Austin Game Conference Report

[JonnyG]

First off, I'm with Mi Tes I would finish Mythica with the money.  Secondly, a lot of these ideas are things I originally posted as ideas for Mythica before it was ragnarok'd.  Lastly, I'm not into PvP so most of my ideas are PvE.  

Overall, I'm a fan of fantasy so I'd stick with that.  Although mythology works as well.  I like the idea of expansion packs being different pantheons.

[*] Even though I'm not a fan of PvP, I think factions give people something to work together towards.  So I'd have about 5 factions, but only allow people to join 4 of them.  The other one would be computer only, an overreaching foe that would allow people from different factions to group together with a common goal.

[*] The map would be split into districts, with control of each district bringing advantages, ie. lower prices, healing, AI troop support.  The control would switch with monthly updates.  Ownership would be based upon the factions success in key missions within the region.  The monthly content release would put special missions in for the border regions that would control this ownership for the next month.  You would never be able to lose your core districts.  A monthly live event would occur at the end of this cycle, based upon the results for the month, this would be the culmination of the month and end up with the changing of the districts ownership.

[*] Active guild support.  Guilds would be able to buy plots of land for their guild complexes.  Within these complexes they'd be able to buy walls, traps, monsters, spells and place these where they like.  Once they've placed them others could attempt to raid them for agreed upon prizes.  Others could place bets and watch the raids unfold.  Other things they could buy would be monsters for a bestiary.  Within the bestiary they'd be able to fight any of the monters they've bought.  This would allow them to develop strategies for the monster.  A map room with maps of the missions that they'd bought.  Guid members could type strategies and tie them to points on the map.  A mission briefing could use this as a powerpoint type presentation.  Have guild rankings and prestige play a part in the overall story arc.

[*] Challenge battles.  Here you could challenge one or more other groups(guilds or pickup groups) to fight on a set of maps.  This could involve CTF, free for all, gauntlet, king of the hill type battles.  Agree on a bet up front with the winner getting it automatically.  Also keep track of statistics for players and guilds.  No death penalty for dying during these events.

[*] Gauntlets.  Like above, but against a timer.  Monsters or other teams could be put between you and the end.  

[*] Weekly events.  Have GM supported events with new maps for the challenge and gauntlet events mentioned above.  Decent prizes for the winners and bragging rights for the week.

[*] A CoH sidekick like capability to allow people of different levels to adventure together.

[*] Instanced missions.  The mission should automatically scale difficulty to the players in the group.  Allow them to choose whether they want it harder or easier with the reward changing.

[*] Make the world within the instance be dynamic.  ie. battles happening between the factions, when you join the instance you can help one of the sides or not.  Make the world react to their changes.  Allow them to influence the way the instance goes.  ie. they might give info to a general that he uses in the battle.

[*] An avatar arena.  Here you would be able to choose any class and any level and fight monsters or other players.  It allows people to try skills/classes without committing to them.   You could try skill combo's before needing to choose them.  
[/list:u]Just some of my ideas on what I'd like to see in a game, gtg the kiddos are tugging at my arms.

[Arcadian Del Sol]

I have a great contribution, but i just typed it and my fingers are raw

[SirBruce]

Making combat fun is only part of the solution.  The fun factor is why millions of people play sports every year.  But far less actually are willing to pay, through money and time comittment, to be a professional or semi-professional athlete.  Of course, the analogy starts to break down here, because in pro sports you actually get paid for being a performer, and other people are willing to pay money to spectate, but let's just run with it for now.

I've posted before about lessons I think MMOGs can learn from professional sports leagues.  The NFL is a skill-based PvP game.  So why don't players like Brett Favre and Ray Lewis constantly "gank" other players and win all the time?  Because the game is highly structured.

The PvP itself is highly restricted.  Certain players can only perform certain actions on certain other players.  It's not no-holds barred "combat", and there are really several different forms of "combat" depending on what players are involved.

The games are refereed in real time.  There's always someone available to steop in and render a decision whenever there is a dispute between players.

There are rules that prevent all the best players from being on the same team.  Salary caps, contracts, free agency, etc.  Not to mention that many players are highly restricted in how they can be deployed; i.e. having 2 5-star QBs won't help you much, unless one of them can't play.

And perhaps most importantly, the game has periodic resets.  At the end of the season, no matter who wins or loses, everyone goes back to 0-0 and can start over again next year.  And there are things like draft picks to help those who lost previously.  Even the worst player has a shot at winning the next time around.

And the same rules apply to many professional sports.

And board games.

Can you imagine if Monopoly were a Persistant Massively Multiplayer game?  It wouldn't be very fun for the new player logging in.  Every property is already bought and has a hotel on it.  Chances are you'll go bankrupt on your first turn.  Eventually one player would control the whole board.

So the cruel irony is that the very nature of persistance is directly at odds with many of our "fun" game mechanics.

Bruce

[Sky]

The NFL is a skill-based PvP game. So why don't players like Brett Favre and Ray Lewis constantly "gank" other players and win all the time?

Rules aren't enough. It's the refs on the field that stop most NFL players from pulling off dirty tricks, or at least prevent them from trying it overtly. Because those 'in charge' hold the players accountable for their actions.

Show me how to do that viably and profitably in a mmog and you will be a very rich man. That's the single issue that I believe is holding the genre back the most.

[Zaphkiel]

So the cruel irony is that the very nature of persistance is directly at odds with many of our "fun" game mechanics.

Bruce

    I agree with the sports analogy.  I've used it myself.  I would also include the concept of sportsmanship, which so far seems to be totally lacking, or constantly ridiculed in MMOGs.  Until it gets firmly established, there will not be 'fun' PvP for a large audience.  
   Persistance and fun could be integrated, but I agree that regular resets would probably be the most cost effective method.   Sports teams DO get to keep the players they have signed for the next year.  It doesn't have to be totally starting over from scratch.  Just close enough so that the game is competetive.

[Nebu]

Rules aren't enough. It's the refs on the field that stop most NFL players from pulling off dirty tricks, or at least prevent them from trying it overtly. Because those 'in charge' hold the players accountable for their actions.

Show me how to do that viably and profitably in a mmog and you will be a very rich man. That's the single issue that I believe is holding the genre back the most.

Interesting analogy... I'm guessing none of you have ever played sports at a highly competitive level.  If you've even been spit on by an offensive lineman, punched through your helmet at the bottom of a fumble pile, or clipped because getting you off the field was better than the 15 yard penalty, then you know what I'm talking about.  The only thing that keeps players from the really nasty shit is the fact that if they do, they know that it's only a matter of time until it's done to them.   It's called self-policing accountability.  Though I hate the NHL, I think their brand of thuggery is almost a better analogy.  

Most people that play mmog's don't like pvp.  Those of us that do enjoy it are the exception rather than the rule.  I doubt any company will invest significant resources into a pvp game thinking it will become the next EQ.  This yields games like Shadowbane, Planetside, and to a lesser extent WWII OL which, while they have their merits, just don't seem to have all of the components to do well beyond the niche audience.  

I doubt that competition through skill based pvp mmog will ever be more than a niche.  Why?  People would rather the power = time than power = ability.  It has been demonstrated that in a skill-based pvp system that the majority of players will lose more encounters than they win.  Now, those of us that a) have the skills or b) lack the skills but still enjoy the challenge don't mind.  This leaves the largest chunk of players with a distaste for pvp.  I'm not sure that accountability is the biggest issue in the success and development of pvp games.  I just think that most people that play games don't like to lose.  For some, it's a harsh reality to pay a monthly fee for the reminder that they just aren't very good.  

So, we're handed the same shiny treadmills with readily defeatable AI to pacify our needs.  Personally, I'd rather have my ass handed to me on a daily basis in a really well made pvp game... but this still puts me in the minority of mmog gamers.

[Margalis]

In a computer game, the computer can be a ref, you don't need actual people.

Assuming you have actual structure, the computer can enforce that structure as long as it understands the rules. I would point out that videa game football enforces rules without a real person present.

[Shannow]

Most people that play mmog's don't like pvp.  Those of us that do enjoy it are the exception rather than the rule.  I doubt any company will invest significant resources into a pvp game thinking it will become the next EQ.  This yields games like Shadowbane, Planetside, and to a lesser extent WWII OL which, while they have their merits, just don't seem to have all of the components to do well beyond the niche audience.  

Now here is something Ive always wondered. Your right most mmolg players dont like PVP, but on the other hand 1000s of people every night play endless hours of BF1942, Counterstrike, Unreal etc...games that other no more reward than the latest kill or latest 30 min map victory.

  And Ive always wondered (lets tie this back to Raphs 50 mil) if you gave players a structure beyond the latest round of your BF1942 server would they enjoy it enough to pay a monthly fee?
  What Im talking about is a bunch of smaller servers (say of BF1942 or Joint Ops , a good example I believe because of its larger than average server sizes...100+ players) linked under the umbrella of a goal orientated environment and some form of social structure to boot.
  Personally I loved to play the HL Mod Day of Defeat but after a while I would get bored with just another round of DoD_Anzio and want there to be a 'point' to the game. Playing in clans is one thing but tournament matches etc are not on a regular enough basis to be truely any fun. Thats why I play ww2ol because you are part of something 'bigger' and its the reason I get quickly bored of muds etc because you strive and strive to get to a high level and then what? Engage is some pointless PVP with other high level chars?
  Ok so Ive wandered enough.

  Heres a rough outline of the game I'd like see:
Personally I think there should be a recognisable license and/or setting to give players some recognition and attachment factor. Say for this example we use something akin to the Joint Ops engine set in the real world today with possibly each faction representing a country or something similar..(frankly Id love to invade France with Challenger tanks.:)

  You log into a lobby setting and quickly shuffle off to your team lobby. From there command players can move their forces on a 'strategic map' into battle with enemy factions, the battles take place on a instanced joint ops map, once one or lost the result is reflected on the strategic map. This way we give players more motivation that simply running around fragging everyone, now theres a point to the map, to working as a team ...motivation to win it.
  The other important factor will be to provide things for players to do between battles..An in game forum system for both private team based discussion and public chest thumping, in game mail, complete statistics (for previously mentioned chest thumping) and maybe a limited economic/upgrade system where players can buy limited new equipment / perks + the strategic map for command minded players.
  The third important factor is that there will be an end game. Teams can lose and teams can win the map and it will restart with the original positions.
  The benefits to this system are as follows :
1. Players still get essiantally the same game expierence as their favourite online shooter (BF1942 etc) but now theres a point to it beyond the end of the next round.

2. You avoid the problems of player dispersion by concentrating the players into instanced battles on smaller maps (though still larger than online FPS standards).

3. If you do use a modifaction of an existing FPS game you cut way down on your dev costs...ie spend that leftover 25 mil on hugh skylight for your office..oh wait thats been done.

4. elements of strategic control for those cat herders out there...


etc.

[SirBruce]

WW2OL and PlanetSide have both attempted this, and neither have garnered over 100K subscribers.  Why?  It's true each game has its own sert of unique problems/complaints, but are those alone enough to account for the gap between actual subscribers and the millions who play free FPSes?  Are there any common lessons we can learn from them?

I'd say what it tells us is:

1. Most people don't want to pay a monthly fee.  I don't think this is particular to FPS gamers; it's true for other single-player genres as well.

2. Most people don't see having over 8 or 16 or 32 or 64 players on a map at a time as translating into more fun.  Perhaps this is just a perception issue.  Or perhaps it has to do with the fact that squad-based mechanics and assumptions start to break down.  Or perhaps it is because it becomes more difficult for the less-skilled to compete as the number of players increases.  Or perhaps it's because it gives individuals less of a chance to stand out.  Or all of the above, and a bunch of other stuff, too.

3. Implementing fair, mostly unrestricted skill-based PvP is HARD.  It's not just FPS; Shadowbane and M:tGO aren't as popular as EverQuest, either.  Perhaps the PvP needs to be much more restrictive, specialized, and channelled in order to appeal to a broader audience.

Bruce

[Arcadian Del Sol]

My point was that in Madden 2005, the player-to-player combat was fun, dynamic, and was fun because it was interactive. As your lineman squares to take out a tight end, you have 5 different options with various levels of risk-to-reward. You could go save and tackle but he gets a first down, or you could do a shoulder shove at the ball and try to pop it loose for a fumble, risking a missed hit and a touchdown.

in  MMOGs, you enter a combat stance and your options are "swing normally, block, or use a function key to swing with finesse."

and in Madden 2005, if you lose possession and have to punt, you don't have to go sit out of the game for 15 minutes - you get right back into it and keep competing and fighting.

[Sky]

1. Most people don't want to pay a monthly fee.

I feel this is partly the fault of the (goddamned) marketing departments. They have a responsibility to explain why there is a monthly fee, what value-added (heh) benefits you get from a service-based game over a static game, etc. Many people are totally ignorant of anything beyond their direct experience playing a game, thus they don't see much difference between Morrowind and EQ, even though we know there is a vast difference in manpower and infrastructure between the two.

[Sky]

As your lineman squares to take out a tight end, you have 5 different options with various levels of risk-to-reward. You could go save and tackle but he gets a first down, or you could do a shoulder shove at the ball and try to pop it loose for a fumble, risking a missed hit and a touchdown.

Man, that's a pretty cool idea. Tanks could be analogous to offensive linemen, blocking for the casters (QBs) and the rogues (HB/FB). Imagine instead of taunting, you can just knock a mob down with a clothesline tackle...oh the action of it all, I'm overcome by the vapors!

[El Gallo]

Lots of people have been saying that you can't have persistence and meaningfulness at the same time in a PvP game.  Someone is going to have to shitcan one or the other (resets or no consequences) to make PvP work.  It's hard to see how the "no-consequences" approach will get people to spend $15/mo.  Resets have much better potential (think an unbuggy Shadowbane [LOL] that reset the map every x months).  That game might be a lot of fun, I'd certainly try it out.  But the problem here is that you are inviting everyone to quit sending you money every reset.  

On the $50M.  I'd give it to a team to make a game that was identical to Everquest or Ultima Online, but 10% better in every respect (other than the amount of content).  If the team ever came to me with an idea that fell outside those parameters, I would have their genitals shocked with a cattle prod.  There have been way too many shitty games pumped out because designers are more interested in being slapped on the back by their peers for their OMG REVOLUTIONARY approach than they are in making a good game.  This genre needs some progress, and that means grinding out detailed, well-thought-out improvements and not reinventing the wheel.  Hell, if a game identical to EQ or UO in every respect was released today, it would be the best MMOG released since EQ and UO.    

For some, it's a harsh reality to pay a monthly fee for the reminder that they just aren't very good.

I hear this all the time from PvP apologists.  I don't doubt that it's true for some people.  However, it overlooks some obvious counterexamples.  Afterlife, Conquest, etc. kicking ass on DAoC and then going back to EQ because it was more challenging/interesting for one.  Or, just recently in WoW there was a huge post from a prominent PvP guild that a new PvE dungeon was impossibly hard for one group, had to be zerged and needed to be tuned way down.  Top-level PvE guilds blew through it within 48 hours of its release.  A lot of people still can't get through it with less than a group and a half, though.  How is it that Fires of Heaven, Afterlife and Triton got so very many server wide firsts in EQ?  It wasn't because they played more: every server had at least one and usually more guilds that played as many if not more hours.  Chance?

There are important group PvE skills.  However, they tend to be more of the extremely tight discipline/flawless logistics variety and not of the "x, a, <-, y, -> for the secret combo and the win" variety.  

If EQ doesn't involve player skill, how is it that so very many people suck so very badly at it?

[Alkiera]

If EQ doesn't involve player skill, how is it that so very many people suck so very badly at it?

It does require some player skill.  Spell selection can be important, timing for heals, agro management techniques for tanks and agro avoidance techniques for casters, pet control for those who have them.

DAoC was the same way.  Many people always complained about how random groups demanded that they have one tank per mob, and that if they didn't have one tank per mob, they would all die...  Yet he, by himself, could regularly manage to hold agro on 3-5 mobs (as a Warden).  He and my friend the mana enchanter could take on spots that groups of 4 or 5 people were having problems with, using the same technique( tank for agro, PBAE for damage) that they were with 2, or 3 once I joined them with a bard to heal and add to endurance regen.

Really, there's a vast difference in both games between people who know what they're doing, and the below-average players of these games.

--
Alkiera

[HaemishM]

1. Most people don't want to pay a monthly fee.  I don't think this is particular to FPS gamers; it's true for other single-player genres as well.

I think you need to add on that most players don't want to pay a monthly fee "when they don't see anything special over single-player games."

The online part of the game doesn't really provide a whole lot for most game players. It just means they get to play with an asston of people they don't know, who are often immature little cockmonkeys or snobbish elitists. For FPS'es, MMOG's like WWIIO or Planetside have to provide a lot more than just a flimsy persistence than they currently do in order to compete with similar FPS products that don't charge a fee for online play.

Sure WWIIO can provide large-ass battles, but they don't play that much differently, nor have that many competitive advantages for the casual player over say UT2k4. Persistence is NOT an advantage for them. I only think RPG players are more prone to online games because they are used to carrying over a persistent character. But even then, there has to be more provided than just persistence and social aspects.

It's time for MMOG's to realize that persistence is just not a selling point by itself.

[Shannow]

Sure WWIIO can provide large-ass battles, but they don't play that much differently, nor have that many competitive advantages for the casual player over say UT2k4. Persistence is NOT an advantage for them.

Eh? Since when? God knows with the problems ww2ol has and have had and the fact that combat is BLOODY hard in ww2ol persistance is one of the things that DOES keep players playing.

[HaemishM]

What I said was persistence is not enough of an advantage for the casual FPS player to make them want to pay a monthly fee for WWIIOnline or Planetside. Neither game has maintained a large user base. Neither game provides the casual FPS player with anything special other than persistence.

[Sky]

You say that as if it's a bad thing. I hate trying to find a good server to play bf1942 on, or coordinate that with a friend or two. Persistance is very nice from a usability aspect, game's always there, and I'm always on the same server.

Sure, I had that in my bf1942 clan (on our clan's server), but I also paid a monthly fee (voluntarily) to help with hosting costs.

[HaemishM]

Bet your hosting fee was cheaper than PS or WWIIO's subscription fee. :)

[Shannow]

What I said was persistence is not enough of an advantage for the casual FPS player to make them want to pay a monthly fee for WWIIOnline or Planetside. Neither game has maintained a large user base. Neither game provides the casual FPS player with anything special other than persistence.

Yes but the problems with WW2OL and PS are not to do with persistance, its bad launches/crappy gameplay thats the problem.

My idea was to take a proven FPS, and integrate a series of smaller arenas into a larger persistant structure.

Hey maybe you can even keep costs down by using a modified version of an exisiting game + its a series of small arenas not one large arse server cluster...maybe.

[SirBruce]

>My idea was to take a proven FPS, and integrate a series of smaller
>arenas into a larger persistant structure.

I've often thought about, were I able to redesign WWIIOL from the ground up, that I might take this approach as well.  Use a bunch of small areans that are connected together in a network, and some sort of strategic control layer on top of that for allocating resources.  Territory is gained or lost via battles in each individual arena.

The big problem with this is that it pretty much eliminates any long-range fighter or bomber missions.

Bruce

[Shannow]

Well maybe a cpl of  solutions to this..

1. Eliminate long range/strat bombing altogether (ie ww2ol own version of catassing..:P yay allies.:P)

2. Air units start midair but somewhat 'offboard' ie they have transit time to where ground forces are. This lets them gain/lost alt if they want + not allowing air units to be instantly available at the battlefield..

3. Slightly less doable but air only maps for bomber missions with both sides starting in air, with escorts and bombers on one side and interceptors on the other.

shrug.

I think the benefit of the many arenas is that it allows for more set piece battles instaed of the rush and camp style of warfare that ww2ol can become.