f13.net

What would baby Jesus do? (http://www.f13.net/index2.php?subaction=showfull&id=1080167307&archive=&start_from=&ucat=2&)

Very valid points and food for thought, but the entire thing is skewed by one of our favorite games. UO in the "good old days".

UO WAS all end game. I mean, most of us macroed. Up to 7x GM, THEN started playing that charicter. There was no "ding" or spawn camping for exp. Yeah, people would skill at the ogre lords, or bone magi, or sit at the bone knight "Wall". I guess that could be considered camping, but it wasnt really a "Level Grind" per say.

In UO you maxed your character, then you "Played" the game, like you where talking about. You would PVP, *Gasp* Role play, run a tavern, build a town, hunt for items. I think when you take away the level grind, THEN you are left with the game.

Then came EQ, it changed all that. during my time in UO I spent a LOT of time trying to max my character to PVP. and you could clearly see a point. Max character, better at pvp. Then I took the plunge to try this new EQ game.

"Wow a first person UO, this is cool." how quickly I was proved wrong. PVP, only if you turn red but then I can group with blue friends and stuff. Ok, well lets level.
"Whats the point of camping this spawn for hours to level" I would ask some one sitting with me. "so you can level" they would say. And I would ask "Why do you need to level?" they would come back at me with "So I can fight harder monsters". Again I would ask "Why do you want to fight harder monsters?" and they would reply "So I can get more exp to level again".

This was baffeling to me. To me I wanted to level so I could get better at PVP, but they just wanted to level. To this day I dont understand it really, but they onlt answer I can come up with, is the same one you did. To these type of people, leveling *IS* the game. And thats not a game I want to play, hell, thats not a game most of us here want to play.

We want content and fun. We want excitement and PVP. To those people a great game consists of Ding, gratz. Rinse repeate.
Yeah, I know, its more than that, but when you break it down, we want fun, they want the "Joy button" as Haemish said.

I think it goes a little beyond that. I've yet to find a singleplayer game that had a tedious grind the way MMOGs do. I've always noticed that alot of players end up leaving after reaching top level. The whole level thing is kinda like a social ranking. You see a whole bunch of players who are "better" then you so you feel the need to level in order to be "better" then them.

I mentioned this in the Game Dev forum as well, but it bears repeating here (forgive the cut and paste)-



The point is to NOT make leveling the point of the game- it should happen naturally as you explore the world and find your own 'storyline' to follow. Some of the blame can be laid at the feet of the players- we (as a group) have certain expectations and tactics that we have learned from playing these games over the years, so what is the first thing we try to do in a new game? Apply the same tactics (specifically camping) to the new game, and never try to interact with it in a different way.

Developers don't get off scotfree, however. By making a steep, gradiated advancement curve, they almost force players to keep leveling in order to see all of the content. As a lowbie, I couldn't just explore the world in EQ without getting turned into a greasespot by mobs I had no hope of defeating (and even worse, would continue to have no hope for months and months at my rate of play).

Flatten the advancement curve. Instead of making it steeply vertical, broaden it. Experienced characters should have more skills to choose from, better loot, more experience (in tactics), etc. They shouldn't be exponentially more powerful than a total n00b.

As Haemish pointed out, there are players who enjoy leveling, and camping, and loot whoring. They are content to play the same damned game over and over, wrapped in a new shiny package ever year or two.

Some of us want more than that.

People always find something to keep score with, so if it's not race to level X, it will be cash earned, or kills made, or items etc etc.  Despite the potential of massive grindage, SWG has the closest thing to a levelless game since well.. UO (shocking i know).  So what do we see people doing there?  PvPing for faction shinies, doing quests for more shineys, running business and wallowing piles o cash, running player towns that can't have real government, training pet, buying vehicles etc etc.  And people are still running out of something to actually DO on a daily basis.  Sure, they may be a fairly wide scope of things to do, but they all seem so...shallow.

IMHO, what I would want to see if such a levelless game is depth.  But many of the things I would like lots of players would hate as it pushes the mmorpg away from a fun game towards more of a world state.  Fer example: geographic diversity enforced by, ick, long travel times.

Exploration of a environment thats new to you in a mmorpg setting has been one of the most enjoyable parts for me.  I fully admit that the main reason I try to get in every beta possible or free trial is simply to see NEW stuff (even though most of the games themselves leave me cold rapidly).  New lands, new monsters, new items, you name it.  That feel of "cool, something new" discovery is it's own sort of DING GRATZ bit of pavlovian reaction for me.  Problem is, it's so easy to see ALL there is to see in most games.  It used to mean something in early EQ to travel from Qeynos to Freeport b/c you had to do it by foot and the route wasn't exactly safe.  Not only that, but the journey itself was it's own type of reward as you got to see a variety of areas and mobs.  I remember  pickup groups would form as a sort of mini caravans to try and assist new players simply from point A to B.  And god, remember the boat rides.  Waiting for and travelling on the boat between continent would probably not be considered fun by most players, yet, it helped lend meaning to your characters existance in the gameworld based on what you had done (where you had gone) vs simply what level you were.

But of course, most games caved to idea of making the "game" part more fun, which means removing annoyances like travel time b/c it's simply something preventing you from getting to your "prime leveling spot".  So now it's easy to teleport all over the place.

Flip it around though; you could actually design a game in which travel restrictions play a meaningful role.  Take the caravan idea one step further and make it something players can work with.  If geographic areas have meaning, you could do thing like this mountainous region is where you can mine ore, but the swampy region has useful mineral X;  now players can decide to become merchant by simply moving resource A from the mountains to the swamps, and resource X back again.  Make the travel something you do, complete with challenges and dangers, and manipulate the game economy to make it worthwhile for people to want to do.  You want to earn some cash, experience, and see the signs of the world, sign on a a caravan guard; it's like the navy.

Dang, this got long.  One other short point; it should not be possible to know the entire gameworld (be it areas, items, mobs, etc) ever.  More later maybe.

Xilren

I've heard this a lot and I honestly want to know, is there an RPG game released MMOG or standard single player RPG that doesn't have levels in one form or another?

It's actually quite easy to imagine such a game:  simply make death a one-shot thing, like with guns RL; whoever attacks first, wins.

What would I do in such a game?

1.  Explore the world.

2.  Roleplay, perhaps join a faction and thus get a role with them.

3a.  Cancel sub when I get bored, or
3b.  Keep sub active so I can blow off RL steam with quick shoot-em-up sessions whenever I feel like.

Note, however, that "live happily ever after" is NOT fun.  What makes DnD fun at all levels is that at the end of an adventure, another begins.

Your no-levels game above absolutely depends on the ability of the devs to make me repeat steps 1 or 2, by presenting new areas or having an extremely active political/faction system.

I would be extremely interested in a MMO game structured this way:

1.  Hundreds of different areas, none connected to each other.

2.  Monthly subscription gives you 1 account with 1 char slot.

3.  Every month you're invited to play in one area, with another 20 or so players.  Log on, see what class the other players there need, create it, and play the adventure or specific quest in that area, for the month.  Generally it can be level-less, or if for example the adventure is for level 14 chars, you can be granted level 14 but no XP for the duration.

4.  At the end of the month, or when the quest ends, you lose access to the zone, your character gets wiped, and you get invited to another adventure/zone.

.....

I guess kinda like a MMO grouping of NWN modules.

It was still an advancement scheme. If you weren't "skilling up", what would you do? Would you still go tame animals? Would you still mine and make products? Or were those only done because the skills were available and had an advancement scheme tacked on?

I was fortunate enough in high school to hook up with a D&D group that ran campaigns and not modules.  Every adventure was tailored to the characters and we never did stuff just to level (unless your character died, and then you got a few solo adventures with a new character to get a couple levels on him).  Even though the adventures had plenty of combat, there was still politics, intrigue, and plots against fellow players.  To boot, this group wasn't even a hardcore roleplaying group, just one that had outgrown hack and slash.

Then while in college in the early 90s, before graphical browsers and before the general public got access to the internet, a friend introduced me to MUDs.  At first I was very excited about the idea.  He gave me a list of them and I settled on one that seemed good.

Soon I found myself doing the same quests and killing the same monsters over and over.  I thought, WTF am I doing here?  This is mindless BS!  So I quit, not much after level 10.

I tried my hand at a few more and it was the same every time.  On one that was supposedly a roleplaying server, I went into hardocre RP mode and just played my character and didn't attempt to level at all.  I figured an admin might notice me and give me some more power because I was playing the game the way I thought they wanted it to be played, but no dice.

Finally I quit MUDs altogether and it wasn't until UO that I was drawn back in.  I don't think I would have lasted long there either, if a certain PK hadn't become my nemesis.  I hated PKs at first.  I wanted to grow more powerful and get my revenge.

AHHHHH!  A PURPOSE!  A PURPOSE TO THIS LEVELING!

And that was that.  Then I stuck around, built up my character, got into some roleplaying, pvp, etc.  I saw the beauty that was the UO sandbox, where ANYTHING you wanted to do was possible.

Siege Perilous was the next step in UO evolution.  While I hated the RoT system at first, I finally saw the value in it.  You could powergame it to a certain extent, but mainly you just PLAYED and gained skill.  Everyone just jumed right into the game and did what they wanted to do.  The RoT system did need to be tweaked a bit, but the idea was sound.

The only problem with RoT is that people joining after the initial crop of players got going had a harder time because their advancement was restrained by time while the vet Siege players had maxed out characters.

Long ago, I envisioned a game with no advancement.  Everyone was a hero of some sort.  You'd just tailor your character at creation, and allow for some tweaking afterward and then get started.  You'd need other, non-transferrable mechanisms to keep the player tied to the character.  Perhaps land, titles, etc.

Any game that is based on leveling is no game for me.  Eventually you become level 50 and are still killing rats, only they have different stats and skins.

One thing I forgot to add is that a game without advancement would need some kind of resource that would be a point of conflict.  In UO, we had gold.  On AC Darktide it was leveling areas.

Conflicts over resources lead to guild conflicts and politics.  Of course, the AC example wouldn't be applicable.

Also, every game should have players mainly using player made equipment, full loot drops, and item decay.  This keeps the tradesmen thriving.

I think this is a fairly fundamental misunderstanding, Haemish, and I think your friend is more right than you are.

Exploring an MMORPG is not (necessarily) about running around in a computer or handcrafted terrains looking at things. Just going around looking at things, or even solving static quests you can look up on web pages isn’t a challenge. To me, a game should be a challenge – some silly goal that isn’t obvious how to reach. When leveling, you are exploring in a way the game mechanics of the combat, and as you level the task gradually becomes more complex. On level 1 you have perhaps a very basic sword and only the ability to swing it. This matches well with your (supposedly) complete ignorance about the game. At level 100 (or whatever), you have received a ton of powers that must be balanced, and must perhaps work well with a group to be able to survive an encounter. It may not feel harder at level 70 than at level 10, since you have the experience of 60 levels more at level 70, though. If players were thrown right into level 100 in the beginning of the game, most people would find it very, very hard to play.

A more productive way of looking at levels and leveling would be to say that the game, at level 1, threw you a puzzle: “Use this power you’ve got called ‘swinging sword’ to kill the bunny.” It's not a very hard puzzle, and you most likely solve it. Then the game says, ok, so you master this, what if I make it slightly harder but give you another degree of freedom? Then you have to master this degree of freedom as well. As the degrees of freedom increase, optimizing over the set increase in difficulty. It is this continuous increase in the degrees of freedom you have to optimize over that makes it fun to level.

In this context, the endgame is just where you have used up all the puzzles created by the designers, and they hope that by pitting players against players or somesuch the situation will be dynamic enough (in a rock-paper-scissors way) to keep people amused. It works in RTSes and FPSes so there is no reason it can't here?

Dave Rickey is onto this in his Skotos column about "Real Intelligence vs. Artificial Stupidity" ("http://www.skotos.net/articles/engines07.shtml"). (He arrives at this after a page of discussing AI, for some reason.) He seems to think that MMOs aren't necessarily good puzzle games, and I agree that where the "treadmill" feeling emerge this may be true. In general I think that the problem is more that the puzzle in mastering the combat system of your first MMORPG is too similar to your later MMORPGs, thus making the puzzle too easy and fostering the feeling that you must kill this monster so many times to get on with it.

I think it was Raph that somewhere asked if the MMO burnout syndrome would cause people to stay in the MMO market only a few years before moving on. I think this will only be a problem if the puzzles of the games are too similar. As such, I think SWG was a very good contribution to MMOs - the economic game was something entirely different and entertained me for months. (Thanks, by the way.) I’m now into Shadowbane, where I hope the dynamic of the PvP situation will provide the extra spice. We’ll see.

- Mr. Average

What needs to be done is an extension of the rule "Lore must be supported by code to be meaningful to the player".  Instead of advancing your character's goals by leveling, developers need to create a game where players advance thier character's goals by advancing a storyline, as is the case in a good PnP campaign.  Character power should hinge on the state of the world, not the state of the character.  In that case, you can go directly to the endgame(s).

This isn't really the best thought out idea, but my feelings at this moment, are that slicing the character's HPs would be a goodl place to start.

The fact that a level one character can be killed by a head cold, while a level xx seems to have as much health as an M1A1 seems to be one of the core items that makes level based games suck much ass.

I'm sure that other things need changing, but to me that seems like a key place to start.

Treadmills are a lot like slot machines.  Pulling a lever really isn't fun.  If you do the math you know that you aren't going to really win anything if you keep playing the slot machine.  However, when you pull the level you are rewarded with soothing sounds from the machine and a chance of winning something big  (i.e. in MMORPG terms camping for a rare  item).  So people spend hours and hours and tons of money pulling that lever and are frequently rewarded with meaningless rewards (i.e. they win back half the money they've lost).

If you want to understand why slot machines and treadmills are successful game design then you need to read up on behavioral psychology, particularly classic and operant conditioning techniques.

When your making a subscription based game, the goal is not to make a fun game. The goal is to make a game that people will continue to play for years so that you can extract the subscription fees from their pockets.  

If you eliminate the treadmill then people will simply explore all the content ,will feel that they've essentially beat the game, and quit the game during the free month.  

The problem with end game in MMORPGs is that eventually the players realize how boring it is to keep pulling the lever over and over and they go on to something else.

If the content can be explored in a month.

Treadmills are easy money for the devs.  Getting rid of them and developing a game with enough content to actually satisfy the powergamers is a lot more work, for the same buck.

Fortunately, one MMOG addiction seems to be sufficient to immunize most people against more of the same.  So hopefully eventually the playerbase for treadmills will reach 0.

That isn't asking the right question.

The question is, is there ANY single player RPG where the player spends the vast majority of their time doing nothing BUT levelling? (Maybe Dragon Warrior 2 for Nintendo...)

Having levels isn't the problem. The problem is I've been in the same area for 8 hours, I've done all there is to do there, I've solved all the puzzles and mastered all the challenges, but I have to stay there another 8 hours to become powerful enough to move on. (Or have enough money to move on, etc)
---
Then again, a long single player RPG is 80-100 hours. MMORPGs are supposed to be in the thousands. You just CAN'T make thousands of hours of content. Instead you have to rely on players interacting with each other, players competing (directly or indirectly), players creating content (which never works, sorry), levelling, etc.

How do you write a series like the Wheel of Time that is what, 10 books or so? Answer: lots of filler.

How do you make a game that is supposed to last for thousands of hours but requires almost zero skill? Answer: lots of filler.

Steep levelling is just an easy filler mechanism.

If you look at other games that have long lives, they typically have a very fun core gameplay and/or competitive/challenge element. MMORPGS have neither.

The single player games people typically keep coming back to are games that are fundamentally enjoyable to play. Once you see static content once it's done, but you can always go back to fun gameplay. Most MMORPGs are a pain in the ass to play.

www.darkfallonline.com

DF has full pvp, skill gain like UO so no levelling, as well as siege system like SB.

PvP system is meant to be skilful, like an FPS, you have to aim your spells etc like in AC.  Open beta hasnt started yet but a new website is coming on Monday hopefully with new info on beta.

I only play MMORPGs for pvp and really there is so much potential there, there have been only a few games that have even got it partially right, the 'failure' of previous games with pvp content has led people to think pvp cant work in a MMORPG but when you think about the number of people playing FPS and RTS online against other people you wonder why game companies insist on churning out EQ clone MMORPGs with little or no pvp or dedicated pvp servers with little or no thought put into the pvp system.  Playing against people is so much more fun than fighting AI.  Well for a lot of people anyway.

If the karate kid didn't have to paint fences and do the other crap that miagi (sp, whatever) had him do, if he just suddenly said, 'whoa, i know kung fu', what kind of story does that make?  Does anyone watch that story?  The part you aren't getting is that these games are built upon a genre where the lowly student strives and struggles to eventually become the master.  If this core concept doesn't seem fun to you, you are probably in the wrong genre.

I'm not saying that the current method of leveling is fun, but I AM saying that humans understand at a gut level that anything worthwhile requires an expenditure of effort.  Also, I'm saying that you don't get it because you're refusing to be immersed in whatever game you are playing.  You are burnt out on the drama and grandeur these worlds are supposed to provide.  Your friend isn't.

Bzzzz. Wrong answer.  The core concept of these games is supposed to be PnP based rpg's.  Any guess what?  They are FUN at any level b/c it's not about simply training by going "wax on, wax off" for 70 hours, it's about having fun WHILE training.  Having adventures is the goal, the fact that your character learns and grows while having said adventure is a byproduct, not the focus.  Current MMORPG's reverse this which is what most here are complaining about.



That;s fine if i actually wanted to learning something in real life; when im trying to blow off steam after work, sorry, not interested unless the effort itself is fun.   BTW, drama and grandeur in a "ding gratz" world?  What the heck game are you playing b/c I've seem most of em and that describes none of them beyond 2 weeks.  There is no drama in whack a mole to leetness.  Perhaps you meant the drama of a naked corpse run? :-p

Xilren

I understand and appreciate the sentiment in your post, but the real issue is that most MMOG players are accustomed to having narrative, quests, and a semi-linear plot thrust upon them. Let's face it, most of the mouth-breathers come almost exclusively from a single-player RPG background....and as the genre ages, it will only become moreso. The PnP experience gets lauded frequently on message boards, but it often has about as much validity as the 'I've been playing since they started typing the design docs beeyotch' type of bravado.

In addition, as any NWN player can tell you, most DMs suck ass at running a campaign....the quality storyteller who knows how to balance action, roleplay, challenge, and a compelling story is rare indeed. So even a big chunk of PnP experience for some folks ends up as little more than 'let's roll the funny-looking dice and change the numbers on our character sheets'. As a result, most players shrug their shoulders when they are asked 'what do YOU want to do?'.....they are just not prepared for a game where the story doesn't come to them.

The levelling grind is a natural result....what else is there to do but make the numbers higher? Most players don't understand the concept of portraying their character, let alone just living as that character would live and letting stories unfurl before them. So, they go out and look for the fastest way to make the numbers go up....first levels or skills, then item properties, then their bank balances.

In a way, I liken it to the difference between being a reader and a writer. Most of these folks are used to being readers, so when they get a book full of blank pages, many can think of nothng better to do than fill the pages for the sake of filling pages, so they can get a book with a different colored cover....because having that means status in the community, and a means to differentiate themselves from others.

Players haven't got lofty goals to achieve, because if it's too hard, some people just get frustrated and quit....they prefer goals where success is inevitable, and merely a question of persistence.

It's as much as issue with the players as it is with the devs....the focus is on giving them something to read, instead of giving them something worth writing about, so to speak.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

Another problem is that we are playing these games on computers and computers do one thing really, really well: crunch numbers. The timeless games do not involve number crunching in a pure sense. Checkers, chess, poker, backgammon, etc. certainly require probability knowledge to become good, but not to just play.  It only makes sense that a computer game is going to involve numbers because that is what a computer does best.  Hiding the numbers only makes playes frustrated because the players know the numbers are there even if they cannot see them.  Counting is one of the most basic skills we learn as kids. We are trained to see a number and immediately think of the numbers above and below it.

A computer game without numbers will not be fun, unless that game is a computer replica of a real game that is fun like the standards cited above. Putting backgammon on the computer doesn't change that game at all. It just changes your choices of opponents.

A Tale in the Desert is a special animal. I haven't played it so I cannot attest to how numbers do or do not affect gameplay. It is impossible to know whether the game or the lack of distribution explains the small player base.

The solution to MMORPGs is content. So much content that it's impossible to explore it all.  However, how do you produce that content economically?

Outsource it to India!

No seriously.

Instead of trying to sell people on just a single MMORPG, think about selling them a network of games.  Use cable TV as your model.   You have a common portal that offers basic chat, message boards, guild tools, etc.   From there you can launch into say a typical MMORPG where you make friends and play the treadmill.

When you get bored with the treadmill, you go back to the portal and play another game with tie-ins to the MMORPG. For example, you could have every casino game available where you play with virtual money that your character in the MMORPG gained.  You can have real crafting games that aren't limited by the clunky interface in your MMORPG.   You can have no level pvp games where you fight and win titles, money, xp, etc. for your character in your MMORPG.  You can have classic single player style rpgs where you play by yourself where your starting character is based off of the character in your MMORPG and your MMORPG character gains stuff when you finish the game.  

The goal of all these games with Tie-ins, is to actually give people stuff that is fun to do so that they don't just burn out on your MMORPG.  You sell them on a gaming community rather than on any single game.  You fund it based on subscriptions and in game advertising just like cable companies do.   You can have premium games as well where you pay more to play them.  You don't even have to limit yourself to games. You can add in movies where you watch them with your guild mates. Etc. Etc.

A small group of developers isn't going to be able to pull something like this off. However, a sony or a microsoft ought to be able to get it done.

Just like PvE'ers overgeneralize PvPers as d00dz you are over generalizing PvEers as pavlovian dogs.  Those are the cliche stereotypes.

I don't think many people fall fully into either category.  I generally like the levels in EQ, but they are just too slow at the end.  When my tiny guild gets together on their once a week foray into eq we never take exp gain into consideration unless someone is really close to a level.  And when you play once a week at high level, full moons are more common than levels.  We just decide what would be FUN.  We did veksar because we had never been there and wanted to see it one day.  Last week we did a part of the beastlord epic that was a good challenge and quite fun for one group.

When leveling I did fall into some ruts where I gamed to level, but those were the exceptions and not the rule.  I spent a few boring levels at the aviak village, I spent some boring levels camped out in cazic thule.  Most of the time we went to the place that was the most FUN for our level range in our guild.

If the game didn't have levels, frankly we would have tired of it sooner.  We would have seen all the zones early on and then been pretty bored.  With levels the role your character plays also changes over time.  That can be good or bad.  Clerics go from a tank that can heal and hit a little to a bandage.  But enchanters, necros, rangers, paladins, etc... all grow substantially in their abilities over time.  Not just bigger numbers, but new emergent styles of play.

Should they all be given right up front instead?  That is a valid argument.  I don't really know if I agree with that.  I find my most fun in MMOGs to be the early phases where you see the powergamers with things you don't yet have but want to get.  It is like the christmass toy catalog.  As you play the game (and I do mean PLAY, not grind) you get the toys.  But once you get them you inevitably realize they are not as fun as they looked.  Not as fun as you imagined.  If they gave them all to me right away they would not be that fun.

I realize that IS your argument.  That the games are not that fun and that levels are a way of disguising that problem.  But I do have fun during the early phases nontheless.  And it keeps me interested longer than most games.

My list of single player games I was done with never to play again after the first week is probably up to 20+ right now.  I don't see those as superior to mmogs really.  Just different.  One is intense fun that burns itself out, the other is more metered cautious fun that lasts for a few months.  My wallet actually prefers the latter.

Good replies, everyone. I have a very specific conclusion to the question in my mind, and wanted to see if other people had the same idea, would come to the same conclusion or if I'm just an army of one.

Keep 'em coming. I plan on writing a follow-up story to this, and probably quoting some of you in the article before offering my own conclusion.

But even without DM's, we can still do better that static worlds that never change. Camping is only possible b/c the camp is always there, no matter how long you kill the mobs over and over.  And SWG's points of interest are far to simplistic and generic to hold much meaning (not to mention too prevelant).  Leveling for level's sake becomes the focus when there nothing your character can ever do that everyone else can't also do; how interesting is a story that everyone has already read?  A story is noteable for having a begining middle and end for one thing; these game only have middles.

Let me give you an example and see if you think this would be helpful or harmful.  Take original EQ.  What if, each of the original zones (other than cities and connecting lands) had a definate starting and ending states, and once you had done them, you were finished with that zone.  So, you could "do" crushbone, but once you have defeated emperor crush and abassador Divin(?), thats it.  No more Crushbone for you.  Not only that, but that zone would be designed for a level range, say 5-10 so that by the time you were done you would be level 10 assuming you did all the main part of that area's plotlines (freeing the prisoners, killing the religious leaders, taking out the emperor and his generals, finding the dark elf link and killing their ambassador, find evidence of a traitor).  And each of those plotline may results in a pointer to another zone to follow overall arching storylines.  Do the same, for Befallen, Guk, Kedge Keep, etc etc.  That would make each of theose zone much more like a mini dnd module with no DM required.  (Obviously, this would require some form of instancing and ability to track progress by character/group).  If you give each level range multiple choices of adventure zones to choose from, you would actually end up with characters who had actual different experiences playing in the game world.  Would some still choose zones purely based on the perceived "best" place to go; sure and that's ok.  But it gives more meaning to those who want it.

How many people would preferred that approach from the beginning? Since the LDoN expansion brings some of this to the table I do think some people at SOE see the desire.  This wholly artificial approach does limit content reusability, but I think even thats overcomable in certain ways.  You could reuse a geographic area to have different version of the same place, i.e. once the orce get cleared out of crushbone, perhaps the dark elves and their troll allies take up residence with their own plotlines...

One other way to look at it, of all the variety of custom designed zone that eq has now, how many players would you say have visited over even 50% of the available zones?

Xilren (man i should be working)

Would be cool, except there would be two problems:

1.  Crushbone would have to be much bigger than it is to sustain levelling from 5 to 10 in such a way that the player doesn't grind inside the zone, and actually "does" the zone.  It still comes back down to content, and the fact that players consume it faster than the devs can make it.

2.  What if you fail/die at some point within the zone?  Do you get expelled, or do you get the chance to retry?  And are repeated retries = grinding?

Somewhat on a tangent, but related to this "No more Crushbone for you" idea... I was wondering a while back if it would be possible to implement a "roving content" MMOG:  Players are at the forefront of the NPC mass; they go forth from the city and hunt in the wilderness.  After a while the wilderness is depleted of high level monsters and only newbie monsters spawn, so players have to go further and further out.  After a while more, the NPC city moves itself to where the wilderness was, and players lose access to the area the city left.  Rinse and repeat.  

Applied to EQ, eventually the NPC "frontier" would move out of the original lands into Kunark, then Velious, etc.   A newbie that buys the game during the Velious era would start in a Velious city and never see the old crap that no one visits anymore.  Velious mobs would gradually lower in level / get hunted out till the entire Velious continent is a newbie area, then the NPC civilization moves in, builds major metropolises, and blocks access.

Like the Wild West.

It wouldn't be levelling for the sake of levelling anymore, as you can just be ahead of the crowd and fight the tough mobs if you're high level (till they're extinct), or stay somewhere in the middle and only visit areas after they've been delevelled / hunted out to the point where the mobs, while new/never-seen-before-by-you, are of your level.

I like this idea. especially the idea that each character may have a different experience. You could mix and match this with some class or race specific drops in some of the zones (you would have to balance it so there was something there for several classes, to get groups to want to play together there), to help encourage the diversity.

I think EQ COULD be played like this now...if one could find a group to do it. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the player base (at least when I played) was all about leveling as fast as possible, so every character followed the same pathway (level to teens, hit Oasis until 18 or so, then head to LOIO...). There are so many zones that are completely empty in EQ that it is just sad. Perhaps taking the numbers away from the players would help encourage diversity? If some pointy-headed jackass didn't have the numbers to plug into a spreadsheet and pinpoint the optimum advancement path (which would be published on the 'net for all the catasses to enjoy), then people might be more encouraged to go have adventures in the other zones, instead of grinding for the next DING.

Community? Friends? Guildmates?

   Treadmills, in one form or another, are probably always going to be part of mmogs.  That doesn't mean they can't be more fun, less mind numbing, and that other things can't be included.  Personally, I see the future of mmogs incorporating multiple treadmills, not none.  Short term, medium term, long term, and really long term treadmills.  What if, for example, getting one character up to full PvP power was a short term goal (treadmill), engaging in PvP was done in the context of expanding the political power of your group, tribe, whatever, as a medium term treadmill, etc etc.   That way, there woudn't be a rut.  There would be multiple tracks, any of which could be played or worked on at any given time.  No one would be forced to work on all of them, allowing guilds to offload certain aspects (PvP, crafting, gold farming, etc) to those who really enjoy that part.  
    That would be fun for me.

Snowspinner edits his post and makes mine irrelevant.  I guess we don't need that priest to exercise the Sloth demon out of him.

Yeah, I posted it, then the better answer occurred to me, and I decided to wait and see where Haemish was going before disagreeing.

Here is the MMOG problem domain as I see it. There is an expectation from prior experience that RPG’s are in one war or another about ‘gaining power’ and then ‘beating something’ – let’s say the end boss. From here people assume that the MMORPG’s will be fundamentally the same, except with lots of people. However, as has been very will demonstrated by the current products player competition in any way is not compatible with ‘advancement’ mechanisms that artificially segregate the player base. As a result concepts have evolved as standard expectation which don’t necessarily make any sort of sense. ‘The grind’. ‘End game’. ‘Gated content’.

I suppose these sorts of things are easy simply because it sort of fits expectation. What everyone seems to forget is that in most single player RPG experiences, the levels tend to happen as an ancillary to the fun. But because to the nature of the MMOG beast, the player cant be the central focus protagonist, and as a result the game focuses on the process, instead of the story (or fun, or whatever).

In most competitive arenas, fun happens when two statistically similar opponents meet on the field of competition and use knowledge, strategy, or their own skill to determine the outcome. MMOG advancement schemas render this completely impossible to achieve. In short the outcome of any contest is pre-determined not by skill, rather by time played.

So. How do we overcome this (if overcoming this is a valid goal)? By realizing that expectations derived from single player RPG experiences are not applicable. Therefore, instead of a plotline that everyone is expected to participate, instead of everyman as protagonist, instead of gating content by ‘level’, instead of ‘rock, paper, scissors’ you create an environment where every player is essentially on the same playing field and enable a wide array of strategies and specializations to enable differentiation. Control of resources to field larger NPC armies. Meta level AI that alters NPC faction state based on the meta behavior of a player race. Fame levels. Trophies. Granted powers based on behavior and or Factional Affiliation. Weapon, magic or style specializations that open up new combat strategies. Finally, an ‘endgame’ that is defined by meta interactions of the player base with the game itself, and each other, as opposed to pre-scripted content that is level gated and available only to those who happen on the event but (most importantly) has no real ‘end state’ unless defined as such by the players.

After all, the business goal is to extend and enhance the group of subscribers as much as possible. So why not extend this with fun and competition as opposed to the ‘grind’? In short, once more making the game about the fun instead of the mechanisms.

A big problem with trying to make MMO PvP game without levels is simply the scale.  If you look at classic games or sports the teams are set as the same size and are relatively small.  You cannot do that in a MMOG because it stops being "massive".  PvP in MMOG becomes the business equivalent of Microsoft vs. every other software producer or the military equivalent of the U.S. vs. Iraq.  

Even if all players are equal,  zerg guilds will form where they put it to everyone else.  It's not fun for members of the zerg guild, because there's no challenge and it's certainly not fun for people not in the zerg guilds.  

PvP can really only serve as a mini-game of a MMOG in which you have to artificially limit the number of players per team and you have to auto-balance the teams based on player skill.  Players have absolutely no sense of fair play, so developers have to force them to play nice.

Levelling in PnP games was originally a quantification of the character growth and "inner journey" a typical protagonist does in a typical epical fantasy novel.

From bakers aprentice to world saving arch wizard etc. As such it is fine.

At first step, a kobold is a threat (never a bunny or a sheep though...). At the end the hero can wipe out hordes of kobolds without a second thought and is ready to tackle the evil dragon single handedly. World saved, everyone happy.

In (good) PnP games the levelling was never the journey though. Levelling was a side effect of the journey. And that is how it should be.

But there actually IS joy in watching your character grow and develop. There is. It feels good to advance, to grow mightier. But at least as important is that it changes fundamental aspects of the game. The game is kept fresh by getting new powers and adjusting your playstyle/tactics. You tackles new challenges in new and different ways.

I'm certainly no fan of the level grind, but don't forget this last aspect in your levelless game.

The main thing I want in any game is to have fun and to feel like I have accomplished something.

In mmrpg in general I am wanting to have some objective some goal to work towards. These can be many different things but levels and equipment are some of the more common ones.

SWG is a very flat powercurve game and frankly that has put off alot of people. After a certain point you really start having to work to make goals for yourself because the game quickly runs out of offering them to you.

I do not find pvp in games like this to be very interesting because it is more often than not just a test to see who knows the leet combo and exploits best.

If I am getting into a game that has limited growth and is mainly player vs player oriented I would look for something like planetside. At least there death means little and it is fast paced. In a mmrpg that kind of meaningless cycle of death gets drawn out far past any ammusement.

I dont level for the sake of seeing bigger level numbers. I level to do more things, to have more content opened to me, more power than I had before, new play style options. Levels are a way of pacing the game and the introduction of more and more advanced play styles to your player population. Sure you can macro the shit out of a game and play it like progress quest and even in a flat progress game like swg many do but that is a playstyle choice they make.


If when I get a game I can do anything, go anywhere be as powerful as I will ever be that game likely will not hold my attention. Even in eq I often make low level alts not so much because I crave the ding but that I like to make new character I think up and watch them mature and grow.

With no growth there is stagnation and eventually boredom. This however can be done without levels UO was a pretty good example of a game having lots of alternet methods of accomplishment to keep people interested. In general though levels are a fair way to introduce content to players over a period of time.

When you really look at it the though of making enough for somebody to do to enjoy your game for 5 or more YEARS is a daunting scary thought that must cross every mmrpg devs mind. Most single player games these days that people talk about being so good give what 20 to 50 HOURS of game play?

Eventually as the genera matures I expect somebody will have an ah HA! moment and things really will take the next jump forward past leveling.  But until that happens I fully expect most games will use levels as the chosen method of game pacing.

Kaid

^^ What kaid said.  Basically summed up what I was trying to say abit better.

Stop showing character advancement as levels.  Make it more complicated than that, such as a matrix of various skill advancements, reputation, karma, whatever.  Make it so that content is unlocked for advancement in each component of the advancement matrix in some byzantine convoluted manner so as to confuse and confound the number cruncher players.  Hide the numbers. Keep the time-based advancement if you must, I don't care.

Just don't fucking make me level up a character ever again in a MMOG.

I have a question about that.

What exactly do you feel you have "accomplished" when you play a game?

In movies they call it suspension of disbelief.  Same principle applies here.  For a player who has a marvelous talent for suspension of disbelief, he feels he 'accomplished' character growth.  He (through his in-game avatar) got alittle bit more powerful, a little closer to being the dragon slayer at the end of the story.

For players who wonder 'what grandeur' because all they see is a screen filled with pixels and numbers to crunch - you have an incredible talent for no suspension of disbelief.  Stop playing video games immediately and contact the IRS, you'd make a very good tax auditor.

For games with an insurmountable barrier to disbelief (aka, 'teh suq') or for gamers with no buy-in to the game world, there is no accomplishment.  Given your previous quote, I'm guessing you get this, but you're looking for other's opinions on the topic.

I see little self analysis in these posts.  Yeah, a bunch of games that have come out aren't good.  But neither was EQ, or UO, when they launched, yet we still played them, and for awhile (sometimes very long whiles), we liked them.  Could it be that you're older now, not as willing to suspend disbelief and yet not willing to move on?  We pick over the bones of these games, we arm-chair develop, but when is the last time any of us stopped to think whether we're different?

Dunno that I feel I have 'accomplished' anything, except maybe managing to waste some time in an enjoyable way.  Do I have to 'accomplish' something to have fun, to be entertained, to be social in a fun and limited way with others who want the same?

I have played 5 MMOG's: UO, AC, EQ, SB, and DAOC. Only one of those games did anything for me. That game was UO. The reason this is so true is because I never once joined a game when it first came out. I wouldn't start playing it until 2 or 3 years later. What I am getting to is that the way the level system works kills the "late bloomers" chances of playing the game. Not only the level system, but the expansions. Everyone loves new content, but I don't think the addition of thousands of new lands every couple of months is an order. I wasn't able to level in any of these games because no one was in my newbie level zones. It is impossible to solo in some of these games. I didn't start UO until 2000 and I was able to 7 gm in it. You didn't have to fight rats now, go to the oasis at this level, then to some other land. You could fight tons of different things and you could get to different places without having to die millions of times (Being able to outrun stuff is important too). I could always find people in UO.  Basically, the level system works if you keep up with most people, if not, then well a new game will come out where you can try to keep with the best of them... again.

I have to admit as a PnP player, I don't really roleplay all that much.  I have a general idea of who my character is, and I decide my actions with that in mind, but I never played with too many people who REALLY stayed in character throughout the whole session.  That being said, I think there were two things about PnP games that everyone I played with enjoyed.  The character building, which often involved hours upon hours of looking through every supplement at every spell, ability, or piece of equipment and weighing them against each other was one thing.  Most major RPG's put out so many supplements with so many optional abilities, that you could customize your character hundreds of ways at creation, and have hundreds more ways to customize them as you leveled.

The other thing we all found fun was trying to come up with some clever way to get out of each situation.  Oh sure, we all did our fair share of hack and slash, but we were always trying to come up with overly elaborate ways to vanquish our foes.  We'd bluff our way past people, lure enemies into an ambush, dress up in defeated enemies uniforms, use dead bodies as human shields, and that sort of thing.  Levels were important, but smart players could usually come up with ways to defeat enemies that completely outpowered them.

The problem with MMORPG's is that they haven't advanced far enough to allow that sort of thing.  Even the games with the most character customization don't come anywhere close to D&D 3.5 with the various supplements available, or Shadowrun (which I'd love to see an MMORPG of if done right).  And no MMOPRG right now can ever give you the sheer amount of gameplay choices a PnP RPG gives you.  You want to get past that guard?  Pull him to the group and kill him.  No xp for sneaking around him and avoiding an encounter.  No xp for charming him and sending him off somewhere else.  Can't cast invisible on the thief who then moves silently over and slits the guards throat for a one hit kill.  Can't even roll a flaming barrel down the hallway at him while throwing flasks of oil in his direction.  You don't get any of the good plots and characters you'd get out of a novel or a single-player RPG eitlher.  So all your left with is the socializing (if the game and server you are on has a good communtiy) and the leveling.  

I think these games need to start making people think rather than allowed them to hit a couple buttons while looking back and forth from the TV to the monitor for hours.  Now that instancing is become standard, maybe they can make instanced dungeons and missions randomly generated as well to keep people from relying on walkthroughs, maps and strategy guides.  Make situations that are impossible to just pull and kill your way through, because maybe you don't know what's on the other side of that doorway that's going to hear you fighting outside.  Make a game where you can progress as much by avoiding some fights as you can by killing everything in the dungeon.

And let me just throw in one pet peeve of mine in here.  If you're going to put quests in a game make them fucking interesting!  There was a point when I was playing FFXI when I got that stupid hat advertising quest in Windurst and I'm thinking to myself "I don't recall ever reading a fantasy novel where the one of the main characters spends a chapter advertising hats for a hat store.  I wonder if that's because the authors all realized that taking a hat around town and showing it to everyone isn't in any way adventerous or exciting".   I don't want to escape from rl in a game for a while to play a character who is a shill for the hat shop, or who goes around collecting fucking stamps for 100g.

To restate the obvious, role-play largely involves playing a role in an interactive and ongoing story line.

Since you can't impact the story of any current MMOLGs in a meaningful way, you can't really role-play in a MMOLG. At best you can read or act out parts of a predetermined story where your input has little if any matter to the rest of the people playing the same MASSIVELY MULTI PLAYER game. Role-play in MMOLGs isn't common because it isn't really possible.

Instancing is taking MMOLGs in the wrong direction. Sure, it sounds like a good idea since instancing can allow players to do things that current MMOLGs don't... like deforestation... but it's only a matter of time before players realize that instancing hasn't solved any problems and they may as well be playing a single player game.

Explain to me how being able to completely escape player interaction is good for a massively multi player game. Why does it need to be massively multi player if all I'm doing is soloing in an instanced area?

Open PvP in a MMOLG is a welcome step toward the MMOLG holy grail of reintroduing role-play as an activity. What better way is there to impact other players than to kill their characters? Emotions bubble over, words are exchanged before, during and after, and events unfold because of what players are doing.

If you don't kill people in a FPS then what is there to do? PvP isn't a stand alone solution to the MMOLG role-play delimma. There needs to be meaningful interaction beyond kill kill kill. Open PvP is great for introducing player interaction but if you don't give players something else or something that is as fun to do as kill others then it's all they will do... and that's not a good basis for a functional society that needs to support a variety of roles rather than focus on only hero and murderer.

Ideally players would be strongly encouraged to play the roles of the inhabitants and follow general lore guidelines. If your an Elf then you need to play the role of an Elf by helping your bretheren and killing any Ork that crosses your path. The trick is in getting players to play the roles of the world's inhabitants without allowing your world to seem either chaotic from random killing or artificial due to too many unreasonable coded restrictions.

I personally believe that it all comes down to player accountability. I believe that players can be guided into role-play without the need for coded restrictions if the game can hold players accountable for their actions. Along with accountability, players also need the ability to punish other players. Real life punishment of permanent death and imprisonment doesn't exist in MMOLGs. You can't have a functional society without a means to enforce decency.

FPS games use vote-kicking to enforce accountability with a high degree of success. Maybe MMOLGs could use something similar in the form of player ran towns and player maintained KOS lists. Being a jerk can get you banned from controlled towns which would make your life tougher just like being a jerk in a FPS can get you banned from a player ran server.

So to bring role-play into MMOLGs we need more freedom and accountability. We also need to accept that the story isn't about us and our impact on the world so much as the groups of players that define our world. Maybe then being involved in virtual politics and working for a virtual cause would be more fun than grinding. Who cares what level you are, are you with me or against me? Can you spare some of your time to help my cause? Will you share in my organizatin's victories as well as our defeat? Good, this is what I need from you...

UO and Lineage were on to something. EQ has distracted us by forcing us to focus on game mechanics rather than playing. Thank god I don't care more about what weapon I get or what my honor is in America's Army than fragging my opponents, completing a mission and avoiding friendly fire. Maybe someone will make a MMOLG that is fun to play.

On the accomplishment question, that does not drive me at all.  When I play single player games, I feel no impetus to actually finish the game. I play them until they get boring or repetitive. This has been the same for MMOGs with the large caveat that I will tolerate repetitive play much longer to play with people I like.  

EQ has a strong social pull and enough content to soften the reptitive gameplay. For me, the only accomplishment was keeping up with friends. I played less than most of them, so I was always shooting for the most efficient exp to narrow the gap. I had no time (or inclination, frankly) to tradeskill.  When I quit EQ the first time, it was because in game friends had scattered to the four winds and I fell behind in levels during the summer when I chose to not play for 15-20 hours on the weekends.

UO interest was driven by the novelty and playing with my brothers in LA while I was in NY. When they stopped playing, I stopped playing. When they restarted, I restarted. I macroed occasianally, hitting 3XGM once. The game was lots of fun at all stages, but playing it wasn't about accomplishing anything.

I'd agree with this.  I even think that most players start their expeirence in a new game wanting to buy-in to the world, but all to often that wears off rapidly (hence my 2 week comment).  Why?  Well primarily b/c the very mechanics of the game itself actively undermine the immersion you are trying to achieve.



Oh, there's no question we as players are different; hell just by virture that we even come to websites like this and hold these discussions puts us in a very differnt gamer-life-stage than someone who just started their first mmorpg yesterday with FFXI.  And yes, I know I am much less willing to suspend belief simply because I'm now one of the "smarts" (i.e. we've seen behind the curtain and know how the thing works).  To keep to the film theme we're more like film critics than regular movie goers.

But, IMHO even those brand new players will slowly move through the same sort of cycle over time.  What are the possible outcomes after they become mature mmorpg players? They might a)recognize the flaws and problems with their current game and stick with it anyway b/c of their sense of investment (friends and time), albeit having less fun, b)move to a new title to try an recapture the sense of fun once they get burnt out with their current game c)engage in message board advocacy to try and get things changed they dont like about their current title or in future ones d)give up on the mmorpgs and stick to other game genres with possible short returns to old games when expansions or nostaglia kick in e) or some combination of the above. (Hell, those new players may be joining us at sites like this in about 2 years too.  Places like the waterthread are like the end game to the meta-game of being involved in mmorpg gaming in general.)

I dont think anyone here is deluding themselves that a perfect game is going to be made for them, but that doesn't stop us from wanting more than we currently have.  Dissatisfaction is a great motivator for change, but the only real change we can make seems to be bitching and beta test reporting.  Personally, i think the sort of depth im looking for is a good 5-10 years off at a minimum, and then probably only from niche games b/c I also recognize that most typical mmorpg's of today dont want what I want.

Xilren

  Open PvP in a MMOG is a step toward ganking, cheating assholes ruling the game.   I don't welcome that, and neither does the majority of paying customers.  



   The problem with players being able to punish other players, is that the ability to punish is directly related to how strong your character is.  In order to enforce your will against someone who's character is customized for PvP, you have to have a character just like theirs, and play exactly the way they do.  If you don't do that, then they will be punishing you.  And that is unacceptable for the majority of paying customers.  
   Without coded restrictions, all MMOGs will operate under the "might makes right" rule of social decency.  I do not accept that, when an alternative exists.

Or the wrong game world perhaps? Neo plugged in and "knew" kung fu in a matter of moments. How will skill gain and such be handled in The Matrix Online? Or was that canned already because without the treadmill, the developers had no idea what to offer for gameplay? What about City of Heroes where you start with super powers. You don't level to X level to gain levitate. You can fly if you so choose. What kind of gameplay can we expect from that game when players can choose their superpowers in advance? Cooperative action game against AI threats. Hmm... could be fun perhaps. Just some more thoughts on the matter.

(long time lurker, first time poster; pls be gentle)

Addressing the end of the article, I believe Planetside meets the criteria.   Although, it's interesting to note that even with "maxed-out" characters, many people play for the scoreboard; to be first in kills or for their outfit's glory.

I'm a veteran of UO, EQ, AO, and DAoC.  I enjoyed each for what they were, but have sworn off catassing.  (Although I admit, I feel the itch when I read about WoW. I'll resist, though.  I mean it.  Really, this time.)

I find plenty to do in Planetside.  Answering the questions: I have fun.  I know what to do.  I go out there and play to win, on many different levels.  Winning can be a small engagement, like me battling a single enemy for control of a tower.  Or larger, like control of a hard-fought base or continent.  I get some sense of accomplishment practically every night.

But I don't think I'm representative.  Many cannot see the forest for the trees.  I think it might have to do with being able to set your own goals and not have the game tell you "You win the round" or "Ding!".

The sad thing is that even if someone like me tries to set his own goals in a level-driven MMOG, it pretty much precludes playing with friends who want to catass to victory.  And if I'm not playing with friends (or making new ones), the MMOG will never get a hold on me.

Incorrect.  You DO level and gain skills in City of Heroes.  Superspeed, flight, superjumping, nighcrawler like teleportation, levitation are all gained as you level.  I am not in beta myself so I can't say if you can start with these or not.  At the beginning you pick what kinds of skills you will know.  What your specialties are.  Like maybe psychic ranged attacks and claw melee or fire melee and fire defense, or archery ranged and sword melee.  Then as you level up you gain more skills in these specialties or skills in the generic abilities like movement.  So maybe one level you can get a fireball attack, or a fire shield, or a fire imp creation ability or super jump or flight or whatever.

Kind of odd to have superheroes gaining powers but not exactly unheard of to have heroes who grow in ability as they learn more about their powers, or become stronger with them, or make more gadgets that give them.

Back to the topic at hand, is accomplishment important to me?  Not sure.  I think fun is more important than accomplishment.  I didn't like puzzle pirates and even though I could log on and gain some fame each time I played I felt like it was a waste of time at the end of the day.  In EQ I don't really accomplish much of anything playing 1 or 2 ldon dungeons a week (or less) but I do have fun hanging out with friends that don't play any other games I am in.  And I actually find LDON a good challenge if we have 4 man groups.  The challenge is in beating the clock by working together better and making sure mistakes don't get out of hand.

But EQ is at the very tail end of my interest.  I don't ever expect to get another level or to ever finish my epic quest (I don't know many in a decent guild anymore).

I am looking for a place to put my effort into, and then I will probably cancel EQ and SWG and go there.  I just can't find that place yet.

I think I will really like the new combat model in City of Heroes and the heroic transportation is enough fun for a month just there.  Moving around is a blast with some of these skills.  And the fastest modes of movement actually take some skill.  Teleportation can get you killed, superspeed is good, but best when combined with super jump and that takes some skill in choosing the best path.  The problem is that few will follow me to City of Heroes.  There are few interested in the comic book genre in my group of online friends.  My wife isn't even interested.

What I mean by a sense of accomplishment for myself tends revolve around the goals I make for myself. It can range from wanting to go to a new dungeon to beating something that has killed me before in the past or as simple as doing a quest for a new painting.

Levels can be a goal but in my case are usually an aside towards the things I want to do myself. I do not think games require levels to be fun but levels are a tested method to prolong the length of a game and the rate at which you can see and utilize content.


If you had eq where everybody started at level 65 with maxed aaxp and all the gear they could ever want most would get bored and leave after a month or two. If something is just given to you there is no sense of ownership or connection to a character. I like avatars I can empathise with due to the trials and ups and downs they have had.

If somebody finds a better way of doing this I will be the first one to try. I try just about every single mmrpg that comes to my attention to see what they do right and what they do wrong. EQ for all the grousing I and others do about it got alot of things right or it would not still be as popular as it is.

Uo another ancient game also did alot of things right many of which have yet to be repeated. Right now City of heros has been amusing me quite a bit I really can't go into it much due to NDA but I find it quite amusing.


Kaid

Here's a "What If" for everyone to consider. Bear in mind, this is a half-formed idea that occured to me while reading this thread.

What if there was a degree of seperation or more between the "game" and the avatar?

Along the lines of The Matrix™, your avatar exists in one world, but plays in another. To translate to a fantasy setting, perhaps avatars are angels and demons that posses mortals to prosecute the eternal war between good and evil. In a game-mechanic sense, players would choose sets of skills before entering the "game world", with the number and types of skills able to be chosen balanced. An avatars performance in the game world would be tracked, but I have yet to think of what the rewards would be for such a system.

The point is to retain the sense of accomplishment, give new players and non-catasses the ability to be competitive, and most importantly get away from the treadmill grind.

Add, subtract or nuke as you see fit.

Oh, and before I forget... The degree of seperation comes from the avatar having access to two "planes" of existence, which are not necessarily connected. In other words, the avatar has an existence as an angel/demon, and an existence as a possessed mortal, and if you don't transfer or connect identities, the degree of seperation opens up a host of possibilites. Admittedly, some of them could be negative, but that's a question for another thread.

Baby steps, Haemish, baby steps.



In vicious cycles that stretch all the way back to games like doom, myst, Civilization, Warcraft, etc  publishers have had the atomic-accurate power to cut the balls off of any given developer, as long as the employees of said developer value their ability to put food on the table. Seriously, someone should write a god damn book about this. The old sub-era of gaming where Studios and teams worked and became motivated by just a little more than publisher milestones has diffused into a contagious and terminally impulsive corporate interest in making the next 6 or 7-digit selling game. This results in many different self-destructive behaviors, and the foremost, besides spending 90% of one's resources on 'better' graphics, are low-risk cliche projects. Indeed, no one wants to back the next Masters of Magic or the next SSI; they don't care about lassoing in small successes and building on top of them.

Point?


Well for starts, there won't be more niches in the future, but there will be even more clones of what the last guy did (with extra mayo), so long as games like Vice City and ETM* keep sucking up what little marketshare there is. Maybe the operating margins will eventually drop so low, that the future developer will no longer be held by a short leash from their corporate marketing and production departments, who knows... we still have a fucking long way to go before creativity>production.

Case; Leveling is exactly why most studios are paralyzed to do something different than what has come before them. They absolutely can't, in a profitable time frame. They'll have panic attacks and seizures while sweating cats and dogs before doing so. And simply because most Pc gamers have grown accustomed to playing a scripted, missions-based environment that most devs have become SO good at squeezing out, does not mean that most multiplayers and even non-mmog'ers are not secretly waiting, hoping for a game that does more than put them in a maze with a small pebble of cheese or grain at the end.  Almost everyone I have met that enjoys maxxing their character out and becoming 'godly' eventually gets tired of what the end game does; some of them will even bitch like crazy about it; and will move on to a game that gives them completely refreshing experiences and opportunities to learn something new.

Your friend, however, has simply gotten tired of waiting for a even field where he has every opportunity to play against an opponent, on HIS terms. He simply indulges in a guilty pleasure that gives him cheap entertainment. I think if you asked him, he would admit to wanting something else than killing the next sparkly and acquiring something equally sparkly.

I'll take a small gamble here in saying that despite her Mt. Everest of flaws, and her bottomless chasm of lacking interpesonal skills,  the old Myschyfosaur was nails-on-heads accurate when she wrote ( I think it was more of a dev chat) about giving players more to do in a given PSW than simply destroying things.

The problem is ECONOMY, not endgame. You can't have any true resources as long as the game is scripted and the gameplay is strictly on-rails only. You can only attempt to bust the stats while it is still meaningful   and fashionalbe to do so. A few years down the road... oh lookie, no one really plays the game anymore, they just laze around, chatting with friends, talking about the next big thing.

The horadric cube in Diablo 2 is a perfect example. Before the set-in-stone recipes were largely explored by players, everyone toyed with the cube. It was trading device without the silly skills; you could do all kinds of wonderful, creative things with it. People would go so far as to  spew complete horse manure about secret recipes! Naturally, as the unevolving purposes of this static gameplay mechanism dragged on, it would later become more of a tool to inflate a player's position of wealth rather than a fun, non-hunting distraction.

I would go on about the first step towards dynamic content resembling an environment a lot like a stock exchange, on paper anyways, where 'investing' time into certain aspects of the game causes them to drop or rise in effectiveness via arrays and other sorts of complex automation/mathematical devices, and the trends of the gaming populace come and go unperdictably, such that the experience constantly evolves from alpha to omega. To say anything about fucking neural nets.  It's really a matter of playing the next rathunter, repeatedly. until such things are possible. You can try all sorts of things to make the best of it,  but I ask you, what's that gonna achieve?

HOWEVER, my attention span is starting to wane and my wrists are getting limp. And such an evolved experience is at least a decade away, if not more. But then, these discussions have never really been about the short term anyways. I just wanted to add that last bit if ever an "i tolja so" situation arised.
Doubt this was the conclusion you were talking about.



* Matrix because I can't think of any better example

I'd do (if I could code, heh) a permadeath game with that.  Your avatar is your account, and you can possess a random NPC (random stats, the choice to let you in is the NPC's).  The NPC provides the stats and the body, weath if any from parents, starting gear, etc.  You provide the skills, ability to cast spells, alignment, and your fame.  

Once you take over, you go do whatever (hopefully there's a large body of lore, factions, and a major epic quest going on that needs your and every other player's particular skills) till you die, at which point the NPC is dead and you can try to take over someone else.

As an extra "degree of separation", instead of taking over, you try to "persuade" the NPC to do your bidding, by typing /commands, and hoping that the NPC will obey you.  Obviously, lots of AI is needed for that to work.

Fame, or possibly flags, could grant access to more advanced NPC's to be taken over.  Your avatar has access to all the skills and all the spells but the NPC, based on its level, will only understand/be able to use a limited set.  Because the choosing is random, sometimes you get a fighter, sometimes a mage, etc., throughout the game's life span.

Actually, he just quit EQ. Again. For the 6th time. He is banking on CoH this time. Last time I think it was Planetside, before that SWG, before that I think he quit to go to AC2, and DAoC on their releases. And yet he keeps going back to EQ. I think it's mostly got to do with the familiarity, but also the fact that he maintains contact with old RL friends in distant towns through EQ and the "clan/group/guild" that formed in EQ.

He wants opponents on his terms, and they are VERY strict terms. If an FPS doesn't allow LAN play with good bots so 3-4 people can play in a room with 16 or so bots, he won't play it. He wants no PVP with people he doesn't know, and prefers even in FPS for co-op play as opposed to deathmatch style. He refuses to play PVP or FPS games online, with the collection of idiots the Net offers.

Cheating? Assholes? What does cheating or antisocial behavior have to do with PvP? Are PvE players all pleasant people who don't cheat?

You know, I use to swear that sushi was nasty stuff before I had ever tried it. I couldn't tell you why I didn't like sushi because I didn't actually know. All I could tell you is that eating "raw fish" was nasty and that nobody should do it. Fortunately a good friend educated me to the fact that sushi isn't just "raw fish" and I found out after I actually tried sushi that sushi is pretty good stuff. I'm sure that if I had been given slimy raw fish that I would still have a bad opinion of sushi. I guess I got lucky. It's weird to me how people (including myself) will vehemontly defend preconceived notions.

Given that there's not many MMOLGs out there that don't offer anything other than slimy fish I'll have to forgive your prejudice. As a FPS player I understand the value of conflict in the form of PvP and have seen several excellent implementations that would seem to work in a MMOLG setting. PlanetSide's PvP system really is pretty amazing if you only give it a try. It's just too bad that PlanetSide doesn't have anything more to offer.

It's just not possible for a group of GM's to create enough dynamic and unique content to satisfy thousands of players. The future of MMOLGs is in creating a system that allows the players to generate their own content... to actually interact in a massive way. The content that players will eventually generate would be pretty bland without conflict. Note how few coop first person shooters exist in comparison to conflict mods.

BTW... the baby jesus is crying

People equate PvP with UO, UT, Quake, DOOM, EQ, gosh, a LOT of games.  And everyone who has tried pvp in these games has encountered anti-social assholes while pvping in all of these games.  I've encountered cheaters in FPS games, UO, and DAoC.  They make PvP a helluva lot less fun.  Although I did take great satisfaction this one time in slaughtering a cheater in DAoC.  Radar does not make you an automatic winner, kids!  People will do ANYTHING to win, which means squeezing more performance out of templates, jumping classes or servers, racing through the latest content if it gives an edge, etc.  Or abusing skill and stat bugs to give you an even more insurmountable edge.  Or radar.  Or aimbots.  Hell, there's people who stop playing a WC3 battle.net ID if their ranking gets too high, and create a new ID, just so they can sucker people into playing them.  Not to mention maphack.  And you wonder why PvP is equated with anti-social cheating assholes?  There are plenty of reasons.

MMOGs are a terrible vehicle for PvP.  Imagine trying to play Quake against Thresh and his clan.  You are going to lose, every time.  He and his clan are that good, you aren't.  No problem, really.  You just jump servers until you find one closer to your skill level.  In an MMOG, you PvP against Thresh every single night.  This quickly becomes less than fun.  Really simple when you think about it.  Forcing everyone to PvP against the varsity is fun, in the short term, for the varsity.  Everyone else wonders why the fuck they are bothering.

PvP might be the future when real consequences are in place.  The other problems, PvP mostly being about time invested in avatars, as opposed to actual personal skill, will no doubt continue to be an insurmountable issue for a lot of players who lack the time for catass just to PvP.  Lineage 2 sounds like they are getting close, which is about as good as PvPers should expect to see in the near future.  Mostly due to the way PvP was abused in the past.  Don't like the number of PvE MMOGs coming out now?  The pvpers have no one to blame but themselves.

PvP is like Communism:  sounds great on paper, but when actually implemented it sucks.

About the whole levels vs no levels thing:

What about items?  Aren't they just a different sort of level?  better items for folks that have played the game longer, so should they go too?

And if levels and items are done away with, what incentive remains for revisiting content areas that you have already explored?  With levels/items you can gain some xp or a super shiny for a friend....  Without anything but the content to attract you, I think it would be a bit like heading back into Kefka's tower after the big psycho was already dead.

    Apparently, PvP causes otherwise normal, well adjusted people who get laid quite often to turn into raging dick waving fuckwads.  I don't know the exact relationship, but I've seen it happen.  It's not pretty.  I suspect it has something to do with latent sado-masochistic tendencies, but I can't prove anything.  
     Also, please note that I said cheating assholes would RULE.  I didn't say all PvPers are that way.  In open PvP, amoral, win at any cost, take any advantage types will win.  That means they will be the ones setting the acceptable moral code.  They will be the "might" in might makes right.  They will be the Lords, in Lord of the Flies.  You will be one of them, bow down to them, or quit.  And while I have no doubt there are many sadistic fuckwads drooling over the concept, it's just not a good business model.  Take your delusions elsewhere.

Pure horseshit, but I'm glad we agree vaguely on heavily player-influenced content.

In no way what so ever, is a struggle between this guy and another guy inherently necessary to keep the world dynamic. Works on Darktide? UO? Who gives a fuck... those games/servers were such mishappen accidents by design that they BECAME effective ways to have conflict with another player. In a given PSW, the player may just want to indulge in what may seem like an endless learning or discovery process, and absorb the apparently bottomless depth a game looks to have those first 12 hours of playing. They might want to join some kind of community, to find a place that isn't empty and has some form of meaningful interaction going on. There are INFINITE ways to expand on this sort of playstyle, with a truly ever-changing world allowing a mix of both communal play and discovery at every turn of the 'little hand', and never once does p2p conflict ever enter the picture; the players are kept plenty entertained with the environment. Reason for more conflict than co-op behavior? The players who enjoy destroying someone else tend to override the aphony mass that has no interest in such things, and once again, it's what devs are best at currently.

The biggest barrier to any sort of innovation right now appears to be servers that can cost more than certain Infiniti cars; once the micron processes are developed that can overcome the critical workload that the webbernet seems to provide, the market will glut itself, and the costs of running a game like EQ will drop significantly that it would become effecient and taskworthy to actually innovate once again.

Obtaining items is not the same as grinding for levels.

First, of all the items can be made so that they drop on death. Try doing that with levels and you get perma-death or total skill loss. Unlike perma-death and total skill loss, a player can prepare for item loss by banking items.

Second, unlike skills, items can be transferred. Joining a guild that provides equipment can mean instantly becoming useful and able to participate in the game (player skill aside). Since the focus of an item based game would not be grinding to uberness you don't lose anything by allowing players to skip the grind.

Third, obtaining items allows players more freedom in advancement and variety of goals where grinding for levels forces players into repetitive behavior for a single goal. Hunting for resources to craft items or for item drops allows players a great deal of freedom and variety in what they do. Hunting for exp to ding allows players one goal which is always finding the most efficient way to grind. Doing anything other than efficiently grinding is a waste of time in level based games.

Finally, items retain value so long as items are useful, their possession is temporary and they require time to obtain. Unlike level based games, a +1 sword takes a new character just as long as an established character to obtain. A new player can be just as useful as an established player when it comes collecting needed resources.

I'm sure I missed some of the better item vs. level arguments, but I'm sure that you get the idea. Item based games are far superior to level based games.

For the anti-PvP crowd who cling to PvE like G.W. clings to his search for WMDs; write a list of games where there is direct conflict between players and a list of games where there is no direct conflict. Here's my short list:

Direct conflict: Baseball, Basketball, Football, Soccer, Tennis, Chess, Checkers, Counter-Strike, Quake, Unreal,  PvP MMOLGs.

Indirect conflict: Golf, Racing, Slot Machines, PvE MMOLGs.

Which is more successful? Direct conflict is by far the most successful type of game both in number of games and in number of players that participate. Just look at how many people play first person shooters, any given sport or even PvP MMOLGs in comparison to PvE MMOLGs. Hell, professional sports players get payed millions of dollars so that we can watch them play. There's no argument here. PvP is what the majority of players want and is also the way to go if you want to be successful.

No amount of processing power or well designed AI can replace human interaction, especially meaningful conflict. You hate being trash talked because it's another person talking trash, not because of what's being said.

Bad game design and lack of accountability is responsible for disruptive anti-social behavior, not PvP. Anyone who has played a PvE MMOLG can attest to the fact that anti-social behavior and cheating does exist in PvE MMOLGs and that anti-social behavior is not unique to PvP games. Ever hear of EQ radar? Ever hear of people scamming, training or trash talking other people in EQ? I have.

Speaking of pure bullshit, maybe some of you PvE guys could do something more productive like help G.W. find those missing WMDs instead of preach about how player conflict is bad for multi-player games. ;)

Thing is that many ppl dont play the game. they play "to achieve" to have this nn level ,this leet item ,this number in ladder.

 There is a category in PnP and CRPg called "munchkins" -   players whose main goal is to attain highest level possible and best items in game.Everything else is secondary. -Have you ever heard bragging in
-such and such game- I got lvl XX char! I did 100% of quests! I got all items -those players are not new  ,they always existed -in pnp games first (but there was GM  who could do anything about em ) , and then in CRPGs.

 Those are main subscribers base of EQ/DaOC/Lineage - insert any other treadmill in.

 Though what they are often missing in CRPG is roleplay and story . One of the best CRPGs of all time was Planescape : Torment  - driven mainly by story ,dialogues and players own roleplay and emotions.Ironically the game was  not very successfull from the financial point of view.

 But scripted  story and roleplay dont fit too well in MMORPG world by definition . Though level grind and item hunting is . Coupled with graphical chat and abilty to show your achievemnt no wonder EQ/DAoC  is so succeffull

 Another alternative ( untried so far) would be allow players to shape the world and drive the story around them.-  the of persistent massive  multiplayer world is  the ideal background for that.

 Some skeptics woould say it was already tried in early UO and SB : -

 I would say throwing players in some kind of PW without thought out player run systems is not it : If game doesnt provide easy convenient methods  and interface for player run systems such sytems simply wouldnt exist - it would be anarchy.

-Is it players fault that IN UO/SB there is practically zero accountabilty for pkers -as there is no real possibility to track down criminals and penalize them in any way ?

-Is it players fault that  "random pking " is actually promoted by game itself as most fun in game activity? -while its so fun to be ranodm pker hoping from tree to tree ,killing farmers and shoppers ,while regular citizen only have boring farming, "raids"( consisting 1 hours wit ,1 hour run ,2 minute pvp) and "sieges" ( e.g. 2 hour wait ,1 hour preparation , 10 minute pvp. - There is no fun alternative for "good citizens " excpet lvling another alt /farming.

-Is it players fault that running city in SB was full time job? That there was no in-game controls for proper shop managment /friending ppl to  structures?

-Is it players fault that there is no game mechanics whatsoever to make player driven content - no in-game message boards, no in-game player made quests  -no nothing .

 -take DaOC /SB "zergs" problem. Is it players fault that there is no tactical combat interface ( a-la savage)  which will allow commanders to organize ppl into well controlled armies?

-Is it players fault that there is no good in inter group controls allowing to designate targets/control group  and  only hardcore guild with TS would have this advantage?


 If there is no IN GAME mechanics and systems no amount of out of game player organization will  help .-As most casuals ,heck even most hardcore ppl wont bother with it .

enchancing MMORPG gameplay by player driven events and content is what made UO stand out .  SB was attempt at this - but failed to provide any in game mechanics to support this idea (and of course bugs)

not if the game allows for tools to punish assholes.  Anyway the reason pvp breeds this kind of behaviour is because its competitive.  Its about beating the other guy, being the best and achieving something against other players not against mob AI.

Whereas a lot of people hate this kind of thing, they dont want something which is going to challenge them or see someone talking trash at them when they lose, a lot of people actually enjoy it.  PvP is more like playing a sport more than anything else.  It takes skill, you need to practice and learn and then you compete against others and try and beat them.  And you see the same competitiveness you see on a sporting field.  

A lot of people like to compete against other people whether its on sporting field or online.  Particularly young males which make up the majority of gamers.  Look at the success in pvp in RTS and FPS games.  

MMORPGs could be just as successful at pvp but no dev companies are putting significant amounts of money into making a pvp game which is actually enjoyable because they think its a lost cause.

And because developing a successful PvP game is harder because it requires a certain type of player activity in order to work.  

SB ran into problems, not just from the bugs, but because of guilds owning entire servers.  WP had built their game design thinking that the game would revolve around two, three, or four mid-sized guild alliances fighting over the server, and that any uber-guild would quickly fracture into smaller guilds.

Whoops.

    Almost any tool that can be used to punish assholes, can be used BY assholes.   There's only one way to get around that, and that is a human umpire.  That's what they do in professional sports to keep things competetive, and not cross the line.  Except for hockey.  Unsportsmanlike activities are subjective, and computers can only handle literal.   Until MMOGs can afford to hire full time umpires, they are never going to get past the Lord of the Flies stage.

You dont need a human umpire, that is most definitely not the way to go to try and limit asshole behaviour.

You need to give players the tools to mete out justice.  Simplest way to do this is for example to have a system where you need to have access to a player run city to bank.  If you go around being an asshole and killing everyone then you arent going to have anywhere to bank or buy and sell stuff.  If any cities do allow you to bank then your victims can have the ability to siege that city and knock it down.  So then pks would have to band together to build cities and protect them.  

Anyone who has played a pvp game before will know that the vast majority of players are not assholes and do not random pk and thus if the majority band together they can defeat smaller pk guilds if they have the ability to do so.  They do, however, have to have the ability to do more than just kill pks, they need to be able to do some sort of lasting damage, like knocking down their city.

Its not a perfect system but its one example of a system which gives players the ability to get back at their enemies.

I can think of many others too.  Any systems which have been tried such as in SB and UO were pretty half assed and didnt really work.  Although I did play on an SB server in which the majority of the server allied up and knocked down all the cities of a pk alliance which spent its time pking and griefing newbies 24/7.

But even if we say that it is impossible to have some kind of system which allows people to punish griefers and assholes and random pks then that still doesnt mean a pvp game cant be a good and successful game.  There are many people who like I said, enjoy fighting, regardless of any asshole behaviour.  There are people who enjoy the competitive challenge and who enjoy fighting against shit talking 16 year olds.  There is no player justice in FPS and I would say there is a far greater asshole element in FPS games.  Granted the grief element can be far greater in a MMORPG but likewise revenge is that much more satisfying.

There are many people who just cant stand being killed or griefed in a MMORPG.  PvP games arent goign to be for them but there are many other people who are a bit more thick skinned and enjoy pvp.  There is definitely a market out there, the reason pvp games havent worked isnt because they cant work its just that all the ones that have been made so far have been pretty crap.

I agree generally with Mr. Average's response.

A short word about my non-traditional MMO experience: I have never played EQ or UO (pause for catcalls and general harrassment). My gaming group from college was looking for a vehicle to play games together after being scattered to the four winds and found an ad for AO, which we joined at launch. Since then we have played AO, EnB, Eve, SB, SWG, DAOC and probably one or two that I'm forgetting. Plus the betas for several of those.

The two most important things for me in an MMO's mechanics are character development and a good, hard challenge (and, on a non-mechanics sidenote, good customer service). I like a game where I can set a hard goal for myself and then work toward that goal. Of the games I have played, AO best suited this because there were vehicles which would allow me to turn up the difficulty on challenges and there was a flexibility in character development strategies.

PvP rarely has any place in that because I have yet to find a game where whether you are good at PvP wasn't based primarily on whether you picked character template A or B.  You either pick the right one or two combinations of skills and equipment or you don't. Yes, once everyone has picked the right combination then it comes down to player ability, but by that time I was way outside the character development aspect that is so important to me. In other words, I could either choose my character development options and suck at PvP or use a template and be able to compete and character development is more important to me.

Character development does not necessarily mean the level treadmill. Or, rather, it shouldn't necessarily mean the level treadmill though in some games it most definitely does. It can mean getting a piece of equipment that I want (as long as that DOESN'T mean camping, where I have to sit and watch helplessly while some group of uber players kills the guy I needed to kill because one of their guildmates' alts might want the object sometime later). It can mean making money. It can mean making people laugh. It can mean a whole lot of things. But it can also mean levelling. Levelling efficiently can be a challenge in a lot of games, even if that is 'Yes, I can easily kill those 2000 xp monsters, but I want to see if I can get good enough to kill those 4000 xp monsters just as fast.'

While I know I'm almost alone in this, the best MMO experiences I have had were AO missions. I could turn them up in difficulty and constantly challenge myself, they were discrete areas that only I or my group could play in so I didn't have to put up with all the juvenile griefing and name calling that is so rampant in MMOs, and playing a crat (pet/crowd control class) I had to constantly be on alert or I would quickly be very dead. I'm hoping that CoH missions turn out to be in some way similar.

This is pretty offtopic to the centrail thread, but I thought it was generally accepted as axiomatic around here that any such tools used to "mete our justice" were always able to be utlitized or avoided by "griefers" to escape said justice more easily than it is to enforce said justice.  In your simple example, an equally simple response to get around the restriction is use mule/friend to buy and sell through...

The problem with pvp in most mmorpgs is this part..."competitive challenge".  In FPS games, barring exploits and outright cheating, the playing field is level so you can kill asshole#984 just as easily as he can kill you.  In mmorpg's with their typical large differntial power curve, this is usually not the case; you might be a better player than the griefer, but if he is level 50 and your level 20, the conclusion is foregone who will win (especially if they wait to gank you while you're hurt from fighting mongbats...). Which is why non-optional pvp turns so many people off.  I dont think most people mind dying so long as they feel they had a fighting chance.

Xilren

Romp, you were told once, you need to be told AGAIN?

Any tool put into a game to combat griefers will be used by the griefers.

It should be a fucking rule of online gaming.  Go ahead.  Think of a tool.  Now turn it around.  How can it be used to hurt other players?  The best example I can think of offhand is the five minute logging feature added to UO.  Put in to combat trash talking griefers, it took about a week (probably much less) for griefers to start pushing buttons, waiting for what they said to drop off of the chat log, and then BAM page a GM.  Using a tool that was aimed at them to get other people banned.

And every MMOG has human umpires.  They are called GMs, and there are never enough of them to do the job sufficiently well.  And in fact, they can be one of the biggest causes of problems you have on your hands.  GM Ironwill anyone?

PvP is not the answer.  I know it's the answer some of you want, that's too bad.  Manage your expectations.  UO will never come again, the victims have choice now, the best you can hope for is Shadowbane.  Or Lineage 2.  Or M59.  Of course, these games are filled with people who want to kick your ass, instead of sheeple waiting to get their asses kicked.  That's not quite as much fun!

That's not always true.  In UO, it was common for the more skilled players from a zerg to break off and form a new, smaller guild.

And AC Darktide had an artifical reason for the zerg phenomenon there because of the XP system.  The guilds on that server weren't very large until people really figured out how to take the most advantage of the XP pyramid.  After that, you saw close knit guilds accepting more and more members and diluting their former identity.

Which nicely illustrates why I think the ‘level differential’ that occurs from time played needs to be minimized as much as possible.

Here are my operating axioms:
Leveling and PvP are incompatible in every respect.
One of the most reasonable and effective forms of ‘end game’ is player generated conflict.
Most people would prefer to get to the ‘fun part’ (aka UO 7xGM) sooner rather than later.

Therefore: power differential must
1.   not be extreme in scope – any 5 ‘newbies’ should be able to take down a ‘grand master’ (for example).
2.   not be linked to time in game.
3.   be mostly reliant on player skill.
4.   be influenced by items and skill differentiation, but not defined by such things.

In other words, these games need to be less like traditional cRPG’s and more avatar driven PSW’s.

If you feel that the current games are fine, and ‘epic raiding’ is the epitome of the MMOG experience, then ignore this. Otherwise, I really don’t see any other way out of our current hole.

(Of course, another piece of this puzzle will be content derived from state-driven AI as opposed to hard coded spawns, but that is another post entirely.)

I believe Planetside meets the criteria listed here.

Which begs the question:  Could a game like Planetside add more RPG-like elements to become a MMRPG that meets these criteria?   Or would the additions themselves cause it to fail to meet the criteria?

For instance, what if the game had auto-generated missions?  Or medals for specific accomplisments?  An economy?

This certainly happened in DAoC. However, it was just as bad because these really strong high powered guilds would form gank groups that would roam the less populated PvP zones and absolutely decimate pickup groups and solo players.  Fights were not even close and that's the problem.

Hard core players have no sense of fair play and will leverage every advantage to decimate the casual player.  

That's why I firmly believe that PvP has to be a completely separate game from the level based MMORPG. You make your persistant MMORPG and then you make a separate  PvP FPS type game that is small scale, not persistant, and autoballances teams.  Then you add strong tie-ins between the two games. I.E. Do good at the PvP game and you win items, xp, etc. for your character in the persistant game.  Advance to high level in the persistant MMORPG, you can now have access to different character models, classes, weapons, etc. in the PvP game.

actually I forgot a crucial part.  Like in SB, your character must belong to a guild and have a hometown to bind at.  And anyone can easily find out your guild name and home city.  If you do not have a home city you respawn at a desolate place.  However unlike in SB, there is no bank at this place and there are no easy teleportation spells like summon (at least not without reagents which you wont have on you after you die).  So if you die and dont have a guild city you spawn somewhere which is likely to be camped and is a long long way away from anywhere.  So every time someone with a town dies he has to run his character for a long time to meet up with a mule character to pass the gear.  Which would likely be so much of a hassle not to be worth it in the long run.

It's not possible to stop griefers from griefing.  But it is possible to give people the tools to fight against griefers.  Yes its possible for griefers to use those same tools in all likelihood, but thats beside the point.  They can be held accountable, if a guild of griefers is able to kill you and your guild and knock down your city then thats part of the game.  But you have the ability to knock down their city too, to get revenge.  And one thing will always remain true - the griefers will always be outnumbered by the average player, so this means when it comes to a straight up numbers game, the griefers will lose.  If the rest of the population arent able to ally together and knock down the pk city for example, then too bad, but the game does give them that option.

This is just one example of a player justice city anyway, modelled on SB's version which didnt work because it wasnt harsh enough on people without guilds.



most pvpers are happy to have a game which is made for hardcore pvpers, ie a game which is full of wolves, with no sheep and which doesnt suck.  Just we are still waiting for that game.  Darkfall is the next hope.

But I dont admit that player justice cant work, I think the system I have described would work (although it would have sideeffects which would annoy a lot of people)

 And thats a problem- without good tactical combat managment systems numbers  are just "zerg"."griefers" guilds zerg too and we have zerg vs zerg. -Thats what happened multiple times in SB - you have zerg of "griefers" vs zerg of "antis" .  Knocking out ooponent cities just lead ot other side leaving the game in mass -as  losing a city was too harsh penalty for A GAME (a game which was supposed to be fun ,not boring) .




 Thats wrong . - It wasn't hard enough for girefers guild ,not for ppl  without guilds. - Thats a big differnce. If SB ahd real in-game politics systems which would  held accountable ppl attacking allies/neutrals things would be a lot different.

Such as for example guild whihc attacks its allies cant purcahse guards ,can't use banks ,can't  govern bane time ,etc...  Coupled with automated "justice" (such as near outlaw in lawfull  zone immediatly a bunch of powerfull guards spawn)  that would put outlaws in outlaws place - no home ,no bind points, percistently  chased by bounty hunters and law enforcments.

 In SB the easisist life was for random PKer - best shops rates ,fastest travel. ABsoultely zero penalties.While a good "citizen" was at the             same time penalized wiht farming and boring ass travel times.

Well you could design a city siege system which is a lot better than SB's and doesnt just revolve around zerging.

I agree it was too easy for a random pker.  But if they took out summon spell, banks and runemasters at ruins and removed all repledging then that would pretty much kill the non guilded pk in SB.

Then all pks and griefers would need a guild and would need a town which could be attacked.  Then the rest of the population could gang up on them and defeat them, and we would have player justice.

 Random Pkers were not killers of SB gameplay .Slow ass trtavel time and lack of pvp modes except "sieg" ( 3 hours wait -lag -zerg- fest " and raid (1 hour run -2 minute pvp)



 Funny thing - all "pkers" and "griefers" had towns and guilds. - Often huge ultra big towns on the map. And "rest of the population" ganged up together and banes went mad -ppl baning each other left and right . Sometimes even this "evil town" got defeated (e.g. on Scorned Death on corruption) . And what? Did it make average player happier? Did it make sieges or pvp more fun? -nope ,core gameplay was extremly boring and after a while in those wars player get burned out on farming/runnin/waiting . Was especially frustrating for losers - months of catassing go down to toilet in 3 hours of "siege".

 If anything SB should have teached designers is that penalties in pvp game shouldn't  be heavy burden ,so losing side dont quit after first defeat. Also that game shouldn't require camping some bane for hours each day -its unhealthy for players real life, and boring too.

SB had a lot of faults, too many to name, but in the end it failed because the pvp and sieging just werent that fun.

But in this thread I'm just talking about a player justice system which is similar to SB's and how it could be used to give players the tools to deal with griefers and pks.

It won't be long now before we have proof of concept for a lot of the ideas being tossed around. I just hope for the sake of online games that RazorWax can make their ideas work. There are lots of great ideas. We need a great implementation.

It's pretty well established that level based games where time spent playing is more important than individual player skill do not make good PvP games. I completely agree that the majority of MMOLG PvP sucks and should not be replicated.

Zergs are not a problem. Zergs are a fact of life. The majority will win the majority of the time. The problem isn't giving power to the masses, the problem is in what games allow massive groups of players to do.

DAoC's PvP is a prime example of what not to do. DAoC rewards using overwhelming force instead of encouraging players to take on a challenge. Want to hit a BG or raid a keep? Bring as many friends as you can find. The more people you bring the better your odds.

I tend to see solutions to MMOLG PvP issues in what first person shooters do, and zergs are no exception. Take for instance the FPS mod Capture The Flag. Try to think of the entire CTF mod's population as representing the population of a DAoC server. It would be stupid to allow hundreds of players to cram into a single server and compete over a single pair of flags yet that's pretty much what DAoC does. Too many players, too few goals, and so all you're left with is mindless deathmatch style killing. The team that has the most players overwhelms everyone else and is the only team that is able to capture any flags.

What does CTF do about zergs? It splits the player population and attempts to balance the teams. Only XX players can fight on any given server, and only so many  of those players can be on one team. Translate this back to DAoC and you'd get a system where only XX players can participate in a BG or keep raid, and only half of XX can be on either team. This can be done either through unrealistic code that limits the number of participants (like private zones where population is strictly controlled) or by discouraging extra players from participating through game mechanics (like limiting how many players can bind near a BG or keep and removing the ability to rez in a BG or near a keep).

I'm anxious to see how the upcoming PvP MMOLG named DarkFall handles player justice and zergs.

Bumpage

Hey Haemish, you still planning on updating this one... I thought you had some specific thoughts on it after the rest had their say.  Inquiring minds, etc.

I do have some thoughts on it, I just haven't gotten a chance to sit down and write it yet.