Bartle: Online games suck and will only get worse

[Megrim]

OTOH, attacking everything it can see? What if it sees many things in different directions? What if it will take 10 minutes to get to the thing it can see? What if what it sees is more powerful than it? What if it doesn't have enough friends to win? What if it can't outrun the player (making all chasing pointless)? What if the player is far enough away that the mob could realistically think it isn't worth it. What if the game models stamina more realistically and by the time the mob gets to you, its tired, and easy to kill? Each of those things would make the mob look real stupid indeed. There are many many reasons to not attack everything you can see. The more complex the game, the more reasons you could find.

Yea, i think this is what they talk about when programming "non-retarded" a.i? Unfortunately it (programming thereof) does not seem to happen all that often. Well, not at all, actually.

And furthermore, there is plenty of reason in not attacking some random 'puller', especially one that is weaker than you. Given even remotely intellegent a.i. it should go straight for the soft juicy targets rather than the hard pointy ones. I also could never figure out why no-one has bothered to give mobs the most base rudimentary group-functionality in that: if number of pcs = number of mobs -> one mob per pc (or some such). But then it becomes pretty evident that it's all a part of bad combat mechanics (i.e. the whole "no skill required thing".) rather that any one specific feature.

 - meg

[Xilren's Twin]

One of the few italicized sentences in the book is "Not requiring skill from a player is a cardinal sin in game design."

None of my pnp rpg sessions required skill.   Yet they were a blast.

I wouldn't go that far.  In terms of a pnp session, part of your player skill is knowing how to use your characters various skills and abilities appropriately in the structure of the games design.  For simple example, knowling how to kill a regenerating troll if you're a fighter, mage or cleric, or how to effectively use positioning in combat to take advantage of things like backstabbing or subdual damage etc etc. Or deciding how to best utilize the spell set you chose before begining an adventure.  Granted none of those seem terribly hard looking back but it did take experience to learn the ins and outs of them.  Dealing effectively with the unknown was always a challenge b/c in a pnp session, there were always lots of unknowns.  In an mmorpg, there are generally very few if any.

The larger part of 'player skill' in a pnp game is the nebulous role playing ability, which is largely imagination and creativity.  How to play the role of your current character well in order to tell/create interesting stories withing the confines of the gameworld.  There is no real analog to this in crpg's today.

I think it's also worth noting that a good pnp session also required a skilled GM to really work; for many this is the "missing ingredient" in mmorpg's being closer to pnp rather than video games.  Let's see what Neverwinter Nights 2 brings...

Xilren

[El Gallo]

I also could never figure out why no-one has bothered to give mobs the most base rudimentary group-functionality in that: if number of pcs = number of mobs -> one mob per pc (or some such). But then it becomes pretty evident that it's all a part of bad combat mechanics (i.e. the whole "no skill required thing".) rather that any one specific feature.

That sounds like it would convert grouping into a bunch of people soloing next to each other.  The skill required in these games now is the ability to cooperate efficiently and effectively.

"Taunt" never bothered me because I never took it literally, as people here seem to do.  I always figured it was a substitute for blowcking and attacks of opportunity, which you can't put into these games without opening the door to exploit city.  You are going to have to suspend some disbelief in any of these games.

[Falagon]

One of the few italicized sentences in the book is "Not requiring skill from a player is a cardinal sin in game design."

Would you define "player skill" here?

Are you talking about physical skill such as the hand/eye coordination required by FPS titles? Or mental skill such as figuring out which attacks to use against which creatures? Or some combination thereof?

[Shannow]

Well there is skill in muds and graphical muds, it's that the only skill is the application of known statistical chance. And once you've initiated combat the only skill is to press a few buttons to raise that statiscal chance even more in your favour.

And lets face it players in muds don't commit themselves to combat unless the odds are OVERWHELMING in their favour. (well 9 times outa 10)

edit: Im borderline dislecksick.

[HaemishM]

One of the few italicized sentences in the book is "Not requiring skill from a player is a cardinal sin in game design."

None of my pnp rpg sessions required skill.   Yet they were a blast.

That has to be one of the single most retarded things anyone has ever said on this board or any of the other LTM-spinoff boards I have ever seen.

First off, CRPG's are not PNP RPG's. The difference isn't even subtle. It's the entirety of Yankee Stadium in difference. It's a marathon's worth of difference. Even NWN, which tried to emulate the small feel of PNP RPG's, isn't.

Secondly, yes, PNP RPG's required skill. You had to know how to build a character, and then you had to know how to play a character. And you had to have imagination. MMOG's require one of those, how to build a character. Most of them could be played by a monkey with a gamepad being randomly shocked by a cattle prod, and the addition of 3d graphics, immersive sound and such removes just about any need for imagination.

As for the mobs not attacking everything they see, that's part of the entire problem with MMOG's. Static mobs sitting in one spot while armies worth of hostile creatures stroll around in front of them and a helpless, cherry target like a city sits waiting for the orcs to attack, but they never do. Even the most "virtual" of the virtual worlds out there DOESN'T BEHAVE LOGICALLY. The world is inconsistent, and much more suited to a game mentality than "virtual world."

[El Gallo]

If there is no skill in graphical muds, why did the same 3 or 4 guilds defeat every encounter first serverwide in Everquest?  Those guilds didn't play more than the power guilds on other servers, and they didn't play more than tons of players on their own servers.  Or why were there so many complaints throughout the WoW beta that [insert whatever the highest level instance that was just added] is impossible for a single group to pull off and needed to be toned down, followed (in a matter of days, or even hours) by a single group posting screenshots of the boss loot?  There is skill, but it is group skill, and not "can you mash down, down, back, x, up FOR TEH FATALITY" skill.

I don't think that the presence of statistical chance renders something unskilled.  Competitive poker is all about understanding and manipulating  chance events, but I would not say that it is an unskilled endeavor.

[Shannow]

I don't think that the presence of statistical chance renders something unskilled.  Competitive poker is all about understanding and manipulating  chance events, but I would not say that it is an unskilled endeavor.

Bzzt bad comparison. First off in muds its known statistical chance, in poker you have the element of the unknown (ie other players). Which brings us to the second point, bluffing. Explain to me how you bluff a level 20 troll with a level 5 warrior?

[HaemishM]

Why? Trial and error, followed by dogged persistence. Once you learn how to take down big mobs in EQ, most of it is just variations on the same theme. The "uber" guilds do it faster and with less failures than others because 1) they've learned the "tricks" of mob AI, 2) they are generally much better organized (which is a player skill), and 3) they are more motivated to do it than the casual players, who could give two shits about their e-peen.

Again, beating down big mobs in EQ is not a very skilled endevaor. It certainly isn't as skillful as competitive poker.

[rscott]

First off, CRPG's are not PNP RPG's. The difference isn't even subtle.

Don't be dumb.  Its irrelevant whether its a crpg or pnp game.  Saying that games must have player skill when there is an entire class of games that flatly avoids that rule is kind of silly.  There is no magical change of rule when things are typed rather than spoken.  Certain things may work  better, or worse, but they don't just go away.  It works in pnp, it can work in computers.  Granted, most weenies playing today only know how  to play one sort of game, and any alternative sort of game, like rpg, would never pass muster with them and so they demand that the games  have player skill.  It says more about the player base than about the nature of the game itself.

Secondly, yes, PNP RPG's required skill. You had to know how to build a character, and then you had to know how to play a character. And you had to have imagination.

The games i played were often homegrown.  Often the character was premade.  Or made on the spot by the GM.  You don't need to know how to do that.  You don't need to know how skills are applied, spells are cast, levels are computed...  The GM did the work for the most part.  Imagination was required, but i'd hardly call that a skill in this context.

As for the mobs not attacking everything they see, that's part of the entire problem with MMOG's. Static mobs sitting in one spot while armies worth of hostile creatures stroll around in front of them and a helpless, cherry target like a city sits waiting for the orcs to attack, but they never do. Even the most "virtual" of the virtual worlds out there DOESN'T BEHAVE LOGICALLY. The world is inconsistent, and much more suited to a game mentality than "virtual world."

I agree to a large degree.  But when i thought about the outcome of smart  mobs and more symetrical sight rules, i realized it would be fun for a day, then annoying for the rest of the year.  This might be okay if i wanted to make a simulator (virtual world) with no pretense of it being fun, but if i wanted fun i'd have to have 'dumb' mobs (or at least fallable).

[HaemishM]

First off, CRPG's are not PNP RPG's. The difference isn't even subtle.

Don't be dumb.  Its irrelevant whether its a crpg or pnp game.  Saying that games must have player skill when there is an entire class of games that flatly avoids that rule is kind of silly.  

If you truly believe there is no difference between the two, I'm not sure what the point of listening to you anymore is. You think RPG's have NO PLAYER SKILL INVOLVED WHATSOEVER?

I respectfully say that I disagree with what you just said. Does it involve twitch? No, but then neither do games like Medieval: Total War and I daresay that involves a great deal of player skill.

[Samwise]

Anyone who says that PnP games don't involve skill never had me as a GM.

Suffice to say, even the most braindead NPC in one of my PnP games (and I'm including things that literally have no brains, and act the part) looks like Napoleon compared to the lackwit AIs in every MMOG.

[Fargull]

If you truly believe there is no difference between the two, I'm not sure what the point of listening to you anymore is. You think RPG's have NO PLAYER SKILL INVOLVED WHATSOEVER?

Maybe rscott was thinking LARP... which, hopefully that is as close to discussion as we get on that subject.

Imagine a MMORPG where in the NPC's had brains instead of four times the HP and three times the armor and damage dealing ability... the developer might actually be able to make a game not centered around levels...

[Raph]

I'll also disagree that pen and paper roleplay doesn't require skill. Even in the most purely RP-oriented campaigns, you still call on verbal skills and social skills. One of the arguments I make (very briefly) in the book is that the stuff we say is more like "play" and less like "game" actually demands MORE skills and has MORE rules than more formal games--often so many that you can't easily explain them.

To my mind, games that require too high a level of skill often close out audiences. I consider online FPS games to be one such--and I consider online chat spaces to be another, because social skill is also a skill, and it's one a lot of folks lack.

Skill to me just means "judiciously taking action based on prior knowledge."

[El Gallo]

PnP games are entirely irrelevant to MMOGs.  The centerpiece of PnP is the DM, a storyteller who adapts the adventure on the fly to ensure that everyone is having fun.  When you have a 5:1 player:GM ratio in a MMOG, then you can talk about PnP.

[rscott]

"If you truly believe there is no difference between the two, I'm not sure what the point of listening to you anymore is.  You think RPG's have NO PLAYER SKILL INVOLVED WHATSOEVER? "

I'm saying that its irrelevant whether there is a difference or not.

Are you saying that you've never played a pnp game where someones significant other came along with no experience nor skill and had fun despite their lack of skill?  Perhaps your groups were more stable than mine.  But it can and does happen.

Now perhaps you're going to become pedantic and say they had to know how to speak and breathe, and those are skills, but somehow i don't think that was the gist of the initial statement.

"Anyone who says that PnP games don't involve skill never had me as a GM. "

That may be true in your game, but i've played several fun games with groups where smart/quick thinking, or any skill really, was not needed. And even in the sessions where it was needed, it certainly wasn't a necessary component to have fun.

A good GM will make a gaming session fun even when every character has an int of 3.

[Samwise]

i've played several fun games with groups where smart/quick thinking, or any skill really, was not needed.

I suspect your definition of "skill" is narrower than mine.  Explain the "fun", and I'll tell you where the skill came in.

A good GM will make a gaming session fun

A GM that has.... skill?

[sidereal]

A good GM will make a gaming session fun even when every character has an int of 3.

Of course.  The question is will a gaming session be fun if every player has an int of 3.

The answer is no, it will not.

[HaemishM]

But again, MMOG's have no active GM, and the GM in standalone CRPG's is in no way adaptive to the responses of the players. They aren't even in the same ball park.

And yes, I've played the games with significant others and such. It becomes obvious quite quickly who is an RP'er and who isn't. Fun doesn't necessarily require skill on the part of the participant, just a willingness to actually have fun.

[Samwise]

It becomes obvious quite quickly who is an RP'er and who isn't. Fun doesn't necessarily require skill on the part of the participant, just a willingness to actually have fun.

I would argue that those who are having fun are the ones who are using their innate RPing skills to get into the game.  The great thing about RPing skills is everyone has them to some extent, and they tend to be greatly enhanced simply by a "willingness to have fun".

[Kageru]

Not going to get into the skill / no-skill argument as it's very silly. Wherever a player is confronted with multiple options and some are better than others there is space for skill. Thus there is skill in both MMORPG and PnP. I think you are confusing the issue by assuming rule knowledge is a requisite for displaying skill. But in a sufficiently self supporting world, such as a vibrant description from a GM or a graphic environment like a MMORPG, the rules are self-contained within the world.

However I would argue that a MMOPRG does have a GM, just not a very flexible or imaginative one. The graphics stands in place of the GM's descriptions, and the game engine represents world physics and event resolution, which is precisely what a GM will provide. The only difference is this GM spends a lot of time saying, "you can't do that".

Oh, and I'm sure a MMORPG could be programmed for optimum tactics, which in simple terms translates into "kill the healer". But all that means is you've merged the role of healer and tank, which doesn't actually make the gameplay more fun. The role of MOB's, in both games, is to provide the correct degree of challenge... you don't actually want them to win too often.

[Margalis]

Not going to get into the skill / no-skill argument as it's very silly. Wherever a player is confronted with multiple options and some are better than others there is space for skill.

Only when it isn't blindingly obvious to everyone what the best option is.

Most MMORPGs present a wide variety of options, but at any given time a couple are strictly better than all the others. Rock-paper-scissors or "fire beats zombies!!" doesn't change that. Sure you could use your ice spell against zombies, but why would you?

I think what you are talking about is making real decisions. That is what interactivity is about, in ANY situation. (Not just games) If you aren't making decisions, or the decisions are all simple enough to make themselves, you are a passive observer more than an actual participant.

Edit: Note that things like "hit the 'y' key when the enemy blinks yellow" fails that criteria. There is not decision being made, it's just reflexes.

As far as programming opponents to be optimal, I don't think that is a good idea. What IS a good idea is different opponents with different personalities. Certain types of opponents like going after certain types of guys, some are smarter than others, etc.

I remember playing FFXI one night we were on a beach with some Leech creatures and sometimes they would attack the mages even before the mages had cast anything. It was so weird I thought it was a bug, but it was kind of cool.

It would be nice if opponents were just *believable.* I think a humanoid caster-type should be smarter than a giant snake.

[Kageru]

Much simpler if you cut it cleanly. The degree of "obvious" or "optimal", and the number of alternatives to select from, determines how much skill is needed... but it's still skill.

As for more personality in mob types, sounds good to me. But the "is this fun" test must be applied first.

[HaemishM]

However I would argue that a MMOPRG does have a GM, just not a very flexible or imaginative one.

Precisely. The GM's in MMOG's are not only unskilled, they are barely breathing.

[Resvrgam]

There’s a world of difference between PnP RPGs and MMOGs…and that is relevant:

GOOD PnP:
Players are introduced into a world of intrigue, action and suspense as they venture forth on a journey that develops their characters from the fledgling initiates they enter the story as to the seasoned heroes/villains they end the story with.  A Storyteller is present to direct a smooth gaming experience and adapt to the playing styles and “unforeseen” actions some take. Combat isn’t always the focus and, like a great story/movie/(and for those who don’t like to read) audio book, the beginning and end is filled with substance that creates a neatly packaged sandwich of: trial, confrontation and climax (sequels are always made by cliff-hangers or interesting plot twists that compel players to continue with lures of more story or adventure…not new augmentations for their vehicle). Every player is also given the opportunity to be in the "limelight" from time to time and no ONE player is more important to the story than the other...but each has their own chance at being the Hero/Villain by their own deeds.

BAD PnP:
Players are randomly tossed into a world that usually has a generic bar (aka “The Tavern”) and a lifeless supporting cast.  Games usually consist of players arguing over who stole the last bag of Doritos and serious players become drowned out in a wave of sexually harassing comments directed toward the one-dimensional barmaids from immature players who don’t really care about the game’s story (and rightly so considering it was written down on a napkin 5 minutes before the game started).   Combat is predictable and players find themselves constantly rolling dice and usually knowing more of the rules than the GM.  Occasionally, if there’s an attempt at creating a sense of danger within the game world, players may be heard whining “How long do we have to fight this thing until its dead?” Montey Haul games and “Quickies” usually fall into this category but some creative Storytellers have been known to pull that rare good experience from an impromptu gaming session.

GOOD MMOG:  
Players are introduced to a digital world where the graphics are usually a high selling point followed by some “new” feature such as sound-file spewing NPCs or a system of player-vs.-player competition.  The treadmill’s grind has been slightly masked by a few techniques that delay the effects of repetition: new animations, new sounds, something aesthetic but never anything mechanical beyond the firmly established paradigm.  
The monsters are beautiful to look at with their impressive attack animations and the ability to have an open chat-room while playing allows everyone involved to give guidance and support to one another.  Occasionally, harder monsters require a “victory by attrition” tactic and thus, multiple players band together in hopes that their numbers will out-math their target.  Eventually, the invisible ceiling is hit and characters will no longer progress through the treadmill…until the inevitable expansion (or sequel) is released for additional fees (on top of the $180+/year + retail fees already endured).

BAD MMOG:
How many titles can you name?

[Megrim]

Most MMORPGs present a wide variety of options, but at any given time a couple are strictly better than all the others. Rock-paper-scissors or "fire beats zombies!!" doesn't change that. Sure you could use your ice spell against zombies, but why would you?

Exactly. But if say, the zombie priest has some basic capability to maybe cast "Protection from Fire" on his zombie minions then all of a sudden you have to improvise.

 - meg

[Xilren's Twin]

There’s a world of difference between PnP RPGs and MMOGs…and that is relevant:

GOOD PnP: <mega snip>

Ok, so now riddle me this;compare and contrast a pnp rpg to a single player crpg.  The question being, is it the medium itself (i.e. computer controlled GM) which is limiting the rpg portions to being minute, or is it the need to throw content to mass number of players simultaneously?

Xilren

[Resvrgam]

Ok, so now riddle me this;compare and contrast a pnp rpg to a single player crpg.  The question being, is it the medium itself (i.e. computer controlled GM) which is limiting the rpg portions to being minute, or is it the need to throw content to mass number of players simultaneously?

Xilren

I think (IMO) it has more to do with your latter "mass" appeal example.  Heroes aren't "heroes" because they stand in line and whack the same monsters as the countless people in front of them, they're heroes because they have prevailed in a confrontation that no one else could have completed successfully.

I've played a few single-player CRPGs that helped create the illusion I was a hero/villain in an epic tale but I've also played CRPGs that felt like MMOGs without the MMO.   Levels, Stats, "Loot", etc. do not necessitate a RPG (considering the old PnP are essentially videogames of the mind that pre-date the GPU...and usually have better CPUs, RAM and processors: our own minds).

If a game developer could capture the essence of a SP RPG and neatly package it into an on-going Soap-Opera-esque experience where other players may enter and leave whenever they wish, I believe they may hit pay dirt when players begin to rely on the "next chapter" of gameplay or storylines instead of waiting for the invisible ceiling to raise and new loot or different coloured monsters to appear.

I've pulled it off in a G-MUD about a decade ago (just lacked the finances and computers to make it fully successful) so I hope one of the fat-cats out there may find merit in actually supplying their MMOG customers with actual substance over glamour.

"But this Malibu Stacy has a new Hat!"
 MMOGs just feel like more effort was invested into the boring rules and the creation of the game world than in the actual game portion.

[Koyasha]

Pulling?  normally i'd agree.  But have you never 'pulled' a human in DAOC.  I was pulled once myself.  As soon as i realize it happens independent of the AI, then yes, pulling is fine.  Try to imagine a game where pulling isn't possible.  When you attack someone stronger than you, then run away, they DON'T follow.  Doesn't make much sense does it.  Maybe you'd rather they just sit there and take it.  Or perhaps, they run to get help (which isn't always an option).  If i get attacked by a little brat, the last thing on my mind is running for help.  They're going to get beat even if i have to chase them.

Ok, let's take an example and put it this way.  You're an Orc Centurion.  You're standing on the outskirts of an orc camp containing 12 orcs.  You see someone coming up nearby, and he shoots an arrow/casts a spell/insults your mother.  You chase after him, and - to be fair, I assume the rest of the group is out of immediate sight - dodge around a hill, and find yourself face to face with an entire group of armed characters ready and able to kill you.  Is the logical thing to do to A: fight to the death, or B: immediately turn around as fast as you can, and call the other 11 orcs in my camp to come help me beat these guys up?  Even assuming you overestimate your skill and engage them in combat...why wait until you're almost dead?  By the time you're at 70% of your health you would clearly be able to see that you're not gonna win this fight alone.

Aggro?  Thats basic AI.  It has to know who hit it and identify threats.   He who hurts me the most is my biggest danger.  Attacking from least dangerous to most dangerous is a sure way to die, assuming DPS is relatively constant..  Or is the mob supposed to attack randomly.  Perhaps mobs could be a bit more intelligent in trying to take down the healer first, or a mage.  But even then i don't think its clear that that is necessarily the smartest option.

Another example.  You're Rallos Zek in the Plane of Time.  The group of players approaches and engages you in combat.  You start fighting back against their warrior.  It quickly becomes blatantly obvious that with but a few swipes of your mighty axe, you can kill this puny mortal, except his health is constantly being replenished by a chain of clerics which look even weaker than the warrior, and you could probably dispatch with two strikes each.  Is the logical thing to do to continue attacking the warrior, or to dispatch the clerics, then the warrior, then all the other little enemies nipping at your heels?  It's very rare that the smartest option in any current MMOG is NOT to dispatch the healer first.  To see this one needs only look at any team-based PvP.  Goals tend to be to dispatch the healer, then the damage, and the guy with the biggest armor and hitpoints last.

The first is, at least, being adjusted in the latest MMOG's - EQ2 to be specific.  Mobs come in groups, and even if you were to somehow separate the members of the group, deagro them all, then try to engage one, the others will agro and come at you.  Ironically, while this makes things more logical, it doesn't necessarily make them more fun.  I play a bard in EQ, and some of the most fun I have is making that challenging pull...managing to split that impossible group and all.  Given that, how about a compromise between the logic and the fun?  Pulling doesn't need to be eliminated, it needs to make sense.  Lull to magically reduce the mob's tendency to agro/help it's ally/notice something's wrong, mezzes, etc.  There are many ways to have pulling without it being as stupid as 'I chase the guy down and beat on him until I'm at 5% health, then I try to run for help now that it's too late'.

All in all, I'd like to see some more intelligent AI.  And corresponding to this, the mobs would have to have their NPC powers removed.  After all, the reason mobs hit for 8 times as much as players and have 15 times as much HP is because mobs are stupid.  Make mobs smarter than dirt, and they'd ALWAYS win unless they were on a more even footing with the players.  Agro management should be a lot more dodgy, if you ask me.  It would much better reflect what El Gallo said...it should substitute for physically interposing yourself between the mob and the crunchy target.  Hence, occasionally the crunchy targets should get hit.  Which is pretty much how it is at the low levels of most games I've played, but at the higher levels of the few games I've gotten to high levels of, it tends to be that if the crunchy targets get looked at wrong, they're reduced to a pile of meaty entrails - particularly noticeable in raids.  

The more intelligent the mob's AI, the less the difference in power between mob and player needs to be, which leads to a different type of game, and possibly a more engaging and interesting one.

[Phred]

The trouble with all this let's make the AI smart enough to go for the healers first is, it's hard enough to get people to play healers now. Who in their right mind would play a class that got beat into the ground the second they cast their first heal spell. It's bad enough now in EQ with healing agro on raids. They insanely high dps mobs in GoD required fast healing on the tank before he'd got solid agro and you could usually cound on a couple of clerics eating it before things settled down on many of those raids.

There has to be a balance between good AI and having classes fun to play, IMO. Either that or you need to give the healers some better defence than the paper plate armor they wear in EQ, much less the cloth in WoW. And then you open the door for clerics to become tank mages, unless you nerf the crap out of their offencive spells and relegate them to a pure healing roll. Who the hell you gonna find to play that role? Maybe Guild Wars has the right idea. The monk henchmen was better than a lot of clerics I've played with in EQ, maybe we should relegate the boring bits to the AI as well.

[HaemishM]

We've had discussions on this before; I'm firmly of a mind that "healing" and "buffing" as they appear in fantasy MMOG's especially, is a totally fucked up idea. It ruins combat, because combat becomes about who has the best healing, not who fights the best. Funny that this type of idea comes from D&D, where in-combat healing really wasn't a big factor.

MMOG's and for that matter CRPG's do some strange things to combat as opposed to PNP RPG's. Think about your PNP RPG's, especially those very focused on combat. Large combats could typically take hours to resolve, hours for actions which in game time terms took minutes at most. This is fun, don't get me wrong, but it's also a function of PNP RPG's. You have all that dice rolling, looking up charts, time to think about what your next move is, initiative rolls, etc. The computer can take all that chart-lookup, dice-rolling stuff and do it in nanoseconds, reducing the time required for any combat to a fraction of the time it takes PNP RPG's. In order to make this last a length of time sufficient to make a player feel invested in the combat, the CRPG's and MMOG's multiply the numbers you might normally see in a PNP RPG, making players and NPC's into bags of hit points. Whereas in PNP RPG's a swing and a miss takes a few minutes and is somewhat exciting, in MMOG's and CRPG's a swing and a miss is a waste of time. Combat becomes a matter of two sides bashing each other's brains out and whoever can heal the most wins.

The time shifting aspect of PNP RPG's (abstracting things like healing over time, sleep hours etc.) as compared to CRPG's and MMOG's is a huge difference that I don't think has been adequately translated. MMOG's make the time abstraction worse, because there are no "sleep cycles." The world is constantly in motion whether the character is in the world or not, whereas in PNP RPG's, the characters are always in the world.

[Shannow]

^^^^^^^^^^

a fucking men.

[Xilren's Twin]

The trouble with all this let's make the AI smart enough to go for the healers first is, it's hard enough to get people to play healers now. Who in their right mind would play a class that got beat into the ground the second they cast their first heal spell. There has to be a balance between good AI and having classes fun to play.

Actually, I think noticing the poor AI is in many ways due to the overall poor game system design with strict classes and roles and always known info.  Reflect back to your pnp days, unless you went out of your way to look like a cleric, it was not always apparent "it's a cleric!" to the monsters on sight, thus often a battle would start and mid fight intelligent monsters may change tactics once they figure out who the biggest threats were.  The reverse was true for player; finding a group of ogres, battle start and one of them suddenly starts whipping around spells, you change your plans to account for the ogre mage.  Hell, intentional misdirection was simply part of trying to use your brain to get past yon horde of orcs and not your sword arm.

Neither you nor the mob's in an mmorpg ever have that situation of dealing with the unknown.  Player abilities and mob abilities are always X for mob/pc type Y.  That's when the min maxing analysis starts to kick in like DPS.  While there certainly are pnp munchkins who try to mathematically design their char for max ridiculous damage, the nature of most mmorpg's seem to make this a pre-requisite b/c it's so easy to find the one "best" damage formula for a class/weapon/skillset/spell/armor etc.

Why?  Makes it simple of course.  Which reduced to brass tacks is often what "hit a and make a sandwich" complaints are all about; the games too simple or not involving enough.

Granted, combat wheel and hit chains are attempt to artifically make the player feel more involved, but the other side, the mob responses, hasn't really changed.

Xilren

EDIT: Haem's point is also a good one and tied into this too.

[HaemishM]

Granted, combat wheel and hit chains are attempt to artifically make the player feel more involved, but the other side, the mob responses, hasn't really changed.

Thus my assertion that we still haven't left the first generation of MMOG's. We're still just redefining the shape of the wheel; I'm not sure we've discovered yet that square wheels don't roll as well as round ones. Forget the horse... we can't even get to the cart because the wheels don't work.

[Shannow]

I actually think that designers should stop trying to shoe horn this type of game into the massively multiplayer environment. Step away from trying to include as many 1000s of players at once on a single instance of the 'virtual world' (ie a server) and maybe look at designing the game to handle 200-300 players at once. Either that or radically change how you are designing these games.
Right now I believe the only games that need to be truely massively multiplayer are Planetside and ww2ol because they depend on player interaction.