Trucolor World with a Four-Color Community

[geldonyetich]

Eventually, I think people get tired of ringing changes. But that may be my bias. I think people migrate from powergamer to butterfly over time (actually, over experience.) This is speaking broadly, mind you--an individual game may offer the right mix that pulls them back--but over time, they become jaded to the ringing of changes, and that's when they start calling it a treadmill.

Speaking as a hardcore gamer, I have to say that personally I enjoy a ringing of changes.    It helps keep gameplay fresh when there's a new element introduced from time to time.    This is one of the main things MMORPGs have going for them.  

I just wish the frequency of the changes would occur more often.   It might be because I'm already bored of the gameplay that takes place at the lower rings.   A part of designing of a MMORPG seems to be to try to string out the transition between the different rings as much as possible.   Probably in order to keep those subscriptions coming in.   However, if you're a hardcore gamer, you're already *PAST* the level of gameplay that you're stick at with your current ring.  

This probably is why you're seeing people with experience migrate from powergamer to butterfly.   Experienced players have likely played this type of game before, and grown bored of it.    The only way you allow them to get to the higher rings is by accumulating things which are gained only through time investment.   As a result, these experienced players are trapped at lower rings, unable to get where gameplay is enjoyable for them at the higher rings except out of raw time investment.    The bloody treadmill wall is now rearing it's ugly head.    The player is only allowed to progress by performing activities against their will, and so they move on.    Thus, you have what appears to be a butterfly but is actually just an experienced player being forced to endure inflexible advancement mechanics.

A similar flaw could be found in a top down arcade shooter such as 1942.  If you've played scads of top-down shooters before, and can already beat levels 1-19 with your eyes closed, maybe you'd rather start the game out at level 20 than slog your way through the first 19 levels of gameplay which is not at all remotely challenging to you?

What you really ought to do is provide a competency test that allows an experienced gamer to forward directly to what they are capable of.    Let them choose their difficulty.    Maybe leave the traditional mechanics in tact as well for the inexperienced players who won't be advancing through anything but persistance alone.

[Raph]

As it happens, in the late lamented Privateer Online we had a design which went like this:

- you buy skills with money, not XP (they were actually couched as licenses or guild membership fees, etc)
- skills each added more complexity to what you could do in the game
- you pay maintenance fees on skills, a regular fee
- if you can't pay, you slip back down the ladder
- you can twink someone to any skill--if they can make the money to pay for it on an ongoing basis, great!

That comes pretty close to what you're suggesting, I think.

Flipside, of course, is that it ties you to the game even more. Take time off without a built-up bank account, and you lose standing...

FWIW, I've observed the powergamer->butterfly pattern pretty much in my entire gaming career across all genres, so I don't think it is just from the pace of advancement in the games.

There's a another very common designer's disease, which is the "play any game for no more than a half hour" disease. It isn't because the designer is now a bad player, or because they lack time--even those afflicted with severe forms of this disease still get hooked on games occasionally. But the threshold of novelty required to make the designer want to play for longer is so high that the designer doesn't stick. And it mostly comes about because the designer has trained (usually self-training) to dissect mechanics, so they grok all they need to know about the game in the first half hour or less. (To be honest, I frequently buy $50 games that get ten minutes from me).

[geldonyetich]

That comes pretty close to what you're suggesting, I think

Privateer Online's system would have been interesting.  Except perhaps I'd want to count maintenance time into actually online time as opposed to both online and offline time.  This would be neccessary for the hardcore vrs casual time investment differences alone.

Better still, ditch the money requirement and rig advancement to a mission system with progressively harder missions.   This drops a lot of the time investment requirements.     You'd still be able to accumulate cash which would allow you to upgrade your ship and increase the odds you can complete the mission, but if you're a really good player you'd advance sooner with inferior equipment.

FWIW, I've observed the powergamer->butterfly pattern pretty much in my entire gaming career across all genres, so I don't think it is just from the pace of advancement in the games.

Yeah, I agree that the powergamer->butterfly effect probably isn't entirely originating from being stuck in the wrong ring.    Although I wager a goodly portion of that is from simply being experienced enough to generate a bit of "been there, done that" sentiment which is very similar.

There's a another very common designer's disease, which is the "play any game for no more than a half hour" disease.

I can see how, from a developer's perspective, you'd just grok it and leave it.    No real harm done - although you might miss some interesting nuances of the later game unfolds, that's more of a story teller thing than a game designer thing.   I have seen a few interesting games that implement mini-games in unusual yet fitting places down the line, such as Anachronox, but they're a rarity.

[Big Gulp]

Eventually, I think people get tired of ringing changes. But that may be my bias. I think people migrate from powergamer to butterfly over time (actually, over experience.) This is speaking broadly, mind you--an individual game may offer the right mix that pulls them back

I rarely finish games.  It's got to be damned good for me to put in the effort to want to see how a game finishes up.  In the past few years I can think of only a few games I've actually finished; GTA3, Vice City, and KOTOR.  I've been sitting on Thief 3 for weeks now, in only the 3rd mission because I've been completely consumed by CoH.

Deep down, yeah I understand that it's a shallow treadmill.  What it's got going for it, though, that no other MMOG currently has is charm.  It's the gee-whiz factor of jumping from rooftop to rooftop dispensing justice.  It's got electrical blasts, bodies flying from super punches, and grown men in tights.  I'm pretty much your stereotypical butterfly, but I've been attached to this sucker like a lamprey, and I really don't see myself losing the love any time soon.  I don't exactly know what to attribute this to, but I think it's the fact that the game has heart.  No other MMOGs do (except, perhaps WoW, but that's just off of second hand reports) and that's why this is the first one I've played in over a year.

[HaemishM]

I'm a terrible butterfly that occasionally gets suckered into powergamer trends. I'm like BigGulp; I don't finish many games. Over the last few months, I've finished the first Splinter Cell, but I've very rarely finished any games, even shorter ones like Freedom Force or the original Thief. I tend to grab a demo of a game, and will usually play it to the point where I feel like I know the gameplay. With Far Cry, I played the demo and decided I'd pretty much seen everything I needed to. The game had nothing to offer me.

With MMOG's, I've become very much a butterfly. Before CoH, Shadowbane was the only thing that even warranted a second glance since I quit DAoC. I've just felt like I've seen everything within the first ten levels of all the other MMOG's, and it wasn't a promising picture. With CoH, I can play it like a multiplayer game, or a single-player game, all depending on my mood. Most MMOG's can ONLY be played as a multiplayer game, ever, and while that has its charm, it also is a terrible weight for someone in a butterfly state of mind.

[Margalis]

I find minor changes in mechanics to be quite boring. I often don't finish games once I realize I know basically all I need to know and they aren't that interesting.

If a core mechanic isn't that interesting, it can't last, no matter how many things you add to it.

If you look at say Chess, the rules are fairly simple. Nothing ever changes, other than the players. Buth te core mechanic is interesting. Chess never introduces anything new - it's just players introducing new things to Chess and getting better.

My problem with HAM is...what's the point? Seriously. Why? You have some bars, and those bars have bars...and...so? "Now with 3 times as many bars!" It's a great example of making something more complex without making it any deeper.
---

I also play a lot of fighting games. There are many fighting games that are REALLY complex, but have a couple broken features and degenerate into something very simple. (Tekken 4 anyone?) The same can be said of something like Magic: The Gathering. Although the possibilities are huge, sometimes a certain combination basically takes over and the game becomes incredibly dumbed down.

In most games, complexity and depth, as I am describing them, are INVERSLY related. The more crap you have, the more that can go wrong and lead to stupid problems and degenerate cases. The more stuff you have, the more you can get wrong.

---

What annoys me is people making the same mistake over and over. Before any feature is ever added, ask the following:

1: What does this add?
2: How will people try to abuse this?

There are so many MMORPG features that would obviously be cut if someone thought about #2. That should be one of the first things asked of any feature.

[geldonyetich]

On the other hand, with a perspective that deliberately endeavors to disqualify each and every feature before you add it, you'll not end up with a very interesting game at all.

The nice thing about the outside-in approach to design is that you can catch relationships between features and integrate them in such a way that they may solve eachother's problems.   For example, player enforced policing and unrestricted PvP solve eachother's problems.  In this way, the design process becomes a bit of a puzzle, but has the potential to assemble an infinitely more enjoyable game.

The tough thing is the kind of puzzle you are working with has some very strange twists to it.    Player behavior is often unexpected, and so it is difficult to imagine every way they may interact with a feature.    You do not want to complete your puzzle, because while that would certainly be optimal for a whole game, it leaves you absolutely grounded when it comes to trying to expand upon the game.

Then, when you're done, you've caught yourself in another logical problem - you've designed the game from the outside in when the players play it from the inside out!   It's difficult to appreciate the architectural wonder of the house you have created when all you have to look at is the gutted walls and incomplete wiring job from the inside.

It has been suggested that you design from both the outside and the inside.   The difficult thing about this is you end up stepping on your own toes a lot.   The features you may come up from the inside may not fit important concepts you realize you need on the outside, and you end up going back to the drawing board after wasting much time.

Personally, I'm thinking perhaps finish the outside as a basic concept, then focus most of your efforts on the inside?   Or perhaps get two seperate designers and have them collaborate a lot.    In a way, core single perspective gameplay and the way a MMORPG flows together are really two seperate activities that are connected no more than the different modules in an object oriented program.

[Margalis]

On the other hand, with a perspective that deliberately endeavors to disqualify each and every feature before you add it, you'll not end up with a very interesting game at all.

I don't see why that is the case. You just end up lacking broken/useless features. Or, you end up with better versions on the features that aren't as abusable.

For example take the SWG naming of items in the Bazaar. The way it was initially (and has since changed, no?) it's easy to abuse. Name things alphabetically to get them to appear at the top, name things in deceiving manner, etc. (You could name the weakest gun in the game the most powerful one)

That didn't pass the "how can they abuse this" test.

[geldonyetich]

Sure, it sounds good on paper, but try it.

I can find something that's either (sometimes both) 1) Not adding anything really neccessary or 2) potentially exploitable in about 99.5% of any feature you could recommend.

You really can't argue that things wouldn't be more interesting if we could still rename our items with the same degree of freedom as originally was in SWG.     I think that the SWG team was fully aware that some people would try to abuse it, but they went ahead with it for the good of the game.    They only revoked the ability to rename items when people complained and/or they were unable to adequettely enforce naming conventions.

[Margalis]

It wasn't really for the good of the game if people didn't like it and it had to be changed.

Allowing people to customize items was a good idea. Giving them colors, flavor text, special insignias, whatever...that was the good part of the idea. The basic thrust was ok.

 I think that the SWG team was fully aware that some people would try to abuse it, but they went ahead with it for the good of the game.    They only revoked the ability to rename items when people complained and/or they were unable to adequettely enforce naming conventions.

Look at the number of games that have stupid exploits due to things like sleep/freeze spells. That is the sort of thing I am talking about. At this point no game should ever come out with that garbage. For any special that freezes people, stuns them, knocks them over, etc, the VERY FIRST question should be "how will people abuse this?" Because history has proven those are abusable.

Yet, SWG suffered from a bunch of stupid infinite knockdown attacks. How does that sort of stuff make it?

[AOFanboi]

Look at the number of games that have stupid exploits due to things like sleep/freeze spells. That is the sort of thing I am talking about. At this point no game should ever come out with that garbage. For any special that freezes people, stuns them, knocks them over, etc, the VERY FIRST question should be "how will people abuse this?" Because history has proven those are abusable.

Thanks for summing up why hero vs. hero PvP cannot be added to City of Heroes.

[geldonyetich]

CoH actually has a wide variety of crowd control resistance powers (mostly for Scrappers/Tanks and Defender/Controller granted buffs) and even inspirations (for everyone).    Instead of an example of why PvP couldn't be added to CoH, this is instead an excellent example of why you can't just disqualify every feature right off the bat because it could be potentially exploitable.

In other words, you shouldn't just say "OMG, people will exploit stun/freezing so we dare not implement it!"     Instead, you should say "Oh, okay, so stun/freezing is pretty dang powerful and in order for the game to be fun we need to include also effective defences against it."

Intead of criticizing Shadowbane or SWG for allowing what you consider 'abusable' abilities from entering the game in the forms of stuns or knockdown, you might want to criticize them instead on not providing enough defences against them to stop them from getting out of hand.  

I can also criticize games like Everquest for refusing to allow crowd control powers to work on players at all because they didn't want to go through the trouble of implementing defences against these powers.    This was a stop gap measure that stops their game from reaching it's full potential.

[daveNYC]

The reason that CoH shouldn't have PvP is because it's entire combat system seems to have been designed around PvE combat.  Specificly PvE combat against Boss type characters who can shrug off some of the powers and have a fuckton (Imperial fuckton that is) of hit points.  Equal level players would have neither, therefore combat would probably be a stinking mess.

[geldonyetich]

If you were talking EQ, I'd agree entirely.   City of Heroe's PvE balance is considerably closer to PvP, with a very similar power base between hero and villian.    Bosses (not Supervillians or Monsters) are about 150% potency to a hero by design, but that's a damn sight better than the 2000% potency vrs the hero a higher level mob would have in EQ.

Anywho, they're going to instanced PvP off into specialized contest areas with equal sized teams in City of Villians, and that's a much better approach than the free for all crap you'll see in many other MMORPGs.

[Miscreant]

On the other hand, with a perspective that deliberately endeavors to disqualify each and every feature before you add it, you'll not end up with a very interesting game at all.

A proposed feature is correctly regarded as a gin-soaked bum with a suitcase asking to crash on your couch "for a few days."  

Joyfully axing features that don't pull their weight is a hallmark of good game development.

[geldonyetich]

Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough last time.  

It's not that I have anything wrong with getting rid of truly awful feature ideas.    However, if you take a really, really close look at any feature in any game, it's not perfect under all possible criticism.    

Why?  Because the features are human inventions, and people aren't perfect.   Even if you did manage to come up with a feature that exhibits true mathematical perfection, I wager nobody but calculators would enjoy having it added to the game.

Since just about everything you can come up with has a flaw, you're going to end up regarding each and every feature as a potential gin-soaked bum in need of a quick eviction.     The result?  A game completely devoid of any and all features.    Or, at the very least, extremely shallow unsatisfying gameplay.

On other hand, if you're considering nearly every (obviously not all) features as something that has a possibility to work if you utilize proper implementation... then you could end up with a nice deep game.

Ultimately, it's EASIER to get rid of features.   However, it's BETTER for deep gameplay to find a way to make those features work.   Many ideas working in sync is what makes a really good game design.

[Margalis]

Well, geldon you are reading more into what I am saying than I intend. I do not mean that knockdown/freeze effects should not be in games. I mean they should not be BROKEN in games.

CoH does not have PvP, so I wouldn't say those abilities are broken. Maybe when they implement PvP they will make it so that all heroes have some natural resistance to those things...who knows.

Knockdown/freeze effects are not inherently broken, I am NOT saying they have no place in games. What I am saying is when people consider adding them they need to very carefully consider the ramifications. Providing enough defense, as you say, is one approach. Or, you can make sure they don't have an additive effect with other abilities and can't be cast fast enough to permanantly screw people.

It's a danger to watch out for, not a feature to leave out entirely.

It's like fighting games that have infinite combos. There are certain things you should be VERY wary of when creating fighting games. Moves that stun people is a big one, for obvious reasons. Moves that move you forward as part of the move is another. Moves that give you any sort of free hits is another. (Cause what if you do the free hit causing move again?)

I am just saying there are certain things that historically have been very abusable and problematic, those are *obvious* things to look out for at this point.

[geldonyetich]

Now we're in agreement.

All this talk about game design's got me all antsy.   I'm dabbling again with Neverwinter Nights.   The Community Expansion pack is HUMONGOUS.    However, this deserves a thread of it's own.

[Mesozoic]

If I only limited number of player can interact with me then it is not massive game.

"Massive" is just a label.  Something that (AFAIK) Garriott et. al. came up with to try to make people understand that UO wasn't just multiplayer, it was mega-multiplayer, something very different, and worth paying a regular fee for.  People were skeptical back then.  

I'm not sure what you're doing when you pull that word out and try to see if it fits CoH or not.  I'm not sure what you mean by "limited."  Can a player in a mission affect someone hovering above City Hall?  No, but neither can a player in Qeynos affect someone on a Plane Raid.  All they could do is chat, in either case.