is no "class" in the game, everyone can create their character however they want to. The player also puts experience points into each of their secondary attributes (strength, coordination, quickness, etc) and primary attributes (health, stamina, mana). In this manner each player becomes totally unique.
However, the next generation of MMO must go farther than this. First off, the game must be collision detection (as AC was). Dodging spells/ranged attacks must be possible. Next, the game must employ multiple melee stances, and multiple attacks within each stance. Think Jedi Knight II. Each stance is learned as a new "skill," and when points are put into the stance, the attacks gain the potential of dealing more damage (depending on weapon quality). New special attacks within stances also sometimes require a skill to be a certain level in various magics or acrobatics as well as said stance, may require specific items be on the player's person, may require base level attributes, and many many other things that would take too long to explain in detail. I'm typing very quickly right now, there is a great deal to say about the way this system works and putting it all here would take quite a bit of time. Suffice it to say that the combat mechanic seen in Jedi Knight II is a good example of the general sort of combat that the game would have: fast-paced melee-oriented combat, with crowd control spells that can be used during melee combat, as well as ranged weaponry that is deflectable with both sword and spells. There would, of course, also be offensive spells, but due to balancing issues they would only be castable with a wand equipped. I've also designed an additional mana pool I call "essence"...ok I'm rambling a bit. You get the picture. The player gets more powerful by gaining new tools of combat, not by gaining more powerful ones, per se. Although old tools do get stronger, it is not to an extreme degree. A player that is high in level has the primary advantage of more stances, more attacks within each stance, more and stronger spells, more acrobatics, etc. But a low level player with good enough timing will still win, even with his more limited toolset.
The overall point here is that the game must be skill-based. This is not the same thing as "twitch-based." Twitch combat mean who gets their reticule on the opponent's head first and pulls the trigger. Again, look at Jedi Knight II. The game is kind of twitch, but it is much more a game of chess: if your opponent pulls a gun, pull it out of his hands and into yours, or deflect the shots with your saber, or throw your saber and jump towards him, or push him away for distance, or pull him towards you and close on him. If you are the one pulling the gun, then you can attempt to hit your opponent low where he can't block, you can keep him at a distance by pushing him, you can pull your saber just as he closes on you and surprise him. Once the melee battle has started, it becomes a complete chess-match, each move having different reaches, different commitment times (times until you are reset back to stance and can block or attack again), different coverage areas, etc. Add the acrobatics of back flips, wall flips, wall running, high-jumps, kicks, etc. and, constant spells thrown in, and the melee is far more chess than twitch. I know this because I bothered to get extremely good at the game, as I haven't found as intricate an FPS/TPS melee game yet. This sort of combat, in my opinion, must be the game's overall core mechanic. Content generation would be a close runner-up, since both would have to be conceived and balanced brilliantly.
Finally, there should be no limit to player level. Even though the game is level-based, the max level should be so high that it is either never reached, or takes years to get to. Again, Asheron's Call had this progression system, and it took two years for anyone to hit max level. If it weren't for experience chains in that game, I don't think it would have ever happened. XP was passed up from followers, with increasing gains, all the way up to monarchs, which allowed them to amass unimaginable amounts of xp over time. It took monarchs with thousands of followers two years to hit max level, and that was when max level was only 126, it was later increased to 275.
I've done a lot of rambling in this post about a lot of specifics that I have only half-explained. MMO's are complex, intricate things to discuss, and it is hard to convey the mechanics of one without writing many, many pages. I'm sure much of what I just wrote was not written well enough to convey what I mean, and for that I apologize and hope to clarify things in coming entries.
Thanks for the question! Let me know what you think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)