f13.net

Well, the day is finally over, and once again it was a great year for the Austin Game Conference.  I'd say it was even better than last year; there were certainly more attendees, and I got to renew some old contacts as well as make some new ones that look to be very productive.  By the end of the second day I was very jazzed about the whole experience.

Wednesday night we (myself, my friend Stacey, and Dr. Cat from Furcadia) first went to a special VIP reception before the conference started.  We spent the time talking with the other conference speakers, drinking the free beer, and trying unsuccessfully to watch the Austin bats fly out from under the highway bridges at night in what is an important annual event in the city.  Oh well; perhaps they will be more cooperative next year.  It was at the party that I was first alerted to the fact that Arcadian del Sol had posted wondering how I keep getting invited to speak at these things.  All I can tell you is that the key to success is sincerity -- once you can fake that, you've got it made.

After the party we spent a good part in the hotel lobby with a half-dozen other convention goers talking with Mark Jacobs (who looks so very different when he's not dressed in one of his tailored dark suits) about the past, present, and future of MMOGs.  It was during this conversation that Mark first alerted us to the following passage in the Austin Game Conference official program (emphasis added):

Thursday 2:30pm - 3:30pm
Building New IP
Richard Garriott, father of the online gaming industry (Ultima Series, Origin Systems, NCSoft), will discuss building new intellectual property.

This was actually the same talk he gave last year, but Mark was particularly perturbed by the annointment of Lord British as the father of the online gaming industry.  Especially when you consider the fact that, you know, it's simply false.  It's not that he didn't do great things, or to say that Ultima Online wasn't a major turning point in the modern MMOG industry, but there were literally thousands of people, many of whom are still largely anonymous to this day, who were toiling away in online gaming long before Richard even pitched the idea of UO.  To call Garriott the father of the online gaming industry is like claiming Al Gore invented the Internet -- yes, he was very important in the evolution and transformation of the thing, but let's not go overboard on the hyperbole.

Thursday was the first official convention day.  The first panel I went to was "The Right Content Mix" with Starr Long, Rich Vogel, and Jason Durrell.  The panel debated what was the right mix of static vs. dynamic content in MMOs, how much was needed, what content best evoked emotion in the player, and so on.  It's an important topic, and there was clear consensus that even in a game focused largely on emergent PvP/siege behavior (ShadowBane), you still need hundreds of hours of static content.

Next up was "PC MMOG Production - Best Practices" with Matt Firor, and Starr Long and Rich Vogel again, and maybe someone else I'm forgetting.  As I had seen this panel the year before and I was pretty tired from the previous late night, I must admit I dozed off part of the way through this panel so I can't fairly judge it.  However, I don't think I missed anything I didn't already know.  In hindsight I would rather have gone to the panel Lum was speaking on, "Database Challenges in MMOGs".  This seems particularly relevant as of late given how much trouble World of Warcraft seems to be having with theirs.

After lunch at an overcrowded and overpriced P.F. Chang's, I was off to "Community Management - Perfecting Communication" with an all-star panel: Raph Koster, Chris Mancil, Jonathan Hanna, Sanya from Mythic, and some others I know I'm forgetting.  It was the usual debate about how to manage your boards, whether or not you should let developers posts, what sort of guidelines you should use, etc.  One thing everyone seemed to be keen on is leveraging MMOG fan and news sites as much as possible to help advertise and market their product.

At this point I finally ran into the other guys from Playnet/CRS, as well as a fifth, now ex-, employee.  I was able to hit up Chris Sherland for some last-minute thoughts on what points I might want to mention on my panel the following day.

The final discussion I went to Thursday was "Designing Within a License" with Rich Vogel of SOE representing Star Wars, Vijay Lakshman of Turbine representing D&D and Middle Earth, Chris McKibbin of Perpetual Entertainement representing the new Star Trek MMO, and Mark Jacobs of Mythic who was taking the anti-license position.  This was a great panel, and everyone was open in discussing the pros and cons of using a licensed product.  I can say I came away from it less enthusiastic about using a license than I used to be, but at the same time I think you're going to have a harder time getting a large number of subscribers without one.  All of the panelists working on a licensed MMO seem to have the benefit of having a key intermediary, whom the licensor trusts, who can work closely with both camps in smoothing out any bumps that happen during the design and production process and who can provide the kind of timely response needed to keep things from stalling while waiting for an official blessing from the lincesor on a particular game feature.

Anyway, the real fireworks came at the end of the panel when Mark Jacobs let his feelings about the Richard Garriott thing known and publically called upon Garriott to explain and/or retract this claim of being the "father of online gaming."  Mark got a lot of applause from the crowd, but so far as I've heard still no satisfactory explanation.  I believe Richard is claiming that those words were written by someone with the AGC and not himself or a marketing person at NCSoft; however, in all fairness, I didn't get a chance to hear him address the issue firsthand so I do not know.

After the sessions were over for the day I finally ran into George Sanger aka The Fat Man, and was rewarded with an autographed copy of his book.  George is a great guy who has contributed more to audio in gaming than most people know, and is a fascinating figure both personally and professionally.  If you want to know more about this great unsung hero in our industry, buy and read The Fat Man on Game Audio: Tasty Morsels of Sonic Goodness (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1592730094/qid=1094888233/sr=8-3/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i3_xgl14/103-5574598-6136601?v=glance&s=books&n=507846).  But skip over the part where George mentions my brother; his ego is big enough already.

Later that night it was off the the official convention party at The Copper Kettle bar, with again free beer and this time, free food as well.  Spent most of the time trying to yell at fellow gamers over the loud music.  It was very crowded and very humid, but I got to talk up various guys from The Themis Group, Daniel James from Three Rings, Serafina from Atriarch (always good for a warm hug), and many others.  Also got to watch the first half of the Colts-Pats game... strangely there were a lot of loud Pats fans in the crowd.  My only regret is not seeing the fantastic ending to this game, but I'll be able to watch my TiVo of it when I get home.

Friday morning we were back early for the final day of the conference.  Edward Castranova gave a fantastic keynote about "Virtual Property in the Age of Wonder."  As an economist, Castronva has made a name for himself (http://mypage.iu.edu/~castro/home.html) analyzing the economy of virtual worlds, but most of the talk was actually focused on the second half of the title, the "Age of Wonder", and whether or not allowing business and market forces into our fantasy worlds was really a good thing.  He made frequent references to Tolkein's own writing on this subject, about the clash between industrial and corporate modernism and the truths of the fantasy worlds.  Nevertheless he encouraged everyone in the audience to keep striving and keep making these worlds, because we were truly on the forefront of something the rest of civilization hadn't quite caught on to yet.

Next up were two panels that touched on complementary themes: "Designing For the Widest Possible Audience" with Sheri Granery Ray, Carly Staehlin, Daniel James, Damion Schubert, and Mikes Sellers, and then "Design Risks We Should Be Taking" with Raph Koster, Patricia Pizer, Matt Firor, and Damion Schubert again.  Both had way more depth than I can cover here, but basically the bottom line is we really aren't doing a good job of reaching the mass market, nor are we making truly innovative chances with our designs.  Market forces seem to be driving us towards particular types of MMOGs and we truly need to innovate more in order to solve either problem.

After lunch at the Ironworks with Raph and several others, it was finally time for the panel I was one, "Building Massively Multiplayer Games on a Budget".  On the panel were myself, Brian Green (Near Death Studios/Meridian 59), Chris Allen (Skotos), Daniel James (Three Rings/Puzzle Pirates), Dr. Cat (Dragon's Eye Productions/Furcadia), and someone from NetDevil whose name I've tragically misplaced.  Anyway, we jumped right into Q&A and I think the panel went really well; the room was nearly full and we had a lot of positive feedback afterwards.  My only regret is the panel was a bit large and so I don't think we got to answer as many questions as we should have; on the other hand, each panelist had a very different background on how they came to operate a small MMOG.  Furcadia and Puzzle Pirates both got some spontaneous applause and I managed to get a couple of laughs, so all-in-all it was a good session.

The last panel of the day was "Diamonds in the Sand: Data-Mining the Social Systems of Massively Multiplayer Games" and boy am I glad I was able to attend it.  Mike Steele and Patricia Pizer gave a great presentation of social network analysis done on real MMO player data (who remained nameless) and demonstrated the power and knowledge one could gain from logging every transaction and statistic in the game and analyzing it.  You could use it to indentify keep figures in social networks that you would want to make sure didn't quit the game.  Or find two unconnected people on a graph that, if connected, would reduce the average path length in your social network dramatically, resulting in a tighter community.  The suggestion was made that you might have automated quests that would identify such people and then bring them together, perhaps to cooperate or to compete, in a way which would hopefully form a bond between them.  Other similar analysis tools could be done on exploiters or griefers to identify the key players in such a network and target them for punishment, much like intelligence agencies are doing today with terrorist networks.  At one point during the talk, Mike actually produced a graph which he said was based on my data, and when I waved my hand when he said my name he said, "There he is." And then after Patricia spontaneously piped in, "Hi Bruce!" Michael said, "Okay, everybody say hi to SirBruce!" and the whole audience said "Hi SirBruce!"  It was great.  My ego is satiated for the time being.

There were so many other people I got to spend time with that I hadn't seen for a while, like Tracy Spaight and Div Devlin and Scott Miller and Jack Emmert.  Had a great time reminiscing about Ultima X: Odyssey with Jonathan Hanna and Mike Hall.  And Lum actually used Stacey's Mac for a while in the Speaker's Longue.  Anyway, I had a great time, and I can't wait to do it again next year!

Bruce

PS - Got some new subscription numbers
AC1 - 37,000 (down from 41,000 earlier this year)
AC2 - 18,000
UO - 165,000 - 170,000
SWG - 250,000 - 300,000
Toontown Online - 35,000 - 50,000 but that is only an estimate

A few comments:

• If your game becomes popular enough in its own right, no license is required: Witness EQ, which has gone on to spawn singleplayer games in its universe (Champions of Norrath, that RTS thingy etc.). However, EQ might be the only MMOG to have this advantage, though other game franchises might be able to go the other way, e.g. a MMOG taking place in Oddworld.
• Father of MMOGs = Richard Bartle, the best-known co-author of MUD1 back in 1979-1980 (http://www.brandeis.edu/pubs/jove/HTML/v2/keegan.html).
  
• I predict the AC1 subscription numbers will jump to at least 50k when they release the expansion with the improved textures, and when/if they manage to put in place a non-Microsoft Zone billing/registration system.[/list:u]

This is quite true, but I think things were easier when EQ did it.  But EQ2 and WoW are leveraging existing properties to increase their market recognition.  It is a lot harder for a brand new MMOG to generate as much enthusiasm, particularly with all the competition. It will be interesting to see how Tabula Rasa and Face of Mankind do compared to the other big-name IP properties coming down the pipe.

As for AC1, I'm actually surprised they've fallen so far.  I do expect their expansion to give them a nice bump, but I wonder if it'll really be all that sticky.

Bruce

I find the AC1 and AC2 numbers shocking. The former because it's so low and the latter because it's so high.

Oh my god. These guys are able to repeat the same theme for every conference?

They aren't intelligent enough to realize that "the right mix of static vs. dynamic content" is ALREADY a wrong premise that won't bring anywhere?

My general impression reading the report is that, for each theme, who was speaking was exactly who shouldn't

And I'm SO happy about the numbers. Ultima Online sinking makes me happy, AC1+2 aren't even enough to go against Eve-Online and SWG is right where it belongs. The most powerful licence and a result right slightly above DAoC.

So. If everyone is there to teach, who is there to learn? considering the situation the smaller the audience the smaller the damage.

Except that, well, the point of the talk was answerning that question. If you don't think that's the right question, don't go.



Thanks!



Each session was pretty full, actually. It was pretty encouraging that people are still trying to make these beasts.

AGC has always been the best conference to go to to learn about MMO production, and this year's had 3 complete MMO tracks (design, production and tech). Good stuff all around.

And it is a hell of a lot cheaper than GDC. (Of course, if you're speaking or your company pays for you, that doesn't matter as much!)

Web page now says there were over 1400 attendees, up from 850 the previous year.

Bruce

Other than technology and project management issues, I'm not sure that learning from other MMOG developers is a good thing.  I  mean, when what many people consider the pinnacle of the genre was developed back in 1997, perhaps it's time to stop inbreeding your memes.

Good info, thanks SB.

I didn't know JRR wrote against eBaying virtual property.  Not directly, of course, but through the terms of his time.   Go Papa Tolkien.

This article was just frontpaged. Moving thread to 'We Distort We Decide.'

A few minor notes:

I hear the website panel description for Richard's talk has changed.

Mark Jacobs specifically called out "folks by the names of Richard, Roy, Bill, Kelton, and John"  -- that would be Bartle, Trubshaw, Louden, Flinn, and Taylor. As it happens, I was standing next to Bill at the time, and he whispered to me, "Can I just be the mommy of online games instead?"

Copper Tank, not Kettle. ;)

The bats come out every night all month. You had lots of chances! The reception spot was a terrible location to see them--down at the T.G.I.Friday's, or on the bridge itself, would be much better locations.

It was nice to be back in Austin--live music in the hotel lobby, and live music in the Friday's too. :)

We're probably going to go see the bats tonight since this is my last night in Austin.

The web site (http://www.gameconference.com/conference/design.html) still has the same text for Richard's presentation.

And yes, I meant The Copper Tank!

Bruce

I find stupid an out-of-context discussion on a topic so big that it could include everything and more. It's like "lets talk about everything and nothing assuming that what we say makes sense".

I just have the impression that these conferences are groups for self-brag elitists aiming for a moment where they can feel important.


General impression doesn't mean everyone. In particular when SirBruce hasn't even commented yours, since he was somewhere else.

In fact yours sounds way more specific and less "raving about everything and nothing".

As opposed to making endless postings criticizing everyone who actually tries to work in the field, while claiming to have a perfect design that fixes everything but that you can't implement?

*ahem*

Might I suggest to you that it's going to be hard for you to judge these conferences or panels or the value of the discussions there without attending some of them? Just as it is hard to judge designs when you have no sense of the difficulties of execution. All of the panels I attended at AGC were rather interesting and valuable, as were many of the dinners and happy hours where rather complex discussions often took place over food and drinks. There really isn't all that much "feeling important" to be had at these things--if anything, they mostly serve to tell you how little you know. A feeling I recommend to one and all.

-Raph

Where I wrote that I haven't bigger issues than "them"?

Btw, I never claimed to have perfect design. Just interesting ideas that I feel valuable and I'd like to see. In fact my ideas are quite focused in a precise direction instead of "I will take over the world and make the perfect game for everyone".


It's obvious that I cannot judge anything. In fact I'm simply commenting an impression from the few lines I read here and in a couple of other places. And my comment is simply a comment under these conditions.

That feeling isn't new to me. That's why I read way more than write. The only difference is that whatever I learn is useless while it could matter for you.

Then I simply think that useful knowledge comes from a different source than elitism. Don't put me in that place, I never felt "special".

Agreed. This was actually my first game conference and I greatly regret not attending more in the past. I was really impressed with the amount of information shared and how open people were to feedback and ideas...even those who have some pretty impressive titles under their belts. I didn't detect any elitism on anyone's part at all.

Just for the sake of completeness. The other two people on the content panel were Jack Emmert and myself and the other people on the community panel were Den Dragon from Stratics and EM Stock from NCSoft. I thought Jack's comments about content in MMOs were particularly interesting as well as the debate regarding player generated content. I had an opportunity to speak with a few people after that panel about using different kinds of content to create emotional attachments in MMOs which were actually very enlightening to me as well.

Mostly though I enjoyed meeting other people in the industry, especially my counterparts in Community Relations.  If nothing else, that was more than worth attending.

Raph was on three panels and I saw (and mentioned) two of them.  I'm sorry my comments didn't have more specifics; I wasn't trying to transcribe what everyone said but just give a general impression of how things went.

I've experienced very little elitism from nearly every developer.  People like Jacobs and Koster and Walton were happy to talk with just about anyone about these issues.  I think a lot of them admit that for the most part, we don't have good answers to a lot of the questions/problems that come with these games.  We have ideas, and we'll talk about the pros and cons of them, but without actual implementation, it's hard to judge how these ideas work.  And furthermore, if that great idea winds up in a game that doesn't do so well or gets cancelled, you have a hard time evaluating whether or not that idea was actually one that would have worked.

Other times, a game like City of Heroes can come along that seems to violate some of the "rules" we thought we knew.  CoH isn't very deep, but the core gameplay is extremely engaging, the combat is fun, and you get to play a superhero instead of a space jockey or a high fantasy hero.  These elements were enough to get a large number of subscribers, and although some quit after the first couple of months, a large number still remain.  And I think all developers try to learn something from these new games and re-evaluate the importance of others within a business context.  But maybe the real lesson here is that there's not set formula for success.

Getting back to the static vs. dynamic content debate, Rich Vogel (and I think Starr Long, too) have both stated that 80% static and 20% dynamic was the "best" mix they've hit upon so far.  But I didn't mention this because I've heard that ratio bandied about before, and in any case no one is putting that forward as some new game design law.  Everyone recognizes that different games will need different ratios, especially if the game has strong PvP elements to it.  I think it was more important to simply understand the different kinds of content, how each can be implemented, and the limitations that each have in certain circumstances.  Static content is great for telling story and evoking emotion, but you still need some dynamic content so the person doesn't feel the world is completely predictable.  Dynamic content can provide for very fun surprises for players, but you also need to make sure that the dynamic content is something they have the option to not choose to experience at that time if they don't have time to get involved in some new quest at that time.  And so on.

Bruce

PS - Saw the bats tonight, whee!

You don't see my point.

I'm sure that they all felt pimped and stuff during these conferences. And I'm also sure that they felt the discussions interesting and useful.

But for me the real and concrete *value* comes from the direct experience with the players and the game itself. "Get your hands dirt". I'm simply stating that talking with the players, even the most stupid ones in a cesspit like B.net, is way more concretely useful than the chatter between "high-profile" elitists with complex theoric studies on the topic.

I believe that the creativity, the passion and even the innovation comes from *below*. Not from the high level theorization. I still have to see a damn GOOD concrete result coming out from all that fancy stuff because the most interesting and fun games to date, imho, are those that DON'T follow the ideas coming out from those places.

Peoples like Jakobs, imho, just demonstrate that they are willingly to discuss only inside an highly protected environment where they are on top of the ladder and can choose exactly how much they can be open or not.

As I said, what they write is all faked. I'm sure that its their true opinion, I'm just stating that they are trying to fool themselves as part of their PR game. It sounded like the G8.

So, they passed those days discussing in those conferences, while I passed my time reading and discussing in the beta forums of WoW. I'm really wondering who learnt more. And who is really open to learn new things and new approaches.

I didn't know it was an either-or thing.  Personally, after 363 days talking to players, working on the game and spending time in it, reading and replying on forums, etc...  I find spending 2 days talking to other people that also make and run online games to be a nice change and to offer some different perspectives and ideas than I got those other 363 days.

Anyway I just wanted to leave a note to say Dr. Bartle didn't make the first multiplayer online fantasy game either.  Not to belittle his continuing contributions to our industry over a quarter century, but the first online D&D type games I know of were those on the innovative Plato network, such as moria and dnd.  They predate MUD 1 by a few years, and had graphics to boot!  Plato terminals had 512*512 graphics in the mid-70s.  Dnd had a simple 2D overhead view, moria (and later games like oubliette and avatar (which Wizardry was based on)) had 3D wireframe graphics of the dungeons.

I don't think the general public really cares about the early history of online games, though.  But I do.

   -- Dr. Cat

Nice summary Bruce.

Glad a good time was had by all.

You play MMorpgs since when my friend from across the southern border? Must be all of three weeks or so.

Haven't we learned time and time again, from experience, from making fun of those poor sods, from hiding on boards like this from them, that the average player can't be trusted with anything regarding a bigger picture than his own immediate advantage?

The main thing *I* learn from reading the discussions in the beta forums is that there is no hope for humanity if those people decide to taint the gene pool en masse. Mileage may vary.

Edit: To clarify, I'm sure most of those people have enough feedback from their respective playerbases, they have enough intelligent players they conversed with prior to those conferences. But there is a point where professionals have to talk with each other without players who only see aspects of the whole picture and think they know everything. I know I take customer feedback quite serious in my line of work, but I don't let those customers take part in the strategic planning.

comments:

I'll attend when they finally panel a discussion called "Why are our games less fun than brushing your teeth?"

Calling Richard Garriott the father of online gaming reminds me of why an autograph is called a "John Hancock" - lots of people signed the Declaration of Independance, but John Hancock made it all about himself, and history has rewarded him for it.

Mark Jacobs not in a tailored suit means only one thing: Mark Jacobs in a tailored crew shirt. Leave it to him to throw massive millstones in the pond and watch everyone surf the ripples.

One more thing about Richard Garriott - how about we compromise and call him the father of online games that aren't a clone of EverQuest? I wonder if that would be okay with Mr. Jacobs.

Bats are vermin. They are undeserving of our love.

I spoke with Chris Sherman at the end of the show, and the final count was around 2500 full. He also said he wants to maintain the smaller base so that more people can network on a personal level. I think I was able to spend about 15 minutes with just about everyone I know if not at a private lunch or dinner.

Great Seeing ya'll again.
Bruce check yer PM.

What's wrong with feeling special and important?  Christ man, it's just a conference for people to attend interested in the subject matter, where the hell is the debate?

Pigeons are vermin, bats are a huge insect control.

May you soak in mosquitoes.

Not really.  UO was the first MMOG, and RG led it up.  You had some of the AOL games, but they don't come close, and they were also exclusive to AOL users, not internet users.  Don't forget, there were many other subscription services that had online games as well - AOL is just the best remembered.  You had MUDs, but they didn't either.  The title "The Father of..." doesn't always go to the guy who first came up with the idea, because there's no way to really track that.  It goes to the guy who first did something pretty serious with it.  The title of father of MORPG would really go to Bartle, with MUD 1, for example.  

There's probably a long list of people who have more innovations to their name in the MMOG industry than Garriott - but they didn't get the marketing behind their name to bring the attention RG did, either.  Sucks for them.

TEN was the first Games Network Channel which hosted Dark Sun Online, along with severa other games before UO and after AOL's Nwn.

Amazing that someone who's only contributions are 1) providing some investment funds and 2) shameless self promotion can make it on one of these panels.

I'd like to add that even though he didn't single-handedly win our independence, George Washington is still referred to as the "father" of our country.

Bartle may have been Christopher Columbus, Mark Jacobs may have been Paul Revere, and Raph could very well be Benjamin Franklin....but in the minds of many Garriott is the George Washington of MMOGs. I'll give Bruce the John Hancock role.....mainly because Johnny's most notable accomplishment was drawing attention to something he wrote (*cough*subscription chart*ahem*).

Doesn't mean they don't all have a place in history....just that there are enough people involved that you couldn't bestow that "father" label on anyone without pissing some other people off.

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

You forgot:

3) Maintaing the MMOG Subscription Chart, which, even if you think is totally bogus, is nevertheless a standard reference now.

4) Actually having experience coding and running MUDs that are in many ways the spiritual predecessor to modern MMOGs.

5) Paid consulting, providing insight and analysis on both the industry and some MMO designs (no, I won't tell you who (yet)).

6) Being more intelligent than you.

In addition, you have to consider that:

7) Decisions are made by people who show up.  If you attend, and if you network, you can get involved in one capacity or another in this industry.

8) At the time of the first AGC, the rest of Playnet were too busy to do the panel, and I was the one invited.  This year, we could actually afford to send some people, but the CEO didn't go.  Next year, it might be Jim Mesteller up there instead of me talking about making MMOGs on a budget.

9) I'm blackmailing Gordon Walton.

Bruce

PS - If it makes you feel any better, my proposed talk for GDC this year was turned down.  On the other hand, IDGA did want me to help provide input to their Online Games whitepaper.

Self Promotion



Self Promotion



Lord help them



Keep telling yourself that.


Self promotion.



sounds like they sent the only person who doesnt do anything.

I think I've just been SirBruced.

Bruce

Oh lord, please don't make him start referring to himself in the third person...

Xilren

Until you've had to deal with millions of "customers" (99% of which are raving lunatics) who all believe the world revolves around them, and you owe them, and they'll sue you; you really have no idea what you're talking about in that regard.

He isn't. He was just being ironic. It would have been funnier if it said "I think I've just been SirBruced. I feel violated." But he didn't. Meh, who gives a shit. Why am I even respo*(SD*(@# NO CARRIER

edit: omg, wrong thread.

At least he got the joke.

Posted this in the wrong thread before....

Dammned Vulpine has put up a few more details of the Jacobs/Garriott exchange in his blog (http://www.damnedvulpine.com/).

All I can add is that Mark closed by saying if Richard could prove his claim to Mark's satisfaction, he would gladly call Richard his "Daddy". :)

As for Richard's talk, it seems like it was virtually identical to the same speech he gave at the first AGC on the same topic.  And yet the description for that panel was quite different, so SOMEONE must have wrote the new text.

Bruce

PS - I did see Dammned Vulpine at the con when I caught his name tag, but at the time I couldn't remember who that was, so I didn't go up and say hello.

Aw, Jesus Christ... Of all the things in the world to get worked up over.  It sounds like Jacobs could use a swift kick in his ball sack in order to teach him a lesson in perspective.

aside: I'm 95% certain, having not even been there, that Mark was being mostly tongue-in-cheek and only partly annoyed.

PS: HRose, what Raph was trying to explain to you was "SHUT UP", but he was trying to do so in a professional manner.

so shut up.

Wouldn't the MUD folks, the Dark Sun/AOL folks, and the m59'ers be the grandfathers of mmogs? UO did bring the mmorpg genre to the current level of success and awareness, though EQ steals much of that thunder.

With EQ following so closely to previous iterations of online worlds, maybe you could say Raph is the father of modern online gaming :)

Then Shadow of Yserbius would be a great uncle?

Nuh uh, Sky, you're not dragging me into this. I try to avoid claims of taking credit ever since I discovered I am almost always wrong. :)

If Bartle is Christopher Columbus, would that make the author of the first multiplayer graphic dungeon game on Plato in 1975 or 1976 the "Amerigo Vespucci"?  The guy who actually found it first, but most people now think the next guy was first?  Works for me.

Of course Amerigo at least got the continents named after him, whereas the first dungeon game author on Plato, well, I don't even know his name and I bet nobody else here does either.  Kind of a shame.

  -- Dr. Cat

I only attended a couple of the panels, as I was working a booth in the exhibition hall.  In each one, I found something to peeve me:

1) In the "Improving Communication" panel, the spoken assumption that all MMO players, particularly the ones who post ideas on forums, want an "I Win" button instead of a balanced and fun game.  Kudos to Raph for uttering the revolutionary words "players aren't stupid" as the other panelists looked at him aghast.

2) In the "Design Risks" panel, the outright dismissal of the notion that MMO combat should be anything other than push-a-button-and-walk-away.  The panelist who responded (I think it was the guy from Mythic) basically said that if any modicum of skill was involved, veteran players would be whomped by newbies and the moon would plunge from its orbit.  I wrote a rant on how wrong he is, which I won't inflict on y'all unless provoked.

This was my first time to a conference like this, so maybe it's par for the course.  I felt disillusioned, though, and I have to say I have new respect for Raph after seeing how firmly the majority of his peers in the industry have their heads wedged up their asses.

I think you misinterpreted his comment.  "Skill-based" doesn't mean hitting the a certain sequence of buttons in a logical sequence.  "Skill-based" is a step beyond that, where one's physical ability to manipulate the mouse or joystick or hit multiple buttons quickly at once in certain specific orders is critical to success.  I'l agree there's a grey area between auto-attack and full-blown skill-based, but many MMOGs are moving away from auto-attack to a more "interactive" experience.  Still, in most of those games, one's level and abilities which are gained over time are ultimately more important, and executing special attacks is more about paying attention and hitting the right button rather than a more complicated series of inputs.

Truly skill-based MMOGs like PlanetSide and WW2OL and Magic: the Gathering work because they are PvP, and even then, their success has been  limited in comparison.  Having a skill-based game that works against PvE is very difficult, as it requires good AI, but we've seen this in single-player games for decades now.  So I think you could do it in either a PvE or PvP MMOG, but not in a combo MMOG.

Bruce

The thing I took issue with (and you're drifting in that direction) is the notion that the only type of "skill" worth considering is the physical ability to move a mouse - in other words, innate skills like reflexes and hand-eye coordination.  What about skills that are more specific to the game itself (learned skills)?  What if as you progressed through the game, you (the player) could learn tactics or information that would give you an edge over players who didn't have that knowledge (such as the guy who bought his 50th level character on eBay and has never seen the game world before)?

A retarded monkey can learn to push a button when a light flashes, and as far as I've seen, most MMOG combat doesn't get any more demanding than that, skill-wise.  Can't we find some sort of "skill contest" that doesn't rely heavily on innate pre-existing skills (e.g. reflexes), and instead builds on learned skills that players gain naturally as they play the game?  Learned skills that elevate the player past retarded monkey status?

I suspect that Puzzle Pirates is a step in the right direction, though it suffers from the problem of its skill contests being completely abstract relative to the game world.

Obviously, character stats (avatar skill) should weigh into the equation as well, but the goal that I seek is to be able to play one of these games and think to myself "hey, I'm pretty good at this game" as opposed to "hey, I have a pretty high level character".  The former gives me a sense of pride.  The latter creates an oscillation between pride and shame that is generally followed by quitting the game, once I realize how much time I've sunk into the act of incrementing a counter.

The obvious response is they wouldn't be veterans. The veterans would be the good people.

Try to make this argument for a fighting game. "If Street Fighter 2 took skill, a newbie would whomp a veteran!" Nope, quite the opposite! The newbie has no idea what they are doing, and the veteran has been winning tournaments for years.

His problem was thinking of it as a switch that gets flipped one day. One day being a vet = time spent, the next day being a vet =actual ability. If you did that in the midst of a game like DOAC....yeah that would piss a lot of people off.

I do agree that skill based games more more sense for PvP games, and I use that term (PvP) loosely. What about games like Madden? Fighting games? In those games, skill is really the MAIN draw. Racing games, Bomberman, etc etc. PvE is a different beast, but in any genre other than MMORPG, PvP games are all about skill. RTS? FPS?

And, skill can be a lot of things. It can be twitch, it can be remaining calm under pressure, it can be multitasking, it can be math, it can be plumbing...

Most of MMORPG skill these days really is to wait for some flashing light, then hit a hotkey...

I actually went to the Women's Conference going on at the same time/ same location.  I enjoyed it, but was disappoined in that the session times for each conference (although you could go to either) were off by 30 min, so I was either hanging out for 30 min or walking in late or leaving early.  Hopefully, the sessions will be more in sync next year.  

The two sessions I disliked most (and walked out of) were "Women in Game Journalism" since none of them seemed to game - what is the point if you don't give a shit about it.  In addition, I absolutely hated the session that others liked of "Designing Within a License."  Mark Jacobs showed up late to his presentation, with an attitude, and was unprofessional and annoying for the 30 minutes I could watch him.  Watching someone take the other side of the arguement is entertaining for maybe 5 minutes, but it got very old, very fast.  Perhaps he was late because of his hissy fit over the session description before him that Garriott was the "Father of online gaming."  

I was actually in Garriott's session before Jacobs, and it was actually one of the best sessions I heard at the conference.  Garriot was one of the very few who spoke at the entire conference who realized there were things he messed up in UO, TR, and told the audience why.  

Day 1

The Womens Conference started with a welcome from Sheri Graner Ray, conference chair, then went to the keynote by Kathy Schoback of Infinium Labs.  

The first session was, "Identifying the issues - discusses top issues facing women in the game industry".  Mia Consalvo from Ohio University, Nicky Robinson from Stunt Puppy, and Denise Fulton from Ion Storm talked, as well as Aleks Krotoski from the UK who gave a great presentation on a white paper she had done for ELSPA Chicks and Joysticks (http://www.elspa.co.uk/about/pr/elspawhitepaper3.pdf) with a shitty name, but good anyway.  The round table did well at pulling out the issues and trying to answer them.  Perfect for one of the first sessions of the conference.

Next was "Getting to the top" where Laura Fryer from MS, Kathy Schoback from Infinium Labs, and Beth Doherty from Acclaim talked about building a sucessful career in the game industry.  Generally, all really enjoyed gaming, and then it seemed some logical progression.

Next was the Production Best Practices with Starr Long, Matt Firor, Rich Vogel and someone else.  Like Sir Bruce said, it was pretty basic stuff - good to rehear, but nothing really new in this session.  Although more than a little discussion about special ad hoc groups.  

Instead of going to Community Management, I went to "Building a New IP" with Richard Garriott and thought it was the best of the conference.   I skipped the "work session on topics" going on at the same time for the womens conference.  RG did talk generally about IP's, and then went into specificis of UO and TR, but it was more from the perspective of why he did what he did, what he was thinking, what was right, what was wrong, and how he continues to make changes to improve.  I prefer the blunt talk he gave with his mistakes vs. the ego and smart ass comments from Jacobs in the next session.  

Next session was "Designing within a License" with Rich Vogel, Mark Jacobs, Vijay Lakshman, and Chris McKibbin.  Everything was fine until Mark Jacobs showed up about 5 min late and began his rampage.  The others did well in addressing the issues and trying to contain Mark, but oh well.  It just got old hearing him rant and I left half way though.  I missed his comments on RG, but it was THE discussion for the rest of the night (even at the coper tank).  Although I heard just as many comment about the root of the issue being Mark's ego, temper, pissing contest, bla bla bla.  

Went to the terra nova get together, drank, ate, then to the copper tank to drink more. :)

Day 2

Again an introduction from Sheri Graner Ray, then a well done keynote by Patricia Vance, President, ESRB.  She went into why it is important that the gaming industry rate itself, so that the chance of legislative regulation or contraints.  

Next session was "A Gamer's Life" - quality of life issues, families and what the balance should be.  Sandra Powers with Turbine, Gordon Walton/SOE, Shannon Loftis with MS, Kirsten Forbes with Radical Entertainment, Kay Gilmore from Ion Storm, Hank Howie with Blue Fang, discussed the quality of life issues (outside life vs deadlines).  It kept coming back to deadlines and the work with no easy answer, but it was helpful to confront the issues.

Next session was "Design Risks We Should Be Taking" with Raph Koster, Patricia Pizer, Matt Firor, and Damion Schubert.  It was a good and rather lively brainstorming session with ideas of what to do if $ and market weren't barriers to designing games.  

Next session was "It's What's Inside That Counts" - content and the female audience with TL Taylor from the University of Copenhagen, Gano Haine with Stunt Puppy, Kiki Wolfkill from MS, and Raph Koster.  It was the same discussion I seem to have from time to time, about what you need to do to appeal to women gamers.  Although interesting to hear from other perspectives.  

Next session was "Women in Game Journalism".  I didn't see the passion for games and left early.

Last session was "Diamonds in the Sand - Data-Mining the Social Systems of Massively Multiplayer Games" with Michael Steele and Patricia Pizer.  Well done talk and interesting seeing the social connections of games by graphs.  

Dinner, drinks, and bats at/outside TGIFridays.  :)

Hmmm......That's just no good at all.

Edit: If you don't mind can you run through what the keynote was about? Other than driving a company with an assload of capital straight into the ground...

The Richard Garriott IP talk WAS good... it's just, he gave it last year, so I didn't feel the need to see it again. :)  Still, it's cool how he talks about the Ultima virtues and then dovetails into the research he did to come up with background for Tabula Rasa.  It is interesting, even artistic, but I'm not sure it really tells you much about Building new IP.

Bruce

Schild, don't diss Kathy too much--she's got a long and stories history with the industry, including at Eidos and the IGDA. She contributes a lot.

SirBruce, don't stomp on Samwise too much, he was trying to give me a compliment. I need every one I can get. ;)

All hail Raph, the Great Peacemaker!

Bruce

I didn't mean to diss Kathy, that was a dig at Infinium Labs. Though....I'm still interested in what she had to say, even moreso now. ;)



Pffffft, when you get dissed around here it's because some of us can still taste the vast emptiness of space in our mouths. Outside of attributing SW:G to you, we give you all the ego boosts you need around here, Raph. You're like the closest thing to a celebrity in the online gaming world. Well, you and Garriot.

edit: grammar++ and I can't make that sound less kiss-assy. Maybe it's just late. Or early.

Technically, it's Garriott, not Garriot, but people have been making that mistake all the way back to his father, on official NASA documents no less.

Bruce

I wouldn't say you are so much wrong as not able to deliver your ideas properly because most gamers are a lesson in human nature and anonymity. But am I wrong in thinking UO was the most original and ambitious mmorpg attempt thus far? Methinks SWG tries to be a bit too safe, corporate pressures, maybe? I speculate.

I concur.  Only the evil forces of marketing could have taken so many good ideas and turned them on their heads so quickly.

Anyway we can get a transcription of that session? Im immensly interested to see what actual designers of these games see as 'design risks' as compared to what us gamers would like to see.

Mind you, M:tGO's biggest limiting factor is that quite a lot of potential players cannot accept the idea that you don't get a physical set of cards for your money, yet the virtual "cards" cost as much as their physical counterparts.

It is probably biggest in its quite separate genre (virtual online CCGs) though; the company Genetic Anomalies tried and failed early on with Chron X, and there were a few others as well. All dead now, I think.

Well, I won't try to summarize the panel, but maybe YOU guys can BE the panel.

I asked the following:

- Why do risks, since the public doesn't buy them or subscribe to them anyway? First to market is a lie, it's second to market who cleans up. This strategy works wonders for Blizzard. Why be someone else's canary in a coal mine?

- OK, so if we do risks, what risks are off the table because the market simply won't let us do them? What has the the industry already settled in its head is a waste of money, and therefore will not be tried?

- What games are out there that ARE taking risks and really doing something new?

- No, NOT market risks. Design risks. Do the question over again.

- So what risky things do you want to try doing?

- No, NOT MARKET risks. DESIGN risks. Do the question over again.

- Fine, since the market figures too big in your thinking, here, have $50 million dollars and no executives. NOW what risks do you take?

(FWIW, some of the responses on the last one were "do what WoW is doing, play it safe, make it really polished, and make way more than $50 mil" and "reduce the grind." That's when I accused the panel of a failure of imagination. ;) )

Oh that just makes me want to cry. Good for you for calling them out.

50 mill...Ok...

Sci fi setting, each player picks a faction/empire when they start or they can be independents (most likely pirates etc). Several branches to choose from for career advancement: Military (Navy , Army), Merchant, diplomat etc...Factions are player run, advancement is through skill and peer review (not by killing more womp rats)...Real time space simulation ...multi crewed capital ships, fighters etc.....ground based combat for the grunts again FPS style...roleplaying (!) encouraging but not enforced..Each faction get number of planets, each produces stuff for merchants to trade, diplos can arrange treaties / pacts / trade policies etc...Neutral planets between territories for factions to fight over..Pirates, occasional alien invasion etc...

Hrrm maybe like what SWG couldve been....whoops..

Sorry couldnt resist.:)

Full open PVP, without levels, with hard (and you know what I mean by hard) player accountability, player skill without twitch, classless skill system, 3d Graphics, no license, with broadband required.

I bet you not one person on that panel would touch that one, even with $50 million dollars and no executives.

Risks produce innovation.  The Wright Brothers, Ford, Edison all took risks and were perceived as crackpots... then geniuses.  I think it's ultimately more important to advance boundaries than it is to profit from the innovation of others... that may be why I do what I do for a living when I could be making triple in the private sector.  Risk taking also produces the liklihood of falling flat on your face.  You need thick skin and resilliance, especially with the cruelty of the public and scrutiny of today's media.



I don't have the insider expertise to attempt this one without sheer handwaving.  I'll defer to those more in tune.



A Tale in the Desert comes to mind.  Teppy wants to create a new type of achievement-based, socially driven, PvP_in_the_not_so_obvious_sense experience.  The game is full traditional mmog elements but presents them in a new direction.  Yes, it's niche... but I think new directions are a good thing.

I'd also have to give a little credit to CoH.  The superhero "thing" seems to use old gaming paradigms and apply them to a new texture.  As this type of thing has already been done in PnP games, it's not really a great innovation, but the combat pacing and use of 3D space did improve the way we look at mmog combat.



Well, I have a million ideas on what I'd like to see in an mmog, but I must admit that I'm not well grounded in what could be feasibly implemented.  A few things I'd love to attempt to answer better:

1) Is there a better way to maintain player accountability without it negatively impacting the fun of core gameplay?  

2) Can an enjoyable crafting system be created that is directly tied into the player economy?

3) Can skill become more of a factor in core gameplay without the game becoming a modified FPS?

4) Can the current skill system become more linearized for better groupability and faster incorporation into a pvp aspect?

5) Can a balance be struck between fast and active combat while maintaining a core social structure?

6) What has to be done to limit runaway inflation in mmog's without producing obvious money sinks?

Many more thoughts... I'll quit there.

You wrote this as I was typing my answers... This is a game I'd pay to play.

If I had $50 million and I wanted to take a risk, I would spend most of that trying to "solve" the content problem with a truly dynamic, random mission/story/dungeon/quest/loot system that didn't suck.  It would also be a PvE game that spent a lot of time on tools for player characters to add limited content in some fashion.  And the rest of the deisgn would be pretty standard PvE fantasy MMOG stuff, because you can't take too many risks at once.

Bruce

ugh you are not going to 'solve' it without having a ridicolously large live team continually adding content at a breakneck speed.

The ONLY way ,without making the game essentially a single player expierence , to provide real dynamic content is to have the game be completely player driven. Player interaction makes the best content.
Any other 'random dynamic instanced quest loot mission etc system is just sticking more thumbs in the damn...eventually your players will play through it and get bored of it. So either you spend 50 million dollars designing really really smart AI so the player thinks they are in a multiplayer environment when in fact they are the only player and therefore will be the hero. OR you give the players a chance to change the world around them and that can ONLY be done in a framework of PvP.

Now the hard part is delivering PvP that is not 100% combat that is also fun and engaging for the player.

Serious question, what do you consider player skill without twitch?

Guild Wars has invented a system. In each PVP Battle you can only bring 8 spells from a full book of them. Say you pick 8 spells that are completely defended against. I believe the word 'pwned' would be in order.

Other than that? Card Games. I'd love to travel around in an MMO world with crafting and whatnot, but PVP was Magic: The Gathering.

...? Mini Real Time Strategy games.

...? Real Games. Go, Chess, Chinese Checkers. I don't care, point is, games are fun, mmmmk.

Non Twitchy sports. Golf and Pool come to mind. MMOIP. Massively Multiplayer Online Irish Pub. Sign me up!

Great read. :)

I wish I either lived closer to these functions or had a larger income to be able to fly about the country to these events.

I sunk a lot of cash into this year's GDC and had a blast...despite the cold shoulder from some companies (and humiliation from others).

I like some of the answers seen so i'll throw my 2 cents in.

1. Minor risk - a modular, skill based magic system which allows people to design their own spells.  I know some games have attempted minor versions of this, but making magic unique per character would be interesting. If not, at least a helluva lot more magic abilties that aren;t purely about combat i.e. designing a magic school that fully supports exploring: animals forms (for accessing areas normal people can't get to like mountain tops, underwater caves, jungle treetops), movement spells (flight, levitations, water breathing, gaseous forms), spells that can help give area knowledge (speaking with plants, animals, reading scents), finding hidden passes/caves/ruins, herblores, tracking thats more than just find next mob to fight.  Of course, this presupposes a game where you can actually DO more than just fight or craft.  CoH planning to allow players to modify their powers with say different color and particle effects and such sound like it will be much more magical than most fantasy magic systems and that just pure asthetics.

2. Moderate risk - allow for true sever divergence in major ways as the world responds to player driven GM overseen plot changes.  Unique Player cities and housing dont truly make for shards that are different and interesting in terms of story, though they are better than nothing.  Have a world where the players successfully did release the big evil demon, one other players stopped his realease, one the managed to kill him by completing god given artifact quest A, one that let him loose and half the player base joined his service for demonic weapons, another that let free an imprisoned good angel and started a holy war, etc etc.

3. Major risk - A NWN type game done "right" (and by that i mean not tied to a restrictive class based D&D game system that the core rules cannot be modified, and a combat model that slower paced to provide much more tactical options than NWN's).  Design not a game, but a game system and allow players to build there own modules/worldlets/content they can submit and get incorporated into the actual central gameworld or allow players to hook these adventure segments directly off their own machines (back to broadband required) for a huge series of interconnected "dimensions".  By using a generic system like Gurps or a skill based D20, you could allow for all sort of thematic flavors with the same base game systems so you could travel from a high magic typical fantasy realm to a low magic realm where the rules are quite different, to steampunk, historical no-magic, modern day, futuristic and sci-fi even.  By linking everything to a centrally stored character database, you get your control and structure even if the adventure portions take place on individual players machines.

Or, a game world where almost everything is player submitted and the live teams main job is to support the system and basically QA and implement the player submitted quests, monsters, areas, dungeons, npcs, items, spells, etc etc.

From my personal viewpoint, I would much rather focus on how to bring about more story driven and unique small group/guild (max ~200 say) experiences.  I've long believed the "massive" part of mmorpg's is really their achilles heel.  Designing continuing new content for the masses is just doomed to failure b/c there is no way a small team can possible keep up with the rate of consumption.  Yet at the same time, we also know allowing everyone to affect the gameworld as they see fit is also a recipie for chaos and fucktardary not to mention telling people catass king MaStErKiLlUr over there your end game content just hasn;t show it works well.

So, design a method to allow a lot of user created content to be implemented into a gamewold, but has to be vetted by the dev shop somehow.

So, where's my 50 million; I assume you put the check in the mail?

Xilren

There's several ideas of mine I'd like to see the light of PC day...unfortunately, if I just blurted them all out, they may in fact make it to reality (without my name attached to them).

I even have an idea to abolish the stat-based level treadmills of today's shallow and rather dismal MMOGs that lack any semblance to "Fun" gameplay by bypassing the Slot-Machine principle in favour of a continually stimulating game design akin to a SP title but cost effective enough to be widely utilized in an MMOG environment.

Who am I kidding? Us nobodies get the shaft when it comes to "good" ideas anyways.

Maybe they just aren't buying the risks you put out.

They bought UO. They bought CoH. Street Fighter 2 was first to market (competitive fighting game, yes there were fighting games before) was very new, and became the most popular arcade game of all time. (Or maybe second after Pac-Man. And yes, even though there is a "2" in the title it was a first to market design)

---

About player skill: player skill can be ALL sorts of things. First of all, there is nothing wrong with twitch skill, and twitch skill can take a lot of different forms. Are racing games "twitch" games? Sure, you steer in real time, but i don't think physical coordination is the main skill there.

What about planning? What about using your brain during the activity? People consider fighting games twitch games, but the best players are the ones with the best gameplan, the ones who know their characters and matchups well, stay cool under pressure, judge distances well, don't get easily frustrated....AND have great execution. But in the fighting game world the people with the *best* execution don't win tournaments, they make combo videos.

Any sort of strategy or planning is a player skill. As Schild said, what about a game where you build a deck and wander around fighting other people with it? There is skill there in the deck building and the playing of the deck, with no twitch involved at all. What about game where you command armies with turn based combat? (On some sort of timer or something pseudo-real-time) Again, there would be skill in creating an army and in-battle strategy.

I find that in a lot of MMORPGs, both the thinking part and the twitch part are brain-dead. When you see a flash, hit some hotkey - that's the "twitch" part. Real twitch games have a lot of different dimensions of skill, not just press button. That's the equivalent of those old "Night Trap" style games, which no normal person would consider a twitch game.

Without departing too far from current MMORPGs, I can think of a lot of strategy aspects that could be introduced. Strategy comes from tradeoffs: there are multiple possibilities that all seem OK at first glance. Strategy is decision making.

Having things like "ice spells work well against fire creatures" doesn't add any strategy or depth. I learn that, and from then on use ice. There was no real decision to be made.

You just described this game (http://www.sega.com/gamesite/pso3card/content.html). Note that it's one of the extremely few online games for the 'Cube.

Sounds like a description of the old pen and paper RPG Traveller (http://www.fact-index.com/t/tr/traveller__rpg_.html). Perhaps someone could get the rights to do a MMOG based on it, but it neither has the name recognition or usable system fit for a MMORPG.

(As an aside, the RPG inspired the creation of Elite, and hence - by implication - EVE Online.)

Actually its more StarWars/StarTrek orientated, pretty much based off the Trek mushes I played around 10 years ago (no Im not a trekkie). The emphasis is more on the empire vs empire stuff though players may certainly enjoy playing as independents.
CRS , the makes of ww2ol, actually either planned to make a traveller mmolg or owned the rights to it, something like that.


Or another thing to do with 50mil? Buy a battletech license + the original mecha from harmony gold (warhammer etc)....use an engine similar to planetside or ww2ol (long viewable distance)....multiple planets...jump ships, drop ships, aerospace..woo that'd be fun.

Too anime. :-)

Actually, I would pay good money for a mmorpg version of Magic the Gathering where your avatar can travel the world in search of spells and combat is handled via duel.  This is a much greater extention of GW idea of only picking 8 spells from your book for any given battle; making a 60 card deck from your entire collection of thousands of choices, or a 40 card deck from a limited card set is a whole sub game inself and the variety of play formats allow for new players with decent skills to compete with the mtg catasses known as Mr Suitcase (the people who have 4 of every rare card).

The varous expansions are have thematic flavor which would allow for easy of making a distinct and varied game world.  And travel from area to area could entail new play choices; i.e. if you want to a theme block area to gain those cards you would have to duel in those formats (block  constructed or block limited).

Hell, you could have crafting which equates to making your on unique spell cards i.e. take an existing spell like Hill Giant and give it a new name, flavor text, picture (or 3d representation if they went this route) for some cost.  Perhaps make this a character skill that has to be practiced with low power/common spells before you gain enought experience to work on uncommon and eventually rares ;).  Then you can trade those cards, use em, sell em, but who wouldn;t want to play with a Schild's Fabulous Hand Filler instead of the old Howling Mine?  Same card function, world of player investment difference.

You can still have things like player housing with plenty of props, avatar customization, guilds, player stores and economy, quests and plotlines just fitted around the concept of magic planeswalkers.  And if they made a 3d implemntation of the duel itself where you would see your critters and sells flying in glorius eye candy...

Sorry, must wipe drool off my chin.  A guy can dream can't he?

Xilren

Conclusion: Raph Koster is the Thomas Paine of MMORPGS.

No, that's easy.  But you just can't do it well in a fantasy MMORPG.

I'm specifically trying to make fantasy PvE MMORPG better.  If you want to do PvP, there are better mediums.

Bruce

Playnet/CRS currently has the rights to the Traveller MMOG.  Unfortunately, we have no money to make it at this time. :(

As for a useable system, there are several editions of Traveller, plus D20 Traveller, GURPS Traveller, and probably some others I'm not aware of.

Bruce

A lot of players asked for this back during the days of the Microprose Magic: the Gathering game, which was basically a single-player version of the above idea.

Bruce

Here's one that my officemate and I were throwing around in a bullshit session yesterday.  Give each player a "zone" of their very own.  It starts out as a vacant lot, or a forest, or whatever is appropriate to your game's milieu.  Allow the player to purchase items to put in that zone to create an adventuring setting.

This has echoes of SWG's player cities/housing, but nobody went adventuring in those.  Imagine that the purchaseable items can include things like static/dynamic spawns - for example, you can make your forest include an orc ambush.  There's some sort of basic scripting language that'll let you give the orcs preprogrammed behavior and battle cries.

How do we balance this?  Apply the principles of an economic strategy game to it.  Think of the placeable spawns as an investment - you go out and adventure in other zones for a while (or maybe just harvest the natural resources of your zone, like lumber or deer hide or whatever) to make money to buy the spawn, and once you've bought it, it becomes a potential source of income for you, since you can whack the orcs to make money.  Of course, if you want to buy the next big thing (like that placeable red dragon cave that spawns tons of loot), you'll get there faster by adventuring in higher level zones (like your neighbor's red dragon cave), so the temptation to sit and whack orcs all day will be low.

Getting away from combat, another type of placeable might be a tavern, complete with scriptable NPCs, placeable furniture, et cetera.  Same principle applies - you go make money somehow, buy a tavern, and then the tavern generates revenue for you as people come in and hang out or get quests from your NPCs (as the zone owner, you're the one who designs the quests, of course... perhaps there's a hook in there to cooperate with the owner of another zone so that your NPC can send a player on a quest to that zone, which involves interacting with some player-placed object in the other zone).

Sure, people will create zones filled with l33t-speaking orcs, but that happens no matter what - better to let the talented people have the tools rather than deny them the tools because the shmucks will abuse them.  As long as the tools are designed with economic balance in mind (e.g. any "money machine" you place takes a long time to pay for itself), and it's easy for players to avoid crappy zones, it won't really damage the game any.

The way that this bullshit session started originally was with the notion of making a P2P MMOG with player-created content.  Let each player host and populate their own zone (like a NWN server) and establish "portals" between them.  In one sense this is a big risk, but in another it reduces risk, because now you don't have to invest in as much server hardware to make your MMOG run.

So instead of going and listening to seasoned, experienced developers with experience on dozens of different massively multiplayer games, you instead went and listened to the same fanboys you could have listened to the other 363 days of the year, talking about a game many of them can't even play yet?  Those posts would have persisted while you were out of town, you know.


That was actually something we talked about in length in both of the panels I was on, particularly the first one.  A rough synopsis can be found on my blog (http://www.zenofdesign.com).

It was me (or at least, I agreed), and it wasn't a dismissal.  It was an explanation of how creating a skill-based game is a Design Risk (hence the name of the panel).  Skill-based games have inherent problems in social environments, because older players can either destroy new players or shame them into wanting to quit.  That's not to say you shouldn't do it, but that as a designer, you have to figure out how to mitigate that risk.

Do you feel like this doesn't happen in EverQuest, Ultima Online and Shadowbane RIGHT NOW?  These games are extremely complicated to play, especially at high levels.  Sure, anyone who buys a character on eBay can cast a spell, but its an entirely different thing to know WHEN to cast a spell, as anyone who has taken part in an EQ plane raid or an SB siege can attest to.

To be fair, Raph springboarded this question onto us without us being prepared for it, and as such, we had to make up shit was we went along (bad game design legend.  No cookie for you).  

Personally, if I had $50 million dollars, I'd like to give 30 studios 1 million dollars to incubate their best idea, and then give the studio that comes up with the best idea 19 million dollars.  The last million dollars I skim off the top.

Hookers and beer ain't cheap. :)

EDIT: And thank you, Ubiq, for pointing me to this (http://www.leftcorner.com/swg/ff/ff6.htm#).

OMG that is classic.

50 Million... I bet I could make a MMORPG that featured agriculture. A player becomes a farmer who, buys a plot of land, grow various vegetables and fruits, harvests and ships to the Agricultural Cooperatives.

Damn it!!!

http://cosmogu.com/index.html


Ok.... So much for that idea - instead I give you...."Animal Crossing Online".

That's the exact  *opposite* argument that was stated above. (That the problem is newer players can spank vets)

I don't see how what you say is different from today. In current MMORPGs older players can *always* destroy new players.

Suppose you had a decent macro system in your game that gave you hooks into all the basic game events visible to the player and had all the basic scripting language features.  How many lines would the macro be that could decide what spell to cast for optimal results?

Admittedly, I haven't personally played any of the games you describe.  In the MMOGs that I have played, though, and from the limited viewings I have had of other games of that ilk, I suspect that with the right tools you could macro the PvP combat to be optimal in about fifteen lines, to say nothing of PvE combat.  (Even with the limited tools available in, say, SWG, people can and do completely macro PvE combat.)

(Edit)
More to the point: how long do you have to play (or be taught by a guildie) before you master whatever tactics are necessary to PvP at level 50?  Subtract that time from the total time it took to get up to level 50.  Whatever time is left (I'm guessing about 99% of it) was spent grinding in stagnation.

I didn't know I was going to pose that particular one until we got to that point. I sprang it on myself just as much as I sprang it on anyone else. :)

If I had 50 million bucks to design an MMOG?

I have two ideas.

For PvP type game, character design that includes most of the development up front.  No classes, you get points to buy skills, stats, abilites that alter some of those in other ways, etc, somewhat like Shadowbane, only moreso.  Perhaps have some items purchasable with points, too.  Some limits placed to avoid over-much cheese, but ideally you can balance thru point costs.  There are PnP systems that seem to turn out disturbingly balanced characters out there already(namely, Hero).

The starting character enters the gameworld with basic equipment to use the skills they've chosen, and a home in their hometown where they can leave objects, and place grounded objects like forges, potion-racks, etc.   Better equipment, including techniques, spells or magical items, can be found thru PvE, crafting skills, and PvP.  There isn't a sword of whoopass, magical equipment will have some advantages, but not really like any other major MMO game I've played.  Your starting equipment is definately acceptable equipment to engage in PvP or PvE, no killing easy things to get sword+1 so you can fight harder things for the sword+2 ad nauseum until you kill the gods for the ultimate ass-kicking sword.  Also, some bonuses are to be had for using the same equipment for a long time, you know that piece of wood or steel or whathaveyou so well, it works better for you than another similar item.

Only allow a single character per server, and that one character is perma-death.  When you die in PvP or PvE, you corpse drops stuff you've been carrying...  You make a new character.  The pain is lessened by the fact that you do not have to level again.  Your new character will however, have the same surname as the first one, and have access to the home of your previous character.  Also, a karma system can affect the number of points you have to spend on a new character.  If your dead character was Will Smith the Righteous Defender of the Realm, or got some other heady title due to your awesome arcane power, your craftsmanship, etc, you might get a bonus.  If your previous character was caught after a killing spree on your kin, you can get a penalty, which could be worked off by not being a rat bastard next time.  Such effects are not huge, but can add up over several lifetimes.  Toss in a plaque or something for the house, so visitors can see your characters past lives/relatives/whatever you want to play that off as.

There is a system of guilds which can aid starting players, such as a mages guild to help teach magic beyond what you start with, fighters guilds to teach weapon techniques (melee combat being similar to CoH, no auto-whack, with learned techniques instead of CoH's powers), crafting guilds, rogues guilds, etc, to cover all the skillsets.  The guild NPCs will demand some effort on the part of the players in exchange for such training, in the form of quests or money.  Players trained in techniques or spells can train others, as well.

Socially, the game is set up with a racial friend/foe system, groups of allies against each other, with contested grounds, a la DAoC or WoW, with governments within each group rewarding players with titles based on their achievements.  PvP is possible against friends and foes alike, and the system will allow you to choose not to kill someone if you wish.  Thus, you can fight someone to unconciousness, and then leave them there, they'll wake up shortly, knowing you beat them, but didn't kill them.

Players can apply to be guards or investigators for the government.  If a crime is reported, either to a PC or NPC guard (Galadriel Whitehair was killed behind her house!), an investigator can look into it, given tools to dig into logged game data to figure out who did it, and can gain permission of the government to do something about it.  They use their abilities to find and capture the criminal, who is then jailed.  Having a character jailed is either an effective suspension from the game (on that server, anyway) for some amount of time, or a death sentance.  If the player is killed by the government, they also send people to clean out the house, so their new character (who has the same last name) has to start from scratch.

PvP with consequences is the name of the game.  Yes, people will likely die alot when they first start, especially if they are new to the genre.  Lots of other people are designing hand-holding games, someone needs to design for those who can already walk without mommy.  A character who has gone thru training with the appropriate guild(s) should know enough about how to play well enough that they shouldn't die outside of PvP or doing dumb stuff like charging an entire legion of mobs solo or poking the sleeping dragon without backup.

Geez, that got long.  And it's not organized well.  I'll make another post for my non-PvP idea anyhow.

--
Alkiera

For $50 million, I would make an online "Magic the Gathering meets Final Fantasy Tactics meets Warhammer Table Top."

There are a variety of leagues you can enter, with different rules for army construction. (Set points to spend, a drafting and
"player" rotation setup, ability to "gain experience" or not, etc) You create armies. You square off against other armies online.

But wait, is it a MMOG? It's massive, it's multiplayer, it's online, and it's a game, so yes. It's basically a massive neverending tournament.

I've posted about something similar to that. But more like Pokemon meets M:tG. You go around and kill monsters SW:G...wait no, CoH style and then they yield cards or packs or whatever. Then you do pvp through games of Magic: the Gathering. Point is, pvp needs skill, thx.

The last thing I need is for my in-game avatar to spend his food money on a collectable card game.

Escape me from real life, these games do.

I know this is offtopic as hell but my curiosity is killing me.  Does Sanger actually wear those Nudie suits to cons?

If I had $50M, Rednecks Online would become a reality.


Newb: "Hey, that's a sweet sword, how can I get one?"
Vet: "Well, first you gotta spend a few months to a year levelling up..."
Newb: "Umm...ok...then what?"
Vet: "Then you gotta put together 20 people to fight the uber warden of doominess, which is a rare spawn on the new moon of every third month, and only drops the jinky of glooble every six spawns, then take that to the invisible hidden man, who will tell you how to find the key to the dungeon of yikes. Now, to get that key, you'll need about 14 people, kill everything in the zone of wonky for a few hours and eventually a blibby will spawn. Kill him, and he will rarely randomly drop half of the key. It took me about three weeks to find him! Then go to the zone where the dungeon of yikes is and camp the hermit of doodysmell until he drops the other half of the key. A lot of people are trying to get that, so you might have to wait in line, that took me about a month. Now you can actually get into the dungeon! Then...
Newb: *tunes out*
Newb: "Err...you know what...maybe this game isn't for me."

Suppose you had a decent macro system that played Tetris for you?  That suggested the best moves in solitaire?  Both games are ridiculously addictive and repeatable game experiences, although both games are far simpler than your average MMP experience.

The MMP experience, while soloing, tends to have an optimal advancement path - there's no doubt about that, and its something that we could be doing better.  That being said, when you get into larger group dynamics, you've got something that seriously screws with any paint-by-numbers strategy you might have - other people.

In Shadowbane, this would be the fact that you have to adjust your tactics to your opponent's class, tactics and the overall situation.  In Everquest, the upper level game can be a guild of 70 people working together in order to kill something ridiculously overpowered.  Building a plan and communicating is crucial, and one screwup by a cleric whose cybering when he should be paying attention can cause a chaotic chain reaction that everyone has to adapt to on the fly.  

I'm not saying we've reached the pinnacle of game design for these things yet.  But a lot of people sell short the complexities of these games at higher levels.

Sanger (better known as the Fat Man) always dresses like a cowboy pimp at these cons.  He's great.

For $50 mill, my game would be a persistent game of economy, diplomacy, hacking, powerful organizations, ranks, missions, politics, etc.

And no combat in the traditional sense. At all. Since that is the treadmill and the boredom and what gives the cookie-cutter feeling. The game will be full PvP, but the interaction is non-whacking and non-shooting. Possibly with mini-games to resolve conflicts e.g. bartering and lawsuits and so on.

Since there is little need for combat animations, weapon balancing, inventing excuses to explain respawning of mobs and players and stuff like that, the $50 million can be spent on hiring domain professinals on economy, law and so on, in order to make the "MMOSim" as good as possible.

The problem is getting to those higher levels, not the high level game itself.

In a skill based game a newbie maybe with a bit of thought and a smigden of luck can take down a seasoned veteran, in a MUD/mmrpg he doesnt have that chance at all.

Man, you summed up my feelings about the current systems perfectly.  

Thank you!

I'm surprise you didn't use Counter-Strike as your counter-example instead.  Tetris requires increasing speed of action and therefore is a "twitch" game, which is a type of skill wholly separate from tactical planning (which also exists in Tetris, and would probably even take more than fifteen lines of script, for that matter).  If Tetris remained at the same manageably slow speed (like, say, MMOG combat), it would be a very boring game.

As for Solitaire, it IS a very boring game, once you realize that a retarded monkey (or a five-line script) could play it.  Would you pay $50 for a copy of Solitaire (heck, I'll be generous and throw in an instant messaging client as well), and $15 each month for a continuing subscription so you could continue playing it?  When's the last time you played Solitaire and had fun?

(Freecell is a wholly different story, of course.  Make me a MMOG that requires the same amount of brainpower as Freecell and I'll never leave.)



To repeat my earlier hypothetical - if you took someone who had never played the game before (assume he's relatively computer-savvy and maybe has played similar games, so he's not a retarded monkey, just new to your game), gave him your high-level character, and then proceeded to teach him everything you know about combat and strategy in that game, how long would it take him to be about as good as you are?

With $50 mill and no constraints, I would make "Mythica" (more individuality and more options in a dynamic world), get everyone playing by offering it free and easily accessible, then experiment with in game education.  

I first thought about the game I would love to play, basically "Mythica" in a more dynamic world "an in the box sort of answer".  Then I thought about it a bit more and decided that one of the reasons I liked the idea of Mythica was because I wanted to learn more about Norse mythology, and not just a character name or label, but the lore and get a better understanding of what life was like then.  So then my dream of the most awesome Mythica game became more of a mix into education/reality TV - like Colony - where you were given an insight into a specific time period and learned something.  So my focus of my game on top is one of fun, but the depth to it is learning and understanding.  Why not in the guise of being fun, to level in a game you actually learn something.  If you want to be a master herbalist, you learn about real plants and their real qualities.  If you wanted to become an entertainer, their was a mini game that taught you how to play an instrument (a more advanced one than the monkey beating on the drums for PS2) or a singing one - (like the new game in the UK of kareoke on the PS2).  You could learn in front of others, or in an instanced area (until you are more comfortable).  I think games that educate you could take learning to the next level. Where a game could by points or titles recognize skills you are learning in game or know on the outside.  Games seem to be always reaching for depth - why not provide that depth with real learning - education or experience.  Children and animals play to learn about their surroundings and how to interact.  Perhaps playing to learn is where online gaming is heading.  Playing online gives someone a relatively risk-free space, a safe way to get your feet wet in something new or experience something new while you are still having fun at the same time while providing options convenience and learning at your pace and timeframe.  

So, what I would do is provide the game free to anyone with internet access - both women and men alike and get Dell, Gateway, Sony, Alienware, and other computer companies to have Mythica loaded when you buy a computer or even provide it with MS windows.  Once you get people playing and having fun, experiment with providing depth by giving educational lessons at varying levels in the game as well - like learning Latin, or learning mythical lore, or learn about engineering, astronomy, map making, sun dials, tailoring, real herbal benefits of plants, chemistry, math, English/writing, medicine, linguistics, archeology.  Mix learning/playing/educating people with the game and give points for mental achievements, not just twitch.  With the ultimate goal of educating people in a way that makes it fun to learn, with others around, where people can go at their own pace, and use the game as a giant lab, exploration, and resource.  To be an expert in a profession, you would have to learn about that profession - do tasks, puzzles, research to become an expert.  Once an expert, you would still have more depth to learn more in that field or go on to learning something else - like coding, how to conduct an archeological dig, or how to read and understand Egyptian.  Ultimately providing up to a college level education for numerous topics while in game.

Education by online gaming is my "out of the box" answer, with my "in the box" ideas of my perfect game below.  


I want an immersive mythology based fantasy game with great depth and individual choices.  Also providing options for other mythologies in expansion packs (Norse mythology, Greek mythology, Roman, Atlantis, Myan, Incan, Egyptian, Roman, Eskimo, far eastern......  I want my character to be able to be used in different games, so that guilds traveling between games would be made easy.  I want to pay one base price for the convenience of access to lots of games and different types of games with my same character.  Keep the greifers and cheaters away.  Do at least updates every other month, do expansions every 6 months to keep the world ever changing and providing additional depth.  Continue to make it an even more immersive world where you and everything else changes over time, to keep progressing graphically as well.  

I want dynamic worlds in that the world is changing while I am gone and that I can direct to some degree.  I want npc's as my minions - that I order around doing my bidding, with some degree of independent reactions on their part  (make my boat, worship me, design and build a house, follow me around, fight things with me or for me, spy on other towns, collect plants, make potions, write books so I can learn spells, run errands, make clothing, collect objects, sell things, farm and raise animals) or options for me to do those things when and if I choose.  I want randomness in results, but consistency in the way things are handled (like UO spells, logic based).  I want the world to be dynamic in the way grow plants, animals evolve, spawn, gather, and attack, weather occurs, natural disasters happen - so that the virtual world really is an evolving world.  I want a world where other people are vying for the same resources and are impacting the world as well.  Add in some chaos every once in a while - with dynamic, player, and dev run events.

I want stylized realistic looking characters with tons of options for looks, think CoH with the same amount of options after creation and on a continuous basis, not just at creation (eyes, nose, mouth, hair, build, clothing, items).  I want tons of space for my personal items - instanced space with a boat, a boat dock, a yard, a house with tons of options for building and decorating to make your space unique, a storage closet for clothes, a storage cabinet for food and spices, pets - like a kitten who will grow and develop and perhaps someday you find your cat's kittens in a corner of your house.  My character should be able to own lots of items and be unique and where your actions impact what happens.  If you want to change your looks, go to a hairdresser, anything that makes the game feel more immersive and life in game is more logical / realistic because it is intuative, not because a game designer said so.

I want a storyline - a reason for being in the world - living as a god or hero - to learn about what it was like to live then or learn what they did.  An immersive world that you can drop into for 10 minutes or 10 hours.  I want multiple screens so that you can manage more than one thing at a time - fight in one and watch your npc's in others, or even talk on IRC.  I want an easy way to converse with others who are inside and outside the game and them to be able to talk to me.  Games inside the main game - even like backgammon, blockus, or carnival shooter types.  I want an extensive rating system and ignore options for those idiots I don't want to deal with in game, as well as lots of friends options for those I do want to talk with, guilds, monarchy, and housing or other options for gathering people.  I want message boards and other guild tools to be available in game or out of game, making crossing that line of whether or not you are in game or out of game non existent.   Solo play should be a viable alternative and group play made easy by giving options of getting people together.  

The combat should be reactive to me - with no delays and be fun.  Easily being able to switch between different kinds of combat.  My character should not have to follow a skill tree - it should be more like AC, with multiple skills and ability to assign points to each.  I don't want to have the same character in looks or skills that anyone else has.  I want lots of options on skills of characters and lots of options of types of weapons, the ability to increase weapon strength.  I want some puzzle/educational quests that rely on something other than just the kill this and bring me that.  Have multiple quests going at the same time - WoW does that well and teaches you things at the same time - routes for the Griffin.  I want to have fun as a noobie - no killing maggots - give me something fun to kill and interesting to do - immerse me and provide depth so I want to stay.  Provide the options that WoW does on crafting only offer more professions, but only more logical and education based - make it intuitive and fun (no sows ear for a silk purse).  Have NPC sellers, and creatures dropping cool and random loot.  Have a mix of items with level and other types of requirements for use.  

A map should be easy to use and give points of interest, as well as giving the option of writing an additional explanation at points.  It should also be able to tell you what town you are near, your exact location so you can tell others, with the ability to set your map to notice plants, or other creatures by name or in general (kind of like AC's decal).  You should be able to look up where you want to go and it to point out the route.  Detail of vendors and what they sell, where they are should be on there if you want that detail.  You should be able to have a quest log where you can add your own notes into it.  Special portals - "tree's of life" should be assessable and can transport you so you can get someplace quickly if you want, but also provide the option of traveling slowly if you want to explore.  I want to be able to run, jump, swim, as well as wanting flying, land, and water creatures you can ride and direct, not ones that take you on specific routes (tons of options to fly a dragon, a griffin, a giant butterfly, a giant locus, a dragonfly, a magic carpet, a flying horse/unicorn, or ride a lockness monster, a boat, a whale, a shark, a dolphin, a lion, a swan, a bear, a wolf, a carriage, a tornado, a horse).  I don't want to constantly load zones, just one please. Towns should feel like towns, and be in the world to get people together, not empty.

The interface should be easy to learn, easy to change, and movement should be by arrow keys or wasd.  A training area should explain the basics and be more gentle on you when you first enter (I don't want to die within my first 20 minutes of play) and so that first time MMO players want to continue.  Providing more explanation, being very intuitive, and giving great customer service to noobies and others.  Have players / staff at the noobie zones to answer basic questions, give items, and help as needed.

So you make games for a living, and you've never once in your life pondered the question "what sort of games would I really like to make?"

Sure I have.  You think I'm just going to give that answer away so someone else can go do it? ;-)

I hadn't realized there were so many people with $50 mil in their pockets at that conference who were threatening to steal risky ideas and implement them.  Good thing for them they were disguised so well, eh?  ;)

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

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

• Even though I'm not a fan of PvP, I think factions give people something to work together towards.  So I'd have about 5 factions, but only allow people to join 4 of them.  The other one would be computer only, an overreaching foe that would allow people from different factions to group together with a common goal.
• The map would be split into districts, with control of each district bringing advantages, ie. lower prices, healing, AI troop support.  The control would switch with monthly updates.  Ownership would be based upon the factions success in key missions within the region.  The monthly content release would put special missions in for the border regions that would control this ownership for the next month.  You would never be able to lose your core districts.  A monthly live event would occur at the end of this cycle, based upon the results for the month, this would be the culmination of the month and end up with the changing of the districts ownership.
• Active guild support.  Guilds would be able to buy plots of land for their guild complexes.  Within these complexes they'd be able to buy walls, traps, monsters, spells and place these where they like.  Once they've placed them others could attempt to raid them for agreed upon prizes.  Others could place bets and watch the raids unfold.  Other things they could buy would be monsters for a bestiary.  Within the bestiary they'd be able to fight any of the monters they've bought.  This would allow them to develop strategies for the monster.  A map room with maps of the missions that they'd bought.  Guid members could type strategies and tie them to points on the map.  A mission briefing could use this as a powerpoint type presentation.  Have guild rankings and prestige play a part in the overall story arc.
• Challenge battles.  Here you could challenge one or more other groups(guilds or pickup groups) to fight on a set of maps.  This could involve CTF, free for all, gauntlet, king of the hill type battles.  Agree on a bet up front with the winner getting it automatically.  Also keep track of statistics for players and guilds.  No death penalty for dying during these events.
• Gauntlets.  Like above, but against a timer.  Monsters or other teams could be put between you and the end.  
• Weekly events.  Have GM supported events with new maps for the challenge and gauntlet events mentioned above.  Decent prizes for the winners and bragging rights for the week.
• A CoH sidekick like capability to allow people of different levels to adventure together.
• Instanced missions.  The mission should automatically scale difficulty to the players in the group.  Allow them to choose whether they want it harder or easier with the reward changing.
• Make the world within the instance be dynamic.  ie. battles happening between the factions, when you join the instance you can help one of the sides or not.  Make the world react to their changes.  Allow them to influence the way the instance goes.  ie. they might give info to a general that he uses in the battle.
• An avatar arena.  Here you would be able to choose any class and any level and fight monsters or other players.  It allows people to try skills/classes without committing to them.   You could try skill combo's before needing to choose them.  
[/list:u]Just some of my ideas on what I'd like to see in a game, gtg the kiddos are tugging at my arms.

I have a great contribution, but i just typed it and my fingers are raw (http://www.arcadiandelsol.com)

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

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

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

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

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

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

And the same rules apply to many professional sports.

And board games.

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

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

Bruce

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


etc.

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

I'd say what it tells us is:

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

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

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

Bruce

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

--
Alkiera

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bruce

Well maybe a cpl of  solutions to this..

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

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

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

shrug.

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