Your role in the stagnant MMOG cycle...

[WonderBrick]

I have read so many opinions, rants, and ideas over the years, discussing the strengths and weaknesses of the MMOG industy.  I often nod my head, reform my thoughts, and share my own thoughts.   But later, I have to shake my head in disbelief as people go crazy over the latest safe approach, such as WoW.  Sometimes, people I respect will break down and start discussing the finer details of the latest game, ignoring the larger issues.

Something Haemish said continues to stick in my head:

Though many pundits would disagree with me, I don't think the MMOG genre has even finished its first generation of games, and won't finish that generation until a number of the bigger MMOG's are no longer profitable. The killing span will be that shrinking span of time when the player realizes he's traded his year-long subscription to Everquest for a two-month subscription to Worlds of Warcraft, and that really isn't much difference between the two.

I agree.

But there will always be room for the latest polished version of EQ.  Hate it, but accept it and move on.  It might be DAoC, or SWG, EQ2, or now WoW.  I don't care if you like/dislike the various approaches of UO, EQ, DAoC, Planetside, WoW, etc.  This is to help those that want to break out of that EQ / DAoC / SWG / WoW / leveling / linear / class / no-risk / safe cycle.  We have to find a way to clearly vocalize what we will or will not accept, to distiguish ourselves from the safe/stagnant MMOGs that are here to stay.

Whatever your gamestyle is, what are the absolute musts and must-not features that will get you to pick up the box, or quickly put it back down?  Be honest with yourself.  There is alot of inbetween features/approaches that you will argue for or against, according to your style, but let us stick with the absolutes:  must have features vs absolute no-nos.

For me...

Must haves:  
1) skill-based combat(player skill, not char skill, pvm or pvp),
2) solo play feasibility(no forced grouping),
3) accidental interactions with others(unscripted, sandbox gameplay, not forced areas to meetup for grouping/forced grouping, etc.  similiar to #2 but not exactly the same).
4) living, breathing, persistant, immersive world, not online game approach.
5) PVP

Absolute must nots:  
1) queued combat, char skill(not player skill, pvm or pvp),
2) artificial laws that dictate: safe pvp+/- areas, what items you can give to your friends, "leveling", forced skill trees,
3) item-based world(goes back to char skill vs player skill),
4) EQ approach to chat interface(including the "artifical" ability to chat with people not in the local area with you).
5) does not support integral, day-one PVP support.
6) hooks/wall that prevent new players from PVPing within a short period of mastering the basic game mechanics.  (Expansion packs always will keep this danger on the horizon)
-Any box with these features, I will put back on the shelf immediately, no matter what.

The area inbetween: There are alot of features inbetween those above, that I will argue strongely for or against, voice mild displeasure, or just ignore and put up with.  The point of this disussion is what will make you put that box back onto the shelf as fast as you can, versuses what features you MUST have to even consider playing.

Really, the point of this really comes down to the "Absolute Must Nots" list, but your "Absolute Musts" list will help clarify your "Must Not" list.

Thanks

[Shannow]

Any game where PVE is the primary focus I wont bother with. I got involved in online gaming through MUSHs and MUX (if you need a explanation Ill give one) and was never interested in the MMOLG scene until PS and ww2OL came along. I want persistance, I want player skill, I want open ended PLAYER DRIVEN worlds.

edit: Gonna explain anyway. By Mush MUX I dont mean sitting around with a bunch of other people building rooms and having TS. I mean games that were built with factions/combat systems etc...Star Trek, Star Wars MUSHs come to mind and for pure skillbased! combat Btech MUXs rocked...(you try navigating a hex map in realtime).

[Fargull]

Hmm...

Must Have
PVP
Majority zoneless content
Game before World
No Levels
Defined Abilities that do not change
Deeper faction system than EQ
Ability to group with PC and NPC's

Must Not Have
Item Centric PvP
Level Centric PvP
Forced Grouping
Static Camping
No Z Axis
Size of World dependant on Slowing the PC Speed

[Paelos]

Must Have:

Player economy - I'm a businessman at heart, and I love the idea of entrepeneurship in games, this includes an in-game auction system that allows offline trading.
PVP - its not worth playing online if I'm not playing against other humans
Player individuality - SWG did a good job with this with image designing and clothing, but it could be taken further. I don't want every player to look and feel the same.
Skills - mini-games for crafting instead of waiting, hunting using stealth instead of queues, etc.

Must Nots:

Templates - I hate them, I hate doing spreadsheets
Item-centric play - No Sword of Pwnzor that drops once a month off a mob that is available for 24 hours kthx, I'd like to see player made items from the best artisans be the best things in the game. Especially if they use components from raids or something. Again, SWG was close to this but missed the mark.
Fire and Forget Combat - I play melee characters, don't make that suck
Raid centric play - they suck, and I don't have the time, let me have fun without trying to find 50 "friends" to join me.

[AOFanboi]

Next generation? No combat.

The central core in the current generation is combat, and that combat is the path to character improvement, the major element in PvP interaction, and the most fleshed-out mechanism. Everything about the combat, endlessly hacking at respawning mobs with no real affect on anything.

Drop it, and a world of possible interactions reveal themselves. Some games already touch upon it with crafting and player economies - but both only exist to further the combat core game. What I want is politics, trade, diplomacy, spying etc. Not whacking rats or other pure time-consumiong tasks.

If you must have combat, make mobs not pop out of thin air, but actually breed and move around in herds, packs or whatever, and make it possible to make a species extinct (as in, will NEVER AGAIN appear on that shard, unless you make it possible for stuff to move between shards). Good luck making that fertility potion when all white rhinos are gone, for instance. Actions should have consequences - in the treadmill hell we have today, they don't.

Oh, and make it permadeath for players as well.

I guess I should go register on Second Life now. Or wait for Stardock to make a 3D world mutation of The Corporate/Political Machine where you play one of the pawns.

[HaemishM]

I'm weird, in that the only real must have is that the game must be FUN. That's very nebulous, but I know it when I see it. I believe most MMOG's should have some form of free demo, even if the demo is a segregated server that is different from the production for-pay servers.

You see, I thought I'd never pay for a game without PVP, but then COH came along and just bowled me over with fun. Sure, I stopped playing for about a month, but I've come back much more lately and it's still fun. Moreso because of the changes that have been made.

Absolute Must Nots:
Level-based PVP where Levels > everything else
Item-centric gameplay that breeds lewt whorez and ebay farmers
Stability (see CoH and DAoC: that's the standard now, and nothing less will do)


Absolute Musts:
Combat - though I'm really high on the IDEA of ATiTD, I cannot make myself play it because of its lack of combat. It just isn't for me.
Melee combat where my ability to take a punch is more important than my ability to throw a punch
Decent graphics that don't make my computer run like a 4.77 Mhz PC from 1989

[Riggswolfe]

I guess I'll try my hand at this

Must Haves:
1) Involved Combat, no more auto attack and wait. COH ruined that for me. WoW to a lesser extent did as well
2) Better class balance. Dungeons and Dragons has had balances classes (Jobs, roles, whatever term you want to use for years). Melee too often becomes a boring tank while mages can kill almost anything in the gameworld.
3) Sim world. What I mean by this is the NPCs seem to have a life beyond just standing there waiting for the player. PR is EQ2 has taken a step in this direction.
4) Redone combat scheme. I'm tired of combat revolving around agro management.
5) AI revamp. Make the AI smarter if at all possible
6) Stop trying to mix PvP and PvE in the same game. It doesn't work and never will.

Must Nots:
Mostly Must nots for me boil down to the opposites of the must-haves.

[Nija]

Must have:

The ability to kill a person and wear their clothes.

[Rasix]

Hi, Nija.  

No, I'm not going to say anything productive here.

[Roac]

The only concept I feel I must have in a MMOG is PvP.  That doesn't mean I get to walk up to a day 1 n00blet with my lv 84 DemonWhore and make him my lunch.  My issue is that I can beat up on AI opponents in my standalone games.  I can get persistance (Save / Restore) in standalone games.  I can get multiplayer in standalone games ...with AI opponents.  I can buy expansions ("new content") for standalone games, without having to pay monthly dues in advance.  The only thing that MMOGs bring to me that I care for, is that it allows for many of these features to be brought together AND enable human opponents.

Beyond that, it's got to be fun.  Of course.  Don't care about the rest of the features; I'm sure that there is a system where I'd enjoy queued or twitch combat, player or char skill (every game requires SOME player skill), chat abilities or limitations, etc.

[Comstar]

Must haves:  
1) skill-based combat(player skill, not char skill, pvm or pvp),
2) solo play feasibility(no forced grouping),
3) accidental interactions with others(unscripted, sandbox gameplay, not forced areas to meetup for grouping/forced grouping, etc.  similiar to #2 but not exactly the same).
4) living, breathing, persistant, immersive world, not online game approach.
5) PVP

Problem is you're not asking for a RPG, you're asking for a PvP Simulator like WW2OL with a more interesting game world (hmm, weather and seasons mabye would cut it).

Also Solo play in a PVP world is an impossaibility, PVP requires team work or one side will do it and you won't and you'll get pounded for it. You CAN be the solo scout or the solo sniper, but without someone else backing you up, you won't be the solo rambo.  The PvP player that has a wingman should win the battle if you want any skill in it.

Absolute must nots:  
1) queued combat, char skill(not player skill, pvm or pvp),
2) artificial laws that dictate: safe pvp+/- areas, what items you can give to your friends, "leveling", forced skill trees,
3) item-based world(goes back to char skill vs player skill),
4) EQ approach to chat interface(including the "artifical" ability to chat with people not in the local area with you).
5) does not support integral, day-one PVP support.
6) hooks/wall that prevent new players from PVPing within a short period of mastering the basic game mechanics.  (Expansion packs always will keep this danger on the horizon)
-Any box with these features, I will put back on the shelf immediately, no matter what.

There's NO RPG that can get away without these, it's just not going to happen, the mind set is too entrenched. Now you're just talking about an FPS MMOG, not a role playing game, because fundermently, role players want a friendly DM watching over them, not someone out to beat them, pound thier ass, and watch them...suffer (to parahpase an old Interplay ad).

I noticed there was a distinct lact of AI in you're utopiangameworld, do you want complete PvP, or is some PvM accectable? Apart from the interactive game world (actually, the new buildings now in game are cool, partcialyt the new church and blown up bars) and the newbie guide to playing (allegly coming with Brigade Spawning later thios year) it really sounds like you want to play WW2OL, or mabye Aces High, not any RPG game. What's wrong with Planetside?

And while it has no PvP (swap combat for interesting problem solving excerises?), what about ATITD?

[Masuri]

This is a topic that hits close to home, lately.  I was torn between two games, EverQuest and City of Heroes, for several months.  It was kind of like picking who to date - what was I really looking for in a game?   I gave it a lot of thought and ended up dumping CoH, though we continue to see each other casually on weekends.  EQ is back to being my steady due to the newest expansion.

Must haves:

1.  Evenly paced PvE combat.   I loathe combat that either moves too quickly for you to be able to save the day (DAoC), but even more I hate combat so slow that you could learn Swahili in the time it takes to kill one mob (FFXI).

2.  Immersive world content.   Being an interactive part of the world (and finding out pieces of the storyline by my actions) is awesome.  In EQ, I killed the gods for phat lewt.  In CoH, I saved the city's water supply because I was a superhero and that's what we do.

3.  Gainful alternatives to combat.  In EQ and CoH, I was a slaughtering machine, and that's fun, I guess.  But one of the neatest things I've done in a MMOG was putting on a traveling show in SWG.  I made a Twilek dancer, got a couple of baby pets, packed up some supplies and hit the road.   Whenever I came to a decently populated area, I'd bust out the tent and the pets - Wiggles the Dancing Dinosaur and Mr. Peepers the Alien Chicken - and we'd do our show.  I made exp, a hell of a lot of tips, and lots of friends - and no mobs were harmed in the process.

4.  Content that accomodates both grouping and soloing.  Working together with a competent set of people is my favorite thing in MMOGs.  However, being stuck with a set of gimps who couldn't find their collective ass with a map and a flash light is my least favorite thing in MMOGs.   I want to be able to group if I feel like grouping, and I want to be able to solo if that's what tickles my fancy.

5.  Intelligent high end/raid level content.  Leading 54 people to kill the dragon is a rush, but it's got nothing on figuring out a complex 3 hour encounter that requires every single person in the raid to work to the best of their abilities and a council of leaders coordinating every move you make.  The encounters in the last two EQ expansions have been nothing short of wonderful - when the scripts work, that is - and it has pushed my guild to excel.  We are all of us better players for having to think our way through encounters instead of muscling our way through.

6.  Unlimited communication.  If I wanted to be cut off from the majority of players in my world or have distance limit my ability to communicate, I don't need to get online for it.  Being able to build a social atmosphere with as many people as I choose to incorporate is imperative for me.  EQ is king for this, with its cross-server-enabled chat interface.  Best.  Ever.

Must not haves:

1.  Forced questing.  If I don't want to save the maiden, making me do it in order to be able to advance just pisses me off.  CoH kind of seduced me into being part of the world, and I liked it.  But if I'd HAD to do it to advance, I'd have dropped that game like a hot rock.

2.  PvP as an afterthought. It's either/or, folks.  If you're gonna gimp it up or put it in just to try to attact that section of customers, don't put it in at all.  Design the world around it and make it a viable, sensible part of the game, or leave it out.  

3.  Absolutely necessary tradeskills.  I hate tradeskills.  I don't want to craft, I don't want to create.  I don't want to stop pillaging or heroing or whatever it is I'm doing to sit my ass down and knit some socks.  Others do and that's great; I'm willing to pay their exorbitant fees.  Just don't make ME play Martha Stewart.

I think the biggest key for me is variety.  Don't force me have to do any one thing.   Give me options.  Broaden the field of choices instead of narrowing it down to a few avenues of enforced advancement.   You can certainly coax me one way or another, but the key is making me want to go there, not just making me go.  


(gee, that was wordy for a first post.  hi, by the way.)

[Xerapis]

Must haves:

1.  Evenly paced PvE combat.   I loathe combat that either moves too quickly for you to be able to save the day (DAoC), but even more I hate combat so slow that you could learn Swahili in the time it takes to kill one mob (FFXI).

Actually, (my lack of playing FFXI aside), I would have no problem with it taking more time (AND SKILL) to kill one mob.  IF killing that one mob had a greater impact on my avatar's development.

As it is, killing one mob generally does very little to aid in the forward development of your avatar.  Unless it is a quest or raid mob.  I want to see my repeated slaying of foozle X spontaneously develop a "better at killing foozle X-type creatures because you have slaughtered several villages' worth of them" skill.  Rather like a ranger's "favored enemy" class ability in PnP D&D.

That would be a must-have for me to truly dedicate myself to an online game again.  I want to see my individual combat (and non-combat) actions influence avatar development.  If I kill a lot of foozle X, I want to get better at killing foozles like foozle X.  I want the townspeople which have foozle Xs in the surrounding areas to know me as a skilled foozle X slayer.  I want to be asked to hunt down the really NASTY versions of foozle X because of it.  I want my combat options to include "attack foozle X", with that attack doing significantly less damage to non-foozle X creatures, but significantly more to foozle X creatures (or an added stun, or wounding or hamstringing effect).

Wish List: No CON.

You have to actually talk to hunters (/rangers/druids/tribal shamans/etc) to learn about creatures in the area.  They can appraise your current skills and tell you whether you are prepared to face foozle X or not.  They can offer you training in fighting foozle X, or have you seek out nature spirits which advise you on combat with foozle X (actually real advice, like foozle X always swishes his tail before an overhand strike with his spiked club), or show you what foozle X's tracks look like, and what foozle X likes to eat .  They can show you on your map the types of place foozle X might live and hunt in.

Basically, my must-haves tend to boil down to this:

Things that make you, as the player, develop right along with your avatar.

[WonderBrick]

Problem is you're not asking for a RPG, you're asking for a PvP Simulator like WW2OL with a more interesting game world

I am looking for a RPG, among other things.  I am looking for a different approach to pvm/pvp interaction in a MMOG.  I am asking for gameplay based on player skill, as well as a break from the industry-standard timesinks.  I want fun > timesink.  I want to be able to play with the skill I bring to the game, as well as learn from the game.  I do not want a game to tell me "You are uber!".  This does not mean I am not asking for a RPG.  I am looking for a different approach to deliver the same persistance, the same ability to live, learn and grow in that world.  This applies to the RPG that I am looking for, as well as any other persistant type of game I want to play, be it Halo/FPS Online, or Astroids-on-steriods/space-sim Online.

Look at Anarchy Online as a bad example: I don't want to fire my gun, and then have the game do a EQ-style roll of the dice for my success and accuracy.

Look at Morrowind, or the upcoming STALKER, as beginning to touch on good examples:  reputation system with the NPCs, projectile/spell combat where I can miss my target, weight/item management, real-time/non-experience/non-linear quests, trading/selling/crafting/repairing, living quarters, huge world where I can live an existing or new lifestyle, difficulty/pacing determined by myself, etc

I want many different approaches to many various diseased aspects of the current MMOG crop.  Like a Zelda isometric approach that lets players dodge fireballs, block blows manually with shields.  I want fast-paced pvp that relys on players dodging blows and spells, instead of the current retards standing face to face, mashing their heads together, waiting for the one with the biggest stats to win.

Yes, there are aspects of FPSs that could be used, as there are aspects of the old 8-bit Zelda, or even Astriods.  Put any of these games in a more interesting, persistant world, and I think the industry might steer part(keyword: part) of the genre in the right direction.  Atleast they would be painting a new room, instead of repainting the same room over and over.

Quote:
Absolute must nots:
1) queued combat, char skill(not player skill, pvm or pvp),
2) artificial laws that dictate: safe pvp+/- areas, what items you can give to your friends, "leveling", forced skill trees,
3) item-based world(goes back to char skill vs player skill),
4) EQ approach to chat interface(including the "artifical" ability to chat with people not in the local area with you).
5) does not support integral, day-one PVP support.
6) hooks/wall that prevent new players from PVPing within a short period of mastering the basic game mechanics. (Expansion packs always will keep this danger on the horizon)
-Any box with these features, I will put back on the shelf immediately, no matter what.

There's NO RPG that can get away without these, it's just not going to happen, the mind set is too entrenched.

Boo!  For shame.  This is the same mindset that has kept the industry polishing the same turd.  The whole point of this discussion is to get away from this mentality.

Now you're just talking about an FPS MMOG, not a role playing game, because fundermently, role players want a friendly DM watching over them, not someone out to beat them, pound thier ass, and watch them...suffer (to parahpase an old Interplay ad).

How DM friendly is the current crop of MMOGs?  I find it hard to believe any MMOG out now is DM-friendly.  NWN is the closet to a MMOG that is also DM-friendly.  I would hardly call it a MMOG, though.

I noticed there was a distinct lact of AI in you're utopiangameworld, do you want complete PvP, or is some PvM accectable?

Players do play a large role in the MMOG that I would play, but there is plenty of room for AI.  The AI, be it clever coding, or just gimmick-using creatures, would be welcome.  Darkfall(if released) is a good example of the harmony that could exist in a pvp-driven world.  PVM in Darkfall serves as a resource to be harvested, battled over, as a departure from the PVP-driven world, and for story-telling.

I have yet to try ATITD(just recently learned of it), but it certainly has grabbed my interest.

Good discussion.  :)

[WonderBrick]

While discussing a different topic, koboshi mentions one key method of (PVM) interaction:

I'll explain using pong. In Pong to get 100% of the game you just have to play it for a few seconds, however the game lasts longer than that, there are multiple techniques and strategies which can be employed, I don't think for a second I have hit every angle on every wall, on hard mode I couldn't keep up unless I was in some sort of Zen-like state however it was a great game. Ninja Gaiden is the same way, it's not what you kill its how you kill it. I can have fun killing the same guy 20 times over in 20 different ways.

Source

[Jayce]

But one of the neatest things I've done in a MMOG was putting on a traveling show in SWG. I made a Twilek dancer, got a couple of baby pets, packed up some supplies and hit the road. Whenever I came to a decently populated area, I'd bust out the tent and the pets - Wiggles the Dancing Dinosaur and Mr. Peepers the Alien Chicken - and we'd do our show. I made exp, a hell of a lot of tips, and lots of friends - and no mobs were harmed in the process.

The fact that someone had this experience almost justifies SWG's existence, as many issues as I have with that game.  Hopefully we see more of it in the future.  I think it shows that (just like PvP, oddly, and at the risk of being trite), it's not that no one wants this type of gameplay, it's just that no one has gotten it quite right.

[AOFanboi]

Look at Anarchy Online as a bad example: I don't want to fire my gun, and then have the game do a EQ-style roll of the dice for my success and accuracy.

Have you played PnP RPGs much? Did any GM simulate hit chance with a dartboard instead of using a d20? That would be an equivalent to letting player skill affect character skill.

I am against that, partly because the player's motoric activities, like moving a mouse around is unrelated to the character's actions (aiming a gun, cooking soup). But also because I want the character not to be me.

Case in point: Neocron adds player skill to character skill. This means that since mobs dance around, melee sucks compared to ranged because mobs move faster angle-wise (and hence on the screen) when they are close to the character than when they are far away. So unless a mob aggros and attack you (or is immobile), you will always risk the "hit square" moving away from your target indicator. Though this is somewhat alleviated because the "hit square" also grows bigger closer up.

[WonderBrick]

Have you played PnP RPGs much? Did any GM simulate hit chance with a dartboard instead of using a d20? That would be an equivalent to letting player skill affect character skill.

As much as MMORPGs try to mimic aspects of PnP RPGs, MMORPGs are a whole new beast.  Largest being the lack of DM/GM.

And RPGs do not necessarily have to be based on the PnP/dice approach.  Shadowclan Orcs in UO are one small example of a alternate approach to RP.  They have adapted to the more graphic MMORPG that dictates the worlds rules, to a fairly large degree.

UO, itself, departs from many of the MMOG-industry's various approaches, including PnP roots.

Addressing AO, all I want to do is fire my gun accurately and reliably, instead of having to put up with the left-hand-that-has-fallen-asleep method I am presented with.  The forced lack of skill in many MMOGs has got to go.

[Koyasha]

Visualization is one of the issues I see.  From the sound of it, you're annoyed at missing so much...but the idea, I believe, is not simply that you have missed...but that the opponent dodged/moved/blocked/his armor was too tough to penetrate.  Sure, it all comes out as 'miss' or 'hit', but in the end, when you roll your THAC0 vs his AC, or whatever the game in question uses, your THAC0 is representing your skill at attack, but his AC represents his skill at defense.  If we could *see* the other character actually dodging each shot/slice/strike/fireball, but it was still controlled by their defensive skills, it would remain character-based and yet give a hell of a lot better impression.

Another thing with RPG combat is the real-time element that MMOG's force upon it.  Ever play Baldur's Gate 2?  Ever play it as a lone single-class mage with average-high stats, and been able to defeat every enemy that comes at you through skill, cunning, and intelligent tactics, whereas rushing in and fighting would always end in your death?  I certainly have.  It's in a great part because of the pause button.  By pausing, I take control of the situation and can assess the battlefield, make a decision, and implement it.  Until a game gives us as much feedback as a real person on the battlefield, there's going to be no replacement for the ability to pause, and while real-time is fun and cool, it definitely reduces your capacity to react to the situation.  Slowing down the pace of MMOG combat might help with this...give the person a little more time to react when they see the fireball coming their way.  Sure, if you're in the blast radius, it's your Saving Throw that determines how much damage you take, but if you see it coming and manage to move out of the blast radius in time, you take no damage at all.  Of course, that's assuming the spell is targeted at a location, and not at you.  If it's targeted at you, you might manage instead to cast a spell to shield yourself.

NWN, for example, has counterspells.  How often are these actually used, though?  In order to be effective, you have to: succeed in a spellcraft check and see exactly what spell is being cast - or simply recognize the graphics that are around the caster.  Then you need to have an appropriate counterspell memorized.  Then you have to target the caster, go through your radial (if the counterspell isn't hotkeyed), and cast the spell - all within a 2-5 second span during which the enemy mage is casting HIS spell.  If things were slowed down so that a spell takes 10 seconds to cast, then you've got enough time to do that.

As for actual MMOG's, so far the one in which I have the most time to think strategically, come up with a new plan, implement it, and have the new plan significantly alter the chances of success or victory is EQ.  Depends on the encounter, and I'm really thinking of small-group operations, though it carries on to uber-raids as well, in some cases.  So far, I haven't yet played an MMOG since EQ that makes my tactical decisions have more than the tiniest influence on victory or defeat.

[rscott]

As much as MMORPGs try to mimic aspects of PnP RPGs, MMORPGs are a whole new beast.  Largest being the lack of DM/GM.
...

The forced lack of skill in many MMOGs has got to go.

Then you don't want an RPG!  You want Quake.  In a rpg, the role matters more than the player.   That was one of its chief benefits, a defining characteristic.

Nothing wrong with that, but just realize it might be easier to start with a Planetscape or WW2O game, and modify from there because those games in essence are closer to what you want than EQ/DAOC/COH.

If the player is going to decide how combat matters, then theres little need for stats... race...class/skills.  And then we are more than halfway to WW2O.

[Comstar]

If the player is going to decide how combat matters, then theres little need for stats... race...class/skills.  And then we are more than halfway to WW2O.

Oh, I don't know. Consider the Spitfire vs a Me109 as different classes. Basicaly equal, the Spit is eaiser to use, much more sexy to look at, but the 109 has more firepower and is faster. Pretty much 2 different classes of figher right there.

A better game would give you the ability to choose what ammunation you use (should I use ball ammo, or AP, or a mix?), change the colour of your plane (character) a bit (red ones go faster right?), change the pattan harmonazation of thier gunfire (spread it out for spray and pray, or target it but you need to be a good shot) or choose how much fuel you launch with (put less in, you fly better...but might run out of fuel at an inconventiet time).

The skill of the player is increased BY these decians (good players know how to use thier plane with less fuel, have a good aim so they don't need to fire into empty air so much), and the characters skill is minamzied.

If you want to talk races, call the Spitfire one race, the Me109 another. The Me109E is a digfighter, the K is heavy weapons class for attacking bombers, add bombs and you get a Fighter Bomber class instead (loses some manuraviklbity and speed for ithe ability to attack ground targets).

You want to decrease character SKILL, but class, race, equipment (people who live long, get better access, but if they push too far and become a POW they just lost thier good ride) and player skill...that you want to increase.

'Corse WW2OL dosn't have much of these things yet (you can choose the plane, you can't change the plane), so it's not a good example to aim for (yet...mabye in a year or two it will get all these things).

But an RPG game should be able to do these things. You can have different clases. Different races. Different ABILITIES. And different layers of player skill effecting them. You don't need to remove them.

[Shannow]

Then you don't want an RPG!  You want Quake.  In a rpg, the role matters more than the player.   That was one of its chief benefits, a defining characteristic.

Please dont confuse roleplaying with rollplaying. Thanks.


What about a game where your actual ability , acting a rolE, in thinking, out talking , outwitting your opponent actually mattered? That'd be something. Again this comes back to a game where combat is the last resort instead of the first.

[Fargull]

What about a game where your actual ability , acting a rolE, in thinking, out talking , outwitting your opponent actually mattered? That'd be something. Again this comes back to a game where combat is the last resort instead of the first.

I think the issue here Shannow is that for combat to be the last resort then you need to remove a majority of the Game to make it work.  Extreem death penalties (perma-death) or social outcasting from the vast majority of mercantile establishments for a lengthy time would a few that I could see creating an atmosphere.  Still you will have the crowd that will just kill for the grief aspects.

[Shannow]

Your completely right Fargull. I'd like to see that sort of game, I dont expect to see it anytime soon if ever. Still devs could try a little to introduce the ability for opponents to out think each other in combat.

[rscott]

Please dont confuse roleplaying with rollplaying. Thanks.


Again this comes back to a game where combat is the last resort instead of the first.

I did't.  Thanks.

But with regards to your last statement.  As long as theres no reason to talk, or to let something live, you'll have fighting being the games central activity.  

For instance, you only get XP on the death of a mob.   That would have to change.

I think easy ways to move away from this simplicity is to have mobs offer to buy their way out of death.  They'd have some stash hidden away somewhere that they'd give you directions to if you let them go.  And almost all intelligent mobs would have this arrangement as a sort of insurance.  

There also has to be an incentive to letting the mob live.  My plan was to implement a form of diplomacy into the game, but that would have to be just a start.

[Alkiera]

As much as MMORPGs try to mimic aspects of PnP RPGs, MMORPGs are a whole new beast.  Largest being the lack of DM/GM.
...

The forced lack of skill in many MMOGs has got to go.

Then you don't want an RPG!  You want Quake.  In a rpg, the role matters more than the player.   That was one of its chief benefits, a defining characteristic.

Please dont confuse roleplaying with rollplaying. Thanks.

I did't. Thanks.

I agree with Shannow, the concept of player skill is not anathema to MMORPGS, or even normal CRPGs.  Yes, the nature of the character should matter, it's part of the machine-enforcement of roleplay(to prevent players from using powers/abilities their character should not be able to).  However, while novels and 'worlds' have room for hundreds or thousands of basically identical wizards, or thieves, or what-have-you, games generally do not.  In a game, especially a roleplaying game, no one wants to play the 142nd fastest gun in the west.  Nor do most people want to play a_rifleman42 when there are a hundred identical riflemen on each side.  People are always seeking to differentiate themselves from the crowd...  The 'one fighter is just as good as the next' system really doesn't appeal to many people because of this.

The realy problem, however, is that there is really only one role in most MMORPGs...  that of "blood-thirsty homocidal adventurer".  UO, SWG and ATITD(tho it's just as narrow, just different) allow for other playstyles, but most of the other games really do not.  You can try to play other styles in these games, but often find that it's not possible, without having a major financial sponsor, or being at least partially the BHA.  Because the 'role' everyone must play is focused on combat, roleplay tends to devolve to 'rollplay', where players let their combat statistics do all the talking.  The game reinforces this by making every fight to-the-death, nearly every quest involves killing, and (not-yet relesaed games aside) the vast majority of character development comes via the death of enemies.  

What most of the 'player skill' advocates want is not Quake, but something between current systems and Neocron, where player decisions can augment the characters abilities.  Most of these games still boil down to 'Hit A and pray', with the addition of mashing some ability or special move buttons whenever they are available.  Because killing things is the only role to play, killing is the only game, and it's not even really a game that the player participates in.  Many people herald EQ's PvE, because unless you are a tank or a cleric, agro management is a game(killing something in EQ solo is only borderline game-like, only decision is whether or not to run to the zone now).  You make decisions on what your character should do, based on what you know of the mob, and what you and others have done to it.  Being a tank keeps you out of the agro management game, because generally in order to hold agro, you must constantly spam all of your agro-gaining abilities/spells...  No decision making, just the 'twitch' of staying facing the mob and in range, and the button-mashing.  Clerics, except at the very begining of a fight, really don't produce enough hate from healing to participate in the agro management game.  DAoC PvE doesn't have this, even...  the rather short duration of most combats doesn't allow the time for an agro management game.

As far as fixing the single-role problem, I agree that the solution will have to be drastic, to the 'no exp for killing things' level.  The flexible skillish systems, SWG and UO, at least let you do other things, and develop a character without killing.  However, typically the areas not focused on killing were not as well fleshed out, and not as viable for focusing.  For example... 26 elite professions in SWG:  12 are based on combat or require combat to advance;  4 others are focused on helping others recover from combat; yet 4 more are focused on making things for use in combat.  The other 6?  Creature Handler, Bio-engineer, Architect, Image Designer, Tailor, and Merchant.  And Creature Handler is iffy, since while you can advance without combat, it's faster if you use combat.  I'm not familiar with the UO skill list, but I'd guess it's even worse.

The problem with MMORPGs, most RPGs period, and even PnPs without very good GMs, is that you can typically replace 'role playing' with 'combat simulation' in the acronym and still be perfectly accurate.  Most players play RPGs because of persistance, in the form of character development.  How shocking that when killing is the only way to advance, everyone kills, and everyone advances in killing power, so they can continue to advance.  Welcome, treadmill;  fancy seeing you in this discussion.

The 'out' for this, as I see it, is point-based systems, rather than level/skill-level advancement schemes...  where points are not awarded based on only killing, or only foozle-making, or whatever.  Advancement points should come from achieving goals, either chosen at creation, a la the Sims 2 aspirations, or the goals of important NPCs, in the form of quests.  The repeatability of point-producing actions needs to be addressed as well, but I believe that to be relatively easy compared to balancing exp-gain across hunting areas, or the combat viability of various classes.

--
Alkiera

[Margalis]

Earth and Beyond did a decent job by giving exploration XP, too bad exploring was boring.

[rscott]

Aliera,
IMO, if the result depends more on the player than on the role (the character) then you aren't role playing.  You are playing a FPS.  Its a bit  of a scale, some games the role/character skill matters more than the player skill, those are rpgs.  But move down the scale and where you have the player skill matters more than the role/character skill, you have a FPS.  And somewhere there is a 50/50 middle, though i don't think a game has been made yet that has that split.  

So IMO again the concept of player skill can be in a rpg, but only in small amounts, certainly not enough to sway the result of battle by a level or two.  And whenever i see people trying to introduce skill, its because they don't like that levels matter so much.  But thats a rpg, the character is the prime force that determines success or failure.  If you don't accept that, you have to admit to yourself you don't like rpgs.

Rollplaying is the pnp version of powergaming.  Where one decides their actions not because its in character or not, but whether its optimal play.  They aren't playing the character (role), they are playing an optimization game based on how the dice rolls. When players make decisions because (its what Krom likes to do) instead of (its got the highest chance of success), then you know the player is roleplaying, and not rollplaying.  The stats are there to provide a physics framework.  They can do all the talking even when a player is very much roleplaying.  Indeed a good roleplayer (say playing an ogre with int 3) will look at their stats and hold  back on a good strategy because they know their character would never have come up with it.  The stats matter, and the player is playing their role.

I agree that 'alternative' playstyles, are missing in mmorpgs.  These days its like we are playing a prettier version of space invaders.  Kill one screen of mobs, and another one replaces it. Only slightly tougher.  Its one dimensional.  With one measure of success. thus it should be no surprise that powergamers all optimize to this one dimension, the so called cookie cutter syndrome.  People like to blame the character generation system, but the blame goes deeper than that.

But when i see people arguing for the removal of the charater (player skill should matter), and i see how people don't like how levels matter too much in DAOC for instance, I realize it won't stop there. If levels mean very little, then stats are on the cutting boards as well.  Anything that gets in the way of player skill won't be liked. Everyone has to have the uber template, the uber skills, the uber weapons/armour.  To the point where everyone has the same stuff, so what stuff it is is irrelevant.   No one is happy until the only real difference between their character and the enemy character,  is player skill (like quake).  Once you start down that slope, its going to get real slippery.

[Merusk]

Two quick things.

1) Deus Ex was a combo of RPG and FPS.  I don't know about a 50/50 split, since I never got a chance to play it and haven't bothered to find it since I've had a rig that could.  Others here can expound on that.

2) Levels are a throwback to D&D and are a crutch for DMs to gague a party's power and create a sense of progression through a hero's story.  They became the e-peen they are today through an iterave process, but that does not mean they are the end-all to an RPG. You can have an RPG without levels, hitpoints and all that mess, but people have to be open to it for it to work.

Edit: WB mentions Zelda below.  Perfect example of an RPG without levels.  You don't HAVE to pick-up that heart container to advance and win, just makes the game a little easier.

[WonderBrick]

As much as MMORPGs try to mimic aspects of PnP RPGs, MMORPGs are a whole new beast.  Largest being the lack of DM/GM.
...

The forced lack of skill in many MMOGs has got to go.

Then you don't want an RPG!  You want Quake.  In a rpg, the role matters more than the player.   That was one of its chief benefits, a defining characteristic.

Please dont confuse roleplaying with rollplaying. Thanks.

I did't. Thanks.

I also agree with Shannow.   Alkiera continued in a direction I also very much agree with.  Specifically this stands out...

Alkiera said:
Most of these games still boil down to 'Hit A and pray', with the addition of mashing some ability or special move buttons whenever they are available. Because killing things is the only role to play, killing is the only game, and it's not even really a game that the player participates in.

I understand the points you are making, rscott.  While I don't 100% disagree with:

Its a bit of a scale, some games the role/character skill matters more than the player skill, those are rpgs.

I do take issue with:

But move down the scale and where you have the player skill matters more than the role/character skill, you have a FPS.

Just for the sake of clarification, let us remove the term "FPS" from this discussion, pretend that the games we're discussing are played from an isometric point of view(i.e UO, Dungeon Seige, 8-bit Legend of Zelda, etc).  This might help you better explain to me, from an ingame interaction point of view, what you do not like when you state "FPS".  

Is it the twitch/action aspect?  Faster action and twitch tendencies do not have to be a part of a player-skill system.  

Is it that a player can dodge a fireball, or manuelly raise his shield, without the need of rolling the dice?  

Is it that players are forced to have limitations through rolling the dice vs other ways to impose limitations(and creating roles) and maintain player skill?  

Explain, so I have a better understanding.  :)

I think it comes down to whether or not you want the game to play itself for you.  Playing a game that allows the player's skill to come into play, does not mean the player does not have room to play a role in that world.  It is up to the game designers, as well as some potentially player self-imposed limits, to allow a player to play a role.  This can be done with story, quests, limiting the ingame tools at the player's disposal, testing the limits of the world's physics and law-system, etc.  There are alot of approaches game designers can take to build a world that allow a role and player skill to work together.

When you play a game with restrictive interaction, and restricted character skills, and prevent player skill from playing any variable in the equation, you end up with a game that plays itself.   You have a game that gives the players a perception that they have some choices, but in reality you are playing a game that is entirely up to the developers to make the fun.  And in my opinion, a DM/GM-less RPG that relies on numbers and automated quests, is something that goes against role-playing.

[eldaec]

And while it has no PvP (swap combat for interesting problem solving excerises?), what about ATITD?

ATITD certainly is pvp.

Many of the tests require direct competition, the economy is fully no holds barred competitive.

There is a mechanism to perma-kill other players.

There is an entire line of tests called 'conflict' which require you to score win averages in competitive games. At least one of them even involves swords.

What more is required to make something pvp?

[Shannow]

But when i see people arguing for the removal of the charater (player skill should matter), and i see how people don't like how levels matter too much in DAOC for instance, I realize it won't stop there. If levels mean very little, then stats are on the cutting boards as well.  Anything that gets in the way of player skill won't be liked. Everyone has to have the uber template, the uber skills, the uber weapons/armour.  To the point where everyone has the same stuff, so what stuff it is is irrelevant.   No one is happy until the only real difference between their character and the enemy character,  is player skill (like quake).  Once you start down that slope, its going to get real slippery.

Well I think your over reacting here a little to what we are saying. Im not advocating the complete removal of stats etc from the game system, we are talking about injecting some player skill into it. Where there is almost NONE currently.
Stats and levels should be the FRAMEWORK for your character, NOT the straightjacket.
Currently the only REAL difference between characters are their items and level. A 20th level has no chance against a 40th level in the current system. We are talking about where the 20th level has a chance through the use of his brain, a little luck and maybe MAYBE some physical twitch skill (I prefer brains over twitch btw).

You are right though, these games are all about combat and RPG systems are ideally suited to this style of play.

I think the only way to make a game where you can roleplay, have decent player vs player interaction (not just combat) is to make the game completely player orientated and just about remove PvE altogether outside of something to do when things are slow. Only players can create enough content to satisfy a system such as this.

[rscott]

Merusk,
I've played Deus Ex, didn't care for the demo for #2. i would classify it as a FPS with some rpg elements, because player skill mattered more than character skill.

WonderBrick,
I'm not sure why you think i "don't like" FPS type games.   There are different genres of games.  Each with their own fans, own plusses, own minuses.  I like Deus Ex, I liked Call of Duty. I like Total Annihilation, and i like City of Heroes.  I like robot wars. I like various games.  Each for different reasons.

But if i try to change, say a 'manage a baseball team' game into a quake game, because i don't happen to care for managing a baseball games, and that quake is a more popular genre than baseball management, that would be silly.  I should just admit i don't like 'baseball manager games', and let the genre be.  It has its fans, more power to them.

Similarly, if i try to change a roleplaying game so that there is no role, that its mainly based on player skill, that would be just as silly.  I should just admit that i don't like roleplaying games, but rather prefer games where player skill matters most.

The question of whether the game plays itself for you isn't any more relevant in RPGs than it is in RTS where you have little units that do the fighting for you, mostly without any input from you at all.  You are missing the forest  for  the trees if you think that removing player interaction from fights removes player interaction from the game.  Its the same as in RTS.  And its part of why i would want to improve the 'alternative game' portions of mmorpgs.

Shannow,
I probably wasn't clear.  I didn't mean to say that you advocate removing all player skill, just that it will probably result in that.  It may start with the injection of some more player skill, but it certainly won't stop there.  Looking at the current crop of games, it seems that anytime an ingame affects combat more so than player skill, people want to get rid of it.  

As far as current games require NO skill.  I would reject that outright.  Having experienced having to group with an ebay bought character, it was apparent within 5 seconds of a fight that the player had no skill.  If the games didn't require skill, then this wouldn't have mattered, but it quickly because apparent that indeed skill was required, and we weren't about to risk ourselves because this skilless fool purchased his character.

[Shannow]

heh ok to clarify myself to.
I realise that mmorpgs require some skill, and more importantly knowledge of one capabilities (ie to be able to punch the winning combo). However its the ration of skill vs stats/level thats the problem. For EQ/DaoC etc its skill = 15%, stats/level = 85%...A noob who just ebayed a level 40 character can still gank a level 20 fairly easily. If you bought a general rank on ww2ol you'd get laughed at because it would afford you nothing..im looking at striking a balance between the two extremes.

Lets face it this debate is moot in regards to the current game systems we have now anyway so Im going to roll a Druid in the Kalaman graveyard....:P~~

[Krakrok]

If levels mean very little, then stats are on the cutting boards as well.  Anything that gets in the way of player skill won't be liked. Everyone has to have the uber template, the uber skills, the uber weapons/armour.  To the point where everyone has the same stuff, so what stuff it is is irrelevant.   No one is happy until the only real difference between their character and the enemy character,  is player skill (like quake).  Once you start down that slope, its going to get real slippery.

There are other ways to add player skill without turning a game into a FPS. Let me give a couple examples:

A merchant where the player skill involved is knowing where to buy low and sell high and also knowing the routes to travel or the risks to take to avoid getting attacked on the road.

Making armor weight matter. Yes everyone could wear full plate but the more you carry the slower you walk. You could be a slow walking tank but a fleet archer might be able to take you out. The key would be to balance any "protection" gained by the armor with the speed loss. Think of in Quake, if when you got quad damage your walk speed dropped by 4X. The balance might turn out to be everyone wearing chainmail *gasp*.

A theif where when you run up behind another character to steal, instead of a dice throw, a puzzle game pops up and you have X number of seconds to decipher the knots in the puzzle to grab the purse.

Say you're a merchant (again) and you suck at FPS style combat. Maybe you could hire NPC guards which could protect you long enough for you to escape if anyone tries to attack you. Or when you do get attacked you go into RTS mode and control your NPC guards.

An assassin (in a town that actually has dark alleys) where actually wearing dark clothing (and not "everyone wear plate) would matter by allowing you to hide in an alley and FPS shoot or run out and attack the rich merchant.

Edit:

Couple other things I would sight are Savage where it is a FPS but it also has levels (*gasp*). Leveling up is mostly visual but it does give *small"* perks like +1 armor in one level or +1 melee damage in one level.

And Rome: Total War (which is an RTS) where if you just tell your units to frontal attack without using strategy (like flanking with cavalry) you'd lose a lot more men.

And lastly, the way to reward player skill is with status not power which leaves PvP equal.