The Laws of Online Gaming Revisited...

[HaemishM]

I'm not sure this is correct. Tetris, for example, is a pretty deep game, if I understand your meaning of "depth" correctly. It has considerably more depth than most MMP games. There isn't this huge social community of Tetris players, afaik.

Actually, though Tetris is difficult, it is in essence a shallow game. There really is only one type of gameplay, and since the game is single-player, it doesn't build many social connections. While winning the game is certainly a subtle exercise, the only real social connection that is built is from the entire experience, the cultural zeitgeist that comes from having played Tetris. Or Solitaire for that matter.

How many people who've ever used a Windows PC will laugh at a joke that peripherally mentions the addictiveness of Solitaire? Those games build some social connections, but it's about as deep as making Super Friends jokes.

When you say "depth", I'm interpreting it as "how difficult it is to play within the game's rules to come up with the optimal path". For example (hehe), the depth of golf is the difficulty of getting a hole-in-one on all 18 holes. For most MMP games out now, the depth, in this sense, is really shallow.

I'm not relating depth to difficulty. I'm saying the strength of social connections in games are related to the depth of the game, where depth also means breadth of experience. Even MMOG's, which have horribly shallow gameplay experiences, have multiple types of experiences, from the crafting, combat and exploring aspects, to the competitive aspects all the way to the social aspects. MMOG's, while suffering from mindlessly repetitive gameplay, STILL manage to have "depth" but mostly through breadth of experiences.

There are many things to do, so many that one person cannot usually do them all. There's an idea, just on the edge of my brain that I could probably articulate had I not sat in the sun so long today.

EDIT:

I really just can't see anyone, anywhere at ANY TIME ever saying "wow, this MMO has unvealed new truths about my being."

Actually, I can say EXACTLY that about my time as a guild leader in EQ. It hasn't happened in every MMOG I've ever played, but the ones I've put time into have taught me things about people and myself that I probably wouldn't have learned anywhere else.

But that's just me. One of these days I intend to write down a history of my time as a guild leader as kind of a contemplative personal journal.

[dogles]

I'm not relating depth to difficulty. I'm saying the strength of social connections in games are related to the depth of the game, where depth also means breadth of experience. Even MMOG's, which have horribly shallow gameplay experiences, have multiple types of experiences, from the crafting, combat and exploring aspects, to the competitive aspects all the way to the social aspects. MMOG's, while suffering from mindlessly repetitive gameplay, STILL manage to have "depth" but mostly through breadth of experiences.

Most physical sports games don't have the breadth of experience you speak of. The rules are generally very simple, and there are at most a few roles within the game, but they generally have the strongest communities.

Breadth of experience can backfire, in that you, as a developer, must sacrifice the quality of each individual experience to support the full range of experiences. Thus, the depth of each experience suffers, in every sense. I think a lot of what people liked about SWG (and other MMPs), for instance, was the breadth of experiences, they just didn't appreciate the depth of each individual experience.

Here's a question. CoH has far less breadth of experiences than many other MMP games on the market today. The depth of the combat system is pretty standard for an MMP (though perhaps a little better than usual). Do you think the community has suffered as a result of this? I am not an active player, so I can't speak one way or the other.

On another note, I've thought about it a bit, and I think that your suggested law is a tad too general.

Code:

Games build communities. The strength of those communities is directly proportional to the level and amount of direct competition the game requires.

Community strength become much harder to predict when you're talking about games that don't require any form of group tactics (e.g., single-player games). I.e., this applies specifically to games in virtual worlds.

I was actually just looking through the laws and noticed this:

Baron's Theorem
Hate is good. This is because conflict drives the formation of social bonds and thus of communities. It is an engine that brings players closer together.

I think this is basically what you're saying, I'm suprised Raph didn't point it out earlier ;). I think Baron's is too vague in wording about what types of conflict form social bonds in game, and who/what players should hate. I can't agree that all hate/conflict applies. E.g., it won't help build a community if everybody "hates" everybody else - look at Quake. There is little to no community to speak of in a regular deathmatch. Only when you split people into groups do communities blossom.

The way I'd say it is: Games that reward and facilitate group tactics build communities, the strength of those communities is proportional to the level of coordination required between members. Again, just my interpretation.

dan

[Azhrarn]

There really is only one type of gameplay, and since the game is single-player, it doesn't build many social connections.

Block bomb for t3h win!

[Raph]

We usually speak of horizontal and vertical interdependence. To wit:

- do tasks require multiple people to complete optimally?
- do advanced players need the presence of low level players?

Both of these give you teh w1n in terms of community building. A game which lacks them will likely not build communities as well.

This relates back to the multiple ladders of advancement issue mentioned earlier. A large reason why EQ is successful at building communities is precisely because of this. They DO have multiple ladders of advancement with different gameplay--the different classes. And the strong interdependence between the classes is what drives the community in EQ.

This of course runs headlong into the desires for shorter play sessions and  soloing. But that's the rub.

Newbies needed by advanced players is a trickier nut to crack. EQ's economy emergently displayed it with newbies gathering low level items for high level players who needed them. AC's allegiance system was a direct attempt. So was schematic revocation in SWG.

[SirBruce]

We usually speak of horizontal and vertical interdependence. To wit:

- do tasks require multiple people to complete optimally?
- do advanced players need the presence of low level players?

I believe in #2 but not in #1.

#1 eventually leads to forced grouping no matter how you slice it.  And I do not believe that the power of community outweighs the benefit of allowing strong solo play.  For certain game designs, of course, forced grouping makes sense, but even those need to allow for less-than-optimal solo play.  But I think as a general design rule, you want to avoid requiring multiple people to complete a task optimally, not encourage it.

#2 I'm totally for, if by "presence" we mean things like the economy and services and infrastructure and so on, rather than grouping.

Bruce

[Tebonas]

From all the people I know that still play Everquest because the guild friends they made there still play it, people they grouped with for many months to years, I would gather that yes, #1 IS a good design choice to hold players in the game.

[SirBruce]

But I know plenty of people that still play with their guilds in games that are far less "forced" grouping than EQ.

Sorry, but too many MMOGs have copied what EQ did thinking what they did must be right, since it is so popular.  This is another one of those elements.

This doesn't mean community isn't a valuable and powerful force to use in your MMOG.  I just don't think forced grouping is the correct approach to nourishing community.

Bruce

[Tebonas]

Just that you don't musunderstand me, I am against forced grouping as well. Just saying that if you can bring people to group with each other the bonds they share are usually stronger. And I personally experienced people remaining in Everquest despite being burned out of the game, on behalf of others.

If the others don't need you, its easier to turn your back on the game and just keep in contact via guild boards for example.

[Sky]

- do tasks require multiple people to complete optimally?

Well, looks like I'll just log off, I can't find *player type x*.

- do advanced players need the presence of low level players?

Let's make up for stratifying our playerbase with levels.

How did you get so much right with UO, then totally forget how to do it? I'm confused. Well, the fact that you are referring to EQ clones might be a clue. Working with SOE might be another.

Try looking at CoH. Almost any 'class' can solo, but it's a lot more fun to play as a group. Level stratification almost eliminated by sidekicking.

[Dark Vengeance]

Well, looks like I'll just log off, I can't find *player type x*.

Multiple people doesn't necessarily mean that each one has to have an individual specialty. It also is not necessary to require grouping (or other elements of interdependency) for all aspects of the game. You're dismissing the idea, because you've seen it implemented poorly in the past.

If you don't have a magical weapon, and cannot cast spells, you don't go hunting werewolves....it doesn't mean you can't play at all. However, having the option to bring along a spellcaster buddy and let him fry the werewolves while you keep them at a safe distance....that can work nicely.

Let's make up for stratifying our playerbase with levels.

Levels aren't the only means of separating advanced players from newbies/lowbies, as evidenced by UO. If you don't give newbies/lowbies meaningful things to do, it becomes a treadmill grind up to advanced status. Moreover, if you give them meaningful things to do, they can still contribute to the community....in a way that is even relevant to your most advanced players.

Try looking at CoH. Almost any 'class' can solo, but it's a lot more fun to play as a group. Level stratification almost eliminated by sidekicking.

It's been said that CoH is like a good popcorn flick....easy to get into, but also easy to walk away from.

Interdependency is a long way from forced grouping. One of the big issues faced in MMOGs is that solo play is encouraged somewhat by gameplay mechanics. If a player can kill X creatures per hour (Z for # of hours), each yielding Y rewards, the end result is that they walk away with X*Y*Z in overall rewards. If 2 players team up, it has to produce a result greater than 2*X*Y*Z over the same length of time to produce any tangible benefit.

The classic example in UO is hunting liches. You can solo them, and it may be more fun to fight them with other players. However, doing so means you have to share the spawn, which reduces the number of creatures you can kill and loot per hour. Additionally, working with another player doesn't serve to make the team appreciably better than the sum of its parts. Plus, gang-banging a creature is less effective at building skills than solo combat...so players develop by keeping creatures to themselves, and are incented to keep playing that way.

So what do you do? Well, you can give the players encounters that are practically impossible to solo, and offer unique rewards for completing them. This, naturally, can lead to a feeling of forced grouping...particularly if it requires various specialized character types. An alternative would be to make the group substantially more effective when combining their efforts. Of course, this is also sure to get the soloist crying foul...if grouping is perceived as more effective, they will treat it as a rejection of solo play as a viable playstyle.

It's a fine line to tread....MMOGs are filled with paradoxes like these. The notion that solo play must be viable in a massively multiplayer game is just one of them.

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

[Sky]

It's been said that CoH is like a good popcorn flick....easy to get into, but also easy to walk away from.

I keep forgetting that the goal is to create addicts, not fun games. Sorry.

[Dark Vengeance]

It's been said that CoH is like a good popcorn flick....easy to get into, but also easy to walk away from.

I keep forgetting that the goal is to create addicts, not fun games. Sorry.

And here I thought the goal was to create immersive, engaging, compelling and FUN gameplay that players can enjoy on a continuous basis. Indeed, that means retaining playes as a core piece of the business model.

Just because some catasses declare themselves addicts to excuse their marathon playing sessions and lack of appropriate personal priorities does not change the objective of MMOG design, IMO. YMMV.

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

[Raph]

I said "optimally." I didn't say "at all." I think that it should be evident from the games I've worked on that I don't personally agree with forced grouping--but I'd be nuts to deny how powerful an effect grouping has on community, and to fail to encourage it.

I agree that levels are a problem--I believe I even once said "levels suck." That doesn't mean that you won't always have advanced and newbie players, or expert and inexpert players. The rule of thumb still applies.

[daveNYC]

Aren't you supposed to be telling us how we're wrong or somesuch?  Or do we need another couple pages?

[ajax34i]

I think Sky's talking about meta-developing (term derived from "meta-gaming"):  instead of developing the game itself, and letting players decide whether to stay or go, you build in game mechanics for the specific purpose of retaining people and making them play longer.  I.E. you're pretending to be a nice game developer, but really you are an evil businessperson whose real purpose is to addict people and take their money.  Like secretly adding an addictive drug to a soft drink and then advertising that it's "just a soft drink."

Perhaps a second point is "if Fun Game -> Profit, why do you need to specifically code other, artificial things for the Profit?"

[Rasix]

Perhaps a second point is "if Fun Game -> Profit, why do you need to specifically code other, artificial things for the Profit?"

Because player aquisition and player retention trump all for a subscription based system?  These games don't have the box sale numbers like a Diablo, Warcraft, Sims, or any other popular non MMO title.  

They also in most cases appear to take longer to develop, take more capital, and require not only and extensive live team, but a large support staff.   So, it's not really that far of a stretch to say that a business model tends to get incorperated with the design of an MMO.  

Ideally, you want the game so fun people can't bear to be away from it. But since that seems kind of hard to keep up for a year or more, you need to incorperate systems that either make the completion of your game a prolonged experience or make the emotional, time investment of the game significant enough that's it's hard to walk away from.  

Making grouping mandatory for some experiences does suck for Mr. Casual, but it creates some strong social bonds that those less hinged to reality find it hard to walk away from.  Having a long drawn out ride to the top may not stop mr. catass from hitting level X in a month, but Mr. Casual probably won't even reach it in a year.  Having expensive virtual real estate that can go away if you quit makes people log in from time to time to avoid losing it.

In an ideal setting, the road to success would be:

1. Design game for lots of people.
2. People keep playing fun game because it's fun.
3. Profit.

Instead you mostly get the underpants gnome scenario where #2 is a complete mystery until some windbag named McQuaid happens to stumble upon it.

I'm not in the biz so, any of the above can be assume to be 100% pure horseflop.

[Soukyan]

And here I thought the goal was to create immersive, engaging, compelling and FUN gameplay that players can enjoy on a continuous basis. Indeed, that means retaining playes as a core piece of the business model.

I think CoH has a fine model for player retention. It will retain me as a subscriber and I play anywhere from 3 days for a couple hours each to no days per week. Yes, it's easy to walk away from, but that's why I will stay a subscriber. Because I can get a group within 5 minutes and I won't totally ruin everyone's night if I must log on short notice. It gives me what I want, when I want it. Players should not have to feel an inherent need to play a game in order to continue playing it. If it's fun, they'll play it... at their leisure.

[Sky]

Yeah, that's the gist of where I was going. If the gameplay is not fun enough to keep people playing, and more importantly, develop 'elder games' of their own, then imo just close down the genre.

I've yet to see an analog to the sheer amount of advanced player driven content UO offered. I don't know if that was due to the (now) unrivalled amount of player interaction. But I know that 90% of my UO playing after the first six months or so had nothing to do with coded content.

My character was 'finished', and I then moved on to playing a great game. In the new world of mmogs, characters aren't really ever done. Less so with SWG, I'll give you that. So why didn't I get into elder games in SWG? I don't know.

Time's certainly a factor, but the game just never did much for me (and I was a huge SW nerd when I was a kid, saw it 20 times in the theater on the original release and all).

It's one thing that puzzles me about the genre, and I'm loathe to put it up to being a jaded old mmoger.

[Raph]

Aren't you supposed to be telling us how we're wrong or somesuch?  Or do we need another couple pages?

Seems to me the discussion keeps doing it for me. :)

[schild]

Aren't you supposed to be telling us how we're wrong or somesuch?  Or do we need another couple pages?

Seems to me the discussion keeps doing it for me. :)

How's the view from your ivory tower?

[ajax34i]

Because player aquisition and player retention trump all for a subscription based system?  etc.

I know.  

I was trying to re-word Sky's post.

But you're basically arguing that the purpose of "the game" is not to provide entertainment to us, but rather to make money for the devs.  Or at least that that's the most important thing.

Similar thinking applies to the earlier boy- and girl-band craze, and also whenever any product is copied because it's popular (Diablo clones), generally in real estate, and with stock trading.  The music, the gameplay, the house, and the actual corporation don't really matter, only their ability to make you some cash.

The fear, of course, is that whenever something is less important, it usually ends up being crap, because not enough time is spent developing it.  We'd all like the devs to spend time lovingly creating masterpieces, not simply a viable business model.

[Rasix]

But you're basically arguing that the purpose of "the game" is not to provide entertainment to us, but rather to make money for the devs.  Or at least that that's the most important thing.

No, that's not what I'm saying.  What I'm saying is that your game needs a hook for mass market appeal.  It needs something to keep them paying 15 a month.  I was speaking more in hypotheticals and examples from current games and why they did what they did not how I think things should be.

If a dev can have this hook emerge from their game instead of being designed into it, bravo.  This is ideal and games like CoH and at least early UO had this happen.  Just right now with failure of E&B and others and cancellations of games before they hit the gates, it's a big risk.  

I'm not saying you should design around a business model.  I'm just saying it happens and it's not hard to see why.  Of course, as you pointed it out, it's not hard to see why this way of thinking breeds crap like AC2 and Horizons.

[Sky]

Heh. I like Ajax. Not only can he understand my posting (sometimes even I don't), but he likened mmogs to boy bands. That's rich!

[HaemishM]

So I guess that makes Horizons Joey Fatone (sic) and SWG is Justin Timberlake.

[Venkman]

#1 eventually leads to forced grouping no matter how you slice it. And I do not believe that the power of community outweighs the benefit of allowing strong solo play. For certain game designs, of course, forced grouping makes sense, but even those need to allow for less-than-optimal solo play. But I think as a general design rule, you want to avoid requiring multiple people to complete a task optimally, not encourage it

It can include grouping, but doesn't always require it. Crafting-based economies like UO, SWG, ATITD and Eve are good examples. The benefits of multiplayer gaming without the requirement of being with those other players on their schedule.

He said "tasks", which doesn't just include Killing Mob X for the umpteenth time.

But I know that 90% of my UO playing after the first six months or so had nothing to do with coded content.

Ding Ding Ding.

A "game" will draw the players in. What keeps them there depends on the player's personality. There is no universal constant though:

[*]A great many EQ-like progression of new foozles. Applies to EQ clones. But it's not indefinite. Games that advertise "unlimited levels" miss the point entirely. It doesn't take a mensa candidate to recognize that getting Sword A to defeat Mob AA is exactly the same as getting Sword Z to defeat Mob ZZ. The key is options. Scoff as some might, EQ does offer many entirely-different ways to play. Talk to anyone who's played an Enchanter, Cleric, Warrior, Wizard, Magician and Bard and they'll list more differences than similarities.
[*]The community they fall in with. Applies to all games. Some folks like to argue the value of community, but I haven't heard a valid objective point yet that says it's irrelevant, so continue to believe it's an intrinsic part of the lifespan of an account. As a counterpoint, it should also be noted that there's a relationship between the retention of an account and the solvency of the player's community, including the age of that community. If 75% of a random pickup guild ("Be an officer, join us at Orc Lift!1") quits the guild or game two weeks later, that's going to have a minimal to no impact versus 75% of an established multi-year guild.
[*]The ability to chart their own path, using their prior game achievements as a baseline. Applies to some games. One minor example: 6 months of my SWG experience involved nothing skills any newbie can get in two hours (Merchant Business III and Artisan Survey IV). Yea, running an energy business is "work", but it was fun because I'd never done it before (and now that I know, will never do it again :) ). Regardless, that not only kept me in the game for half the game's age, it also kept me from experience so much of the rest of the game there's actually things I'm finding on account reaction #1.[/list:u]
EQ works, but it's still a niche product. It's the Alpha game though, which fools others into thinking "this is the way to make money." But that's just Darwin applied to the genre. Even those companies who advertise achievement within X hours entire miss the point:

Players don't want to sit at their computer and worry about how many hours they need to spend playing a game.

If the hours happen, great! It's rewarding. But having to decide whether one has enough time to play beforehand makes and keeps the product niche. Most people, and most being most, simply do not want to care that much.

[Sky]

UO is Leif Garrett?

[Venkman]

But you're (Rasix) basically arguing that the purpose of "the game" is not to provide entertainment to us, but rather to make money for the devs. .

As he said, that's not what he meant :)

The truth is that it's both. It's fine for game designers to discuss their theories, but the reality is that these sorts of games happen within businesses, and as such involve a fuckton of people who are not game designers. Just the way it is. The game must be good for the players and sell well internally so that it can sell well externally. Otherwise, it's just another pipedream. Labors of love will be fine when NWN 5.0 can support hundreds of simultanous connections, bringing MMOG middleware development to the masses.

Until then, there must be a balance between:

[*]Who the game is for.
[*]What they accept as fun.
[*]How many will pay to play it monthly.
[*]How much money must be spent to deliver a compelling experiencing[/list:u]
And then the company must scale their expectations. Not everyone needs to hit >500k subscribers.

[Arcadian Del Sol]

having just returned from vacation and having not the time or energy to read 8 pages of the rantsite version of historical re-enactment, can someone answer one question for me:

Did you guys "fix" Koster yet?

/sarc

[WayAbvPar]

having just returned from vacation and having not the time or energy to read 8 pages of the rantsite version of historical re-enactment, can someone answer one question for me:

Did you guys "fix" Koster yet?

/sarc

To the best of my knowledge (which is limited to the fact that I haven't heard anything specific  EVAR, for which I am eternally grateful) he is intact and able to pass along his demon seed =)

He is still loose and making games too, for good or for evil. Or, most likely, a bit of both!

[daveNYC]

UO is Leif Garrett?

I'd say Ozzy.

[HaemishM]

I was thinking UO is like the Who, with a lot more John Entwhistle and Keith Moon than Pete Townsend and Roger Daltry these days.

[Zaphkiel]

UO is Leif Garrett?

   UO is Menudo.  All the parts have been replaced, but it's still the same game.  It was also the first of it's kind.

[Xilren's Twin]

Take a look at an article on mmorpgdot regarding http://www.mmorpgdot.com/index.php?hsaction=10053&ID=1006">CoH.

I'm interested to hear comments on the design principals noted in the article.  (for some reason I had to highlight the text for it to appear)

Now that was a fun little read.  Here's the main design points noted therein:

1. Simplicity with layers of Complexity.
Essentially, keep the game as accessible as possible. The game should be able to be played by anyone. Many MMOGs are number intensive, but what does it add to the gameplay experience?

2. The game is all about being a Super Hero.
Make the player powerful from day one. Killing rats for hours on end is just not fun. Take the player from that level of starting power and only make things more interesting.

3. Never let the player make an uninformed decision.
Don't make the player make any decisions he doesn't have background in. Players aren't given access to all the powers and pools at once so that, at every level, the designers can ensure a basic level of combat prowess. "Nobody ever reads anything" so make sure that it's hard to gimp a character. Origins aren't hampered by specifics so that there are no preconceived notions. Elves are elves, but what is a mutant?

and now 4
The main goal in design right now is to provide for more than just combat.

Which to be honest don't sound terribly deep, complicated or off the wall.  But, I think the key was them identifying their key goals and then making those 3 works well.  Or to, repeat outselves from prior in this thread...

"Do few things but do them well."  They also seem very comitted to building on their initial success and thereby fleshing out the world aspects.  :)

I also liked these two:  On almost having 200,000 players...

Mr. Emmert was surprised about the popularity of the game. He sees the popularity as a result of the accessibility of the game design and not necessarily the genre of the game
....
Mr. Emmert attributes the successful launch to the extremely rigorous beta test, the CTO, the Quality Assurance folks, and the networking technology that NCSoft brought to the party.

My god, a team with reasonable goals aiming for small but high quality and succeeding beyond their expectations.  See, it can be done.

Maybe we should redub the "laws of online gaming" to the "laws of online world design" and post up a single new law of gaming: Keep it simple stupid.  That way dev teams can make a choice of what the hell their intentions are before the build us a 30 function swiss army knife when all I wanted was a good, sharp knife.

Xilren
PS Vehicles and Animal Companions as future power pools - woot
PPS Voice chat will be available natively in-game someday
PPPS In case anyone cares, i haven;t been in CoH much as i got sucked back into MTGO but I am still playing

[ajax34i]

Not quite as easy as that.

"Do a few things but do them well." won't work if the "few things" aren't what the majority of MMOG players want, exactly.  Because of that, there's not a lot to choose from.

CoH did PvE combat well.  The only other thing left to do is PvP, really.  I don't foresee a MMOG succeeding by doing only tradeskills, or only exploration, or any other single subset of gameplay, even if they do it "well".

So, really, "do a few things and do them well" means either focus on PvE combat (and thus be a clone of CoH, because you have to include sidekicking, eliminate autoattacking, and balance for 1 player vs. many mobs) or try to do PvP and hope that you get it right (actually find the definition of "well") and that the griefers don't ruin you.

[Xilren's Twin]

Not quite as easy as that.

"Do a few things but do them well." won't work if the "few things" aren't what the majority of MMOG players want, exactly.  Because of that, there's not a lot to choose from.

CoH did PvE combat well.  The only other thing left to do is PvP, really.  I don't foresee a MMOG succeeding by doing only tradeskills, or only exploration, or any other single subset of gameplay, even if they do it "well".

I hear ATITD is a mmog purely about crafting and lets face it, EQ is all about PVE...

My point being, stop trying to be all things to all people all the time or else you'll end up with lots to do but no fun doing any of it.

Seriously, PVE sound like a small thing, but it's not.  If you want to restrict your goals to pvp and social? That's fine; do them and do them well, but don't throw in a crappy pve part and crappy economy part just to say you have them (that's pretty much what SB tried to do).

Even something as "limited" as pure PVE has multiple aspects that have to all fit well together (i.e. class or skill based; balance and synergy; power curves and advancement mechanisms; single player encounters vs groups vs raid level stuff; random spawn vs static; loot vs non) and still be executed in a fun way.  It's not simple. but what IS simple is narrowing of focus.  Don't give me 20 half baked and broken player classes/types, give me 5 that work top to bottom, inside and out.

Xilren