Wish is cancelled

[sidereal]

My point is that if a game developer plans to give his players a "Minimally Multiplayer" game by using instances, then they should design the game as a Minimally Multipayer game from the beginning, instead of wrapping their real game presentation (1-20 players in an instanced zone) with a massively multiplayer design (and all it's inherent limitations), infrastructure, and marketing scheme.

Why not?  They get good mileage from the marketing scheme.  Guild Wars players will 95% of the time be in a virtual environment with no more than 16 other people, and 5% of the time with no more than a hundred other people.  In other words, roughly NWN levels of massive.  The only thing that could possibly qualify it as 'massive' is the fact that there will be a massive number of other players and you have a random chance of running into any one of them in town. . so there's some kind of massive potentiality.  And yet they get covered by the MMO press and seem to ambiguously market themselves as an MMO, because it gets them coverage.

I think the onus is on those who want a single server.  Statisticians have known for a long time that any random surprisingly small assemblage of jackasses is functionally equivalent to the complete population of jackasses.  There's no point in jamming 10,000 people on a server if you can get all of the grief and outrage interacting with a random  200 of them.

[Stephen Zepp]

From what I understand, GW is not planning on using a totally provider centric server architecture are they? In that special case, they do get the "best of both worlds".

But when it comes to games that turn out to be hugely played only in separate instanced areas, ultimately, all that "massively" portion is just a hugely detailed (and hugely expensive) chat lobby.

I don't feel all that strongly about it quite honestly--I simply don't see it as a wise design decision if games are going to continue to become more and more targetted at 1-20 players in instanced dungeons. Now, assuming my understanding of their server model is even remotely accurate, it does sound like GW has a good design for what they want to provide.

[Abalieno]

You mean my ideas aren't new? ;p

The "dream mmorpg" I tinker with from time to time was jumpstarted by Dave's influence on me. More specifically the original project behind Wish that he hinted again on Terra Nova:

Territorial control was what I wanted to try for, with some politics and economy thrown in because wars of conquest without political or economic features are simply a matter of who builds the first juggernaut war machine and rolls up everyone else.

And why not join this with games that Lum and many other players enjoy so much and are just BEGGING to be translated into a massive universe?

Yes, I'm pointing to wargames and RTS.

Online worlds are perfect to offer various types of focus. From the first person experience (*) up to the territorial control and administration, transforming the game so it delivers systems similar to "The Settlers", "Civilization" or "Master of Magic". Or those wargames that only Lum seems to play.

*This* is how you give depth to a MMO. This is how you are able to use its strength instead of just creating a "Minimally Multiplayer".

So, why noone tries to move toward this? I mean concretely, if it's a good idea why noone tries to make money on something that at least sounds intersting to play and develop?

(*) Which is completely underdeveloped right now. Think at how much Doom 3 and Half-Life are able to trigger the adrenaline and emotions like fear, while the mmorpgs in general are so dumb and flat aside the graphical-induced wonder.

[sidereal]

Yes, if http://www.nicelycrafted.com/todc/">anyone invented such a game, it would surely roll in money.  Guess we'll find out in April.

[Stephen Zepp]

Yes, if http://www.nicelycrafted.com/todc/">anyone invented such a game, it would surely roll in money.  Guess we'll find out in April.

Thanks for the link--looks like an interesting game, but it's a pure RTS, wheras (after we hijacked the thread anyway), we're talking about hybrid genre MMOG's, so I'm not sure what relationship you may be suggesting.

Was also curious about the "April" reference...the game has been out in one form or another since 2002, and I didn't see anything specific about April 2005 on the web page anywhere.

[sidereal]

Whoops.  I saw something that suggested it was going to get a box in store shelves in April.  I failed to notice that was April. . . 2004.

[Riggswolfe]

A quick note about instancing:

There seem to be two models of instancing available right now The COH/EQ2 version and the WoW version.

COH/EQ2 is where you have instances of alot of the major areas of the game to cut down on overpopulation (Queynos 1-7 for example) and of some quest areas.

The WoW model only instances certain large dungeons, what would be thought of as raid dungeons I guess.

I suspect the 2nd model wouldn't lead to as much of a minimally multiplayer game as the prior one does.

As for the Hybrid MMO idea:

I used to have dreams of something like this with a Wing Commander spin. This was back in the early days of UO. However, I have since learned, in large part due to UO, that players having control is B.A.D. Players are pricks and will do everything they can to screw others over so they can sit there and cackle like school girls behind their keyboards.

To make this hybrid work players would have to have some control and I just shudder to think of the consequences.

[Righ]

Yes, if http://www.nicelycrafted.com/todc/">anyone invented such a game, it would surely roll in money.  Guess we'll find out in April.

I doubt Toby's rolling in phat lewt, but I wish him the best in that regard. However, he's created a pretty good game in ToD if that's your thing.

And yes, it's been around for a while.

[plangent]

Actually, the idea has been around for a VERY long time. Back in the late 80's-early 90's there was a set of games (Breach/Breach 2 was the rts/squad action portion I cannot remember the space empire portion but it began with an 'E' I think) where you would fight space battles with the first "half" of the game, and either land on a planet to do a squad turn based RTS type game, and/or actually board an enemy ship during the space combat portion, and it would literally hand you off to the "other" game (all on your own comp of course, using text data files---ahh, those were the days!).

Microsoft also played with the concept at about that time as well with their MS Flight Simulator/MS Air Traffic Control Simulators. You could actually network those two (back in the IPX days) and have the ATC player see the flight sim guy on his radar scope, and give him vectors for arrival and departures.

And, if I'm following you, their xbox live service is at least a step in the direction you are describing.  Sony's station pass would be another smaller step in that direction.

I take your ideas here as a good sign.  I came on to post something very similar myself.  I'll pick up where you've left off.

The problem with having a wide selection of game genres accessable through an mmo wrapper (I hope I'm following you correctly with that) is that such a game is probably impossible to make right now.  There is a  degree of consolidation going on in the games industry.  With studios of various genres coming increasingly under a decreasing number of flags, this method of distribution becomes increasingly feasible and desireable.

I think the real answer to all of our mmo woes is that one game cannot be all things to all people.  Given that, why not make a lot of games each for a limited set of people?

[Ironwood]

Rules of Engagement (and ROE2) was the name of the space portion.  The whole thing was called "Interlocking Game System", and I think they had a patent on it (probably expired by now).

--Dave

And very good games they were - lots of rulesmongering and hugely confusing to the newbie - Smashing.

I always got annoyed because I didn't have the 'interlocking' part of Breach - when you didn't have it, the computer 'simulated' your attack and somehow always managed to get your superior force killed in seconds.

[eldaec]

1) And if you and you're friend are tacking around the server, trying to pick up other friends, and have to say (as I myself was never attracted to CoH) "Doh! Queynos 7 not queynos 1!" Does it really matter how this "instancing" garbage is handled as long as it means you can't just walk into "Hero City" and find your friends. Multiple location worlds, shouldn't have multiple instances of those locations. Now from my merchant standpoint, selling things, and letting people know I have them to sell is much easier if I don't have to worry about selling it 20 times, because I have to go through multiple instances. Want any more examples of how this is annoying?

Firstly, now the players have spread across the level range, zone instancing is rare in CoH.

Secondly you can search for and invite groups and members across instances and zones.

Thirdly, CoH doesn't run an economy at this time - you'd have nothing to sell. Some die hards try to sell enhancements to other players. It's pointless. Just ask anyone over lvl 30 for a but of spare cash, they have *lots* of it, and go buy in the store.

Forthly, even if you did have something to sell, and even if the zones were instanced at that time, CoH has global chat channels to do your deals in.

Fifthly if the issue is finding your friends, their is a friends function that tells you exactly where they all are if online, and a friend chat system that broadcasts messages to everyone on your friends list whichever zone/instance they are in.

There are many easy ways to solve the problems associated with occaisional zone instancing. CoH includes many of them, but I'm sure there are other ways of solving the problems as well.

[Stephen Zepp]

And, if I'm following you, their xbox live service is at least a step in the direction you are describing.  Sony's station pass would be another smaller step in that direction.

I take your ideas here as a good sign.  I came on to post something very similar myself.  I'll pick up where you've left off.

The problem with having a wide selection of game genres accessable through an mmo wrapper (I hope I'm following you correctly with that) is that such a game is probably impossible to make right now.

Techincally impossible? Politically impossible? Economically?

 There is a  degree of consolidation going on in the games industry.  With studios of various genres coming increasingly under a decreasing number of flags, this method of distribution becomes increasingly feasible and desireable.

I used the examples of RoE/Breach and MS Flight Sim/ATC Sim as examples of concept, but I didn't mean to imply that present day hybrid genre games should be designed this way as well. When I say hybrid genre MMO, I mean all in one server, and (most likely, it's a marketing decision, not a technical one) all in one "client". You wouldn't download the rts portion one day, and hte RPG portion the next--all are the same game.

[Righ]

I mean all in one server, and (most likely, it's a marketing decision, not a technical one)

It certainly involves a good deal of technical decision making to determine how to deploy game servers. You're fucked if you think it doesn't. I hope you're the marketing droid or sugar daddy, because if so, your ignorance is understandable.

[Stephen Zepp]

I mean all in one server, and (most likely, it's a marketing decision, not a technical one)

It certainly involves a good deal of technical decision making to determine how to deploy game servers. You're fucked if you think it doesn't. I hope you're the marketing droid or sugar daddy, because if so, your ignorance is understandable.

And reading english certainly is a technical process as well. You're fucked if you think that something that appears after a comma means that it should be applied to the clause prior to the comma, not as a qualifying modifier to what appears within the same phrase.

The decision to either provide all of the game genres within a single purchase client application, vs providing different game roles in different client purchases (sell a "empire building/management" client, an "RPG/single player Avatar" client, and any other playstyle modules as separate purchase points is most certainly a marketing decision, not a technical one.

The FULL quote (not stopped at the very last word that seemingly supports your misunderstanding of the sentence) was:

When I say hybrid genre MMO, I mean all in one server, and (most likely, it's a marketing decision, not a technical one) all in one "client".

Note how the parenthetical qualifier is in the same clause as "all in one "client"".

I hope that english isn't your primary language, because if so, your ignorance is understandable.

[Righ]

You're a funny man dickwad. You write a sentence that uses nested parenthesis, and berate me for my reading comprehension. That's certainly amusing. Now that you've been clearer, I certainly see what you are trying to say. You are still wrong.

[Signe]

I have checked over your posts, Stevie, with my mental red pen.  You should really think twice about correcting the grammar of anyone outside of the chimpanzee family.  

You cute little grammar monkey, you!

[Stephen Zepp]

Hey man, no one twisted your arm to come back and try to insult my skill sets publically. Most people so far have simply asked for clarification, and I am more than willing to politely clarify any questions/misunderstandings.

You insulted me, I turned around and insulted you back with the same structure and syntax, while clarifying the point at the same time. If you set the tone, I match it, so don't blame me about it!

[Mesozoic]

Can we consider this conversation to be part of Steve's initiation, or should we just tack more hazing onto the end?

[Tebonas]

And here I thought that slightly strange "We all love each other" thread will cut into our flame ratio. Thanks for restoring my faith in you guys.

[Stephen Zepp]

I have checked over your posts, Stevie, with my mental red pen.  You should really think twice about correcting the grammar of anyone outside of the chimpanzee family.  

You cute little grammar monkey, you!

If you are referring to me, I never claimed to be a master of the language myself. Many posts are free-flowing, and therefore are almost certain to contain not only spelling but grammatical errors as well.

I have no problem with anyone saying "what did you mean by this?" or even "woah dude, that made no sense". If you want to wrap that in insults about skill sets unrelated to use of the language however, you can certainly expect an answer in kind.

[Mesozoic]

And here I thought that slightly strange "We all love each other" thread will cut into our flame ratio. Thanks for restoring my faith in you guys.

Its OK over there now, Boog showed up.

[Stephen Zepp]

Now that you've been clearer, I certainly see what you are trying to say. You are still wrong.

Beyond all the flames, would you expand upon this? Wrong in thinking that the decision to split out functionality into different purchasable modules is a tech vs marketing decision, or wrong in other ways?

The entire reason of this post in general is to find out how things are "wrong", but it helps to know why you feel that way!

[Signe]

I have checked over your posts, Stevie, with my mental red pen.  You should really think twice about correcting the grammar of anyone outside of the chimpanzee family.  

You cute little grammar monkey, you!

If you are referring to me, I never claimed to be a master of the language myself. Many posts are free-flowing, and therefore are almost certain to contain not only spelling but grammatical errors as well.

I have no problem with anyone saying "what did you mean by this?" or even "woah dude, that made no sense". If you want to wrap that in insults about skill sets unrelated to use of the language however, you can certainly expect an answer in kind.

You're still a monkey.

[Righ]

Now that you've been clearer, I certainly see what you are trying to say. You are still wrong.

Beyond all the flames, would you expand upon this? Wrong in thinking that the decision to split out functionality into different purchasable modules is a tech vs marketing decision, or wrong in other ways?

I think that you are wrong in thinking that it is simply a marketing decision to amalgamate the client code. There are all sorts of technical reasons why you would pay attention to how the client components are loaded. I do see where you are coming from, and you qualified it better by saying "product purchases". However, I'll still argue that it is not a marketing decision alone. There are good business reasons beyond simple marketing that qualify how you should take your product to market.

SW:G has an expansion (JtL) that adds a flight shooter element. I would imagine that not all the decisions to package as two purchases were strictly marketing decisions. The first thing that comes to mind is development cost. SW:G would have had to have been launched later to incorporate JtL from the outset, or more developers and more project management would have had to have been hired. However, Raph could stride in here and call me a big fat hairy bullshitter.

You insulted me, I turned around and insulted you back with the same structure and syntax, while clarifying the point at the same time. If you set the tone, I match it, so don't blame me about it!

Touche. You will probably fit in here.

[Stephen Zepp]

Good points on the packaging concept being both technical and marketing. I fully admit I tend to use abstract versions of terms a lot in posting, mostly because I don't want to have every post be 1,000 lines long in discussing a single point.

Interestingly however, with the engine that we're using, client presentation is simply a matter of which gui elements and script functions are packaged together. They are byte code compiled scripts, and of course there are security concerns regardless of how you obfuscate the byte code compiled version, but in general providing a completely different look/feel/information presentation for different client "modes" is a matter of a couple of days initial work, and then a few testing cycles. The engine executable itself isn't going to change at all in any possible "different mode" release packages.

Which is why I feel it's a marketing decision. The only two proven marketing models that work right now in the industry (at the professional level in any case) are "buy client, free access to servers"--WC3, etc., and "buy client, montly subscription fee to servers"--most MMOG's. Using a different purchasing concept is a risk, and that risk doesn't have much to do with the technology at all.

There are several other sales models being explored--the GW "incremental pay for new content" and derivatives thereof, down to the "micro-purchase" plans advocated both here in the forums and by some commercial companies as well, but none of these are really proven to work yet, only time will tell.

The question is, will the target market be willing to purchase a limited subset of player capability at a lower price, with the option of purchasing additional "modules" later on (or even all at once in some form of "package deal").

Touche. You will probably fit in here.

I'm not a flamer by nature, but they don't normally piss me off that much either. I tried hard to make sure I structured my reply artificially in the same manner you did, so it would be at least somewhat obvious that I wasn't serious, simply responding in kind. I'll eventually become as jaded as everyone else, and simply blow them off, I'm sure!

[Soukyan]

Beyond all the flames...

I prefer to call them "community building statements". ;)

[d4rkj3di]

Note to mods: Sorry about the thread hijack, the convo has turned into something completely different...would it be possible to get a split off?

In my limited time here, I have noticed that thread hijacking is a common occurance.  I think it all boils down to what you intend to do with it once you are at the helm.  Do you intend to fly us to freedom, or will you set a course headed straight into the sun?

[d4rkj3di]

I used to have dreams of something like this with a Wing Commander spin. This was back in the early days of UO. However, I have since learned, in large part due to UO, that players having control is B.A.D. Players are pricks and will do everything they can to screw others over so they can sit there and cackle like school girls behind their keyboards.

To make this hybrid work players would have to have some control and I just shudder to think of the consequences.

You just described Jumpgate.  Otherwise known as "Lord of the Flies in Space".

That game had, without a doubt, the absolute worst example of what happens when a community is allowed to have any influence on the in-game fate of another player.

[Abalieno]

The decision to either provide all of the game genres within a single purchase client application, vs providing different game roles in different client purchases (sell a "empire building/management" client, an "RPG/single player Avatar" client, and any other playstyle modules as separate purchase points is most certainly a marketing decision, not a technical one.

Just to comment the design idea. My idea isn't about directly "stacking" different genres. A critic I made to the space expansion of SWG is that I don't like much games with completely independent parts.

My idea was more about *integrating* parts and systems of different genres to give a depth to a massive world, rather then pack together  independent layers.

In my plan those layers exist but they are emergent, not distinct. The different features must blend, not offer different games to be played by different player-types.

I really don't like the idea of "stacking" because I believe the design must be always cohesive. More unity = more value. Instead the idea of stacking different genres sounds to me like grouping various mediocre games hoping that together they are desirable.

[Signe]

Please, Soukyan, put back your old avatar.  I always imagine you as that pretty, gentle looking woman.  She looks kind and thoughtful.  She suits your personality.

I'm feeling mushy.

[Rasix]

Please, Soukyan, put back your old avatar.  I always imagine you as that pretty, gentle looking woman.  She looks kind and thoughtful.  She suits your personality.

I'm feeling mushy.

Yah, but a retarded weatherman fits my perception better.

Is this where I say *ZING*?

[Soukyan]

Wow. That's two board votes for the return of Alizee within 15 minutes of the avatar change. Hmm... now I must consider.

[edit]Rasix: ZING![/edit]

[Stephen Zepp]

Wow. That's two board votes for the return of Alizee within 15 minutes of the avatar change. Hmm... now I must consider.

[edit]Rasix: ZING![/edit]

Make that 3. When I saw that I was like "daamn.."..and I have no idea where the image actually comes from, or who Alizee is!

<<<<<insert dirty old man comments below this line>>>>>

>>>>>insert dirty old man comments above this line<<<<<

[schild]

Alizee is no longer interesting to me. The weatherman avatar at least made me laugh.

[Bunk]

Please, Soukyan, put back your old avatar.  I always imagine you as that pretty, gentle looking woman.  She looks kind and thoughtful.  She suits your personality.

I'm feeling mushy.

Ok, thats certainly not what comes to mind when I think of Alizee.  Think more along the lines of France's answer to Britney, but better looking (and likely more talented).