Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 29, 2024, 01:02:41 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Search:     Advanced search
we're back, baby
*
Home Help Search Login Register
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  The Gaming Graveyard  |  Game Design/Development  |  Topic: Richard Garfield on "why MMOGs still suck" 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: [1] 2 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Richard Garfield on "why MMOGs still suck"  (Read 24933 times)
eldaec
Terracotta Army
Posts: 11839


on: November 27, 2006, 06:17:59 AM

In case you don't know, Richard Garfield is the guy who invented M:tG.

Below is an extract of an article that appeared on www.magicthegathering.com today.

He basically argues that one reason classic games like backgammon kick ass is that over a number of years time has worn away stupid rules that don't involve decision making, and worked to shorten and focus games.

Or, to put it another way, nobody ever needed to complete a corpse run in chess.


Quote
...... Busywork in a game are the things done that are necessary to play, but not really part of the fun. As with most definitions, this will have some gray areas, but to illustrate, some of the things that I would consider busy work are:

Shuffling and dealing
Banking in a game like Monopoly
Setting up a complicated board game

.............

The historical drive to remove busywork has made it so that most classic games play pretty efficiently relative to modern games. Some examples of where I would say history has driven out busywork would be in backgammon and chess. In backgammon, a game in which you race your pieces around the board and the first person to remove all their pieces wins the race, the ancestors had you start with your pieces off the board. Later, the game was played where pieces began on the board. Later pieces began on the board in an advanced position. Later the doubling cube was added which made runaway games possible to truncate. In chess, originally the pieces did not move as far as they do now, where they sweep across the board. Also, the difference between eastern and western chesses are defined mostly by how the games handled the pawns gumming up the works – eastern chess removed many pawns so there was room to move, and western chess created the “double move” that you can do when you first move a pawn.

..........

The gaming form that can most learn from this is computer gaming – specifically, but not limited to, roleplaying games. From the early days of MMRPGS I have longed to see the “busywork” removed – the travel time, the boring combats, the tedious inventory management. Cynics have responded that once you remove all that you are left with nothing (try playing progress quest, a free online game, to see the most succinct argument to that end). I personally don't believe that – I think some care needs to be taken, similar to the care that one could imagine being exercised in chess where someone might advocate doing away with all the pawns, or making them move like queens. Entrenched players often respond that they like these elements, and somehow can keep a straight face saying that while holding the move button down for ages as they lumber around an artificial world. They claim that getting rid of the travel would hurt their feeling of immersion. They say this as their character dies and they respawn and go out to search for the corpse.

In recent years you can see the forces that remove busywork playing out here as well...... What I am waiting for is for one of these games to be designed with reducing this busywork being not something done incrementally, to be a little better than the competition, but boldly making it the foundation upon which their game is built, jumping directly to the endpoint of this evolutionary process. But, as it is, it looks like I may just have to wait for the game form to crawl there.


It's all pretty vanilla stuff.

But the argument that chess and backgammon demonstrate how corpse runs suck is kind of fun.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2006, 06:19:48 AM by eldaec »

"People will not assume that what they read on the internet is trustworthy or that it carries any particular ­assurance or accuracy" - Lord Leveson
"Hyperbole is a cancer" - Lakov Sanite
Xilren's Twin
Moderator
Posts: 1648


Reply #1 on: November 27, 2006, 08:35:42 AM

The one glaring thing that he seems to be overlooking is that in all of the examples he used outside of MMORPG's have one thing in common.

They are all turn based.

In a turn based game, you can structure the play in order that every time it's your turn,  you must make some sort of meaningful decision.  Turn based computer games like Civilization take advantage of that same pace.  Deciding which direction to send your scouts to explore can be of critical important in the early game, as well as choosing which tech tree to research, etc, etc.  In any turn based game, you cannot do everything you want to in a given turn which lends feelings of importance to any choice you make.  Do I buy Baltic Ave, or save my shekels hoping to score Park Place?

MMORPG are not turn based.  You have to give your avatar commands every second you are playing else they stand and do precisely nothing.  In many ways, this is a shackle.

Also found interesting this quote

Quote
Recently I started teaching a class at the University of Washington. I knew I didn't want to teach a class in game design, since I don't trust myself to understand what I do when I design games, and certainly don't trust my ability to communicate it. So I decided instead to teach a class on the History of Games.

First, how cool would it be to get to teach classes on Games for a living?
Secondly, interesting that he doesn't claim to understand himself how to do the games even he designs..

Crap, now im jonesing for a good turn based mmorpg of some form.

Xilren


"..but I'm by no means normal." - Schild
Ironwood
Terracotta Army
Posts: 28240


Reply #2 on: November 28, 2006, 05:58:10 AM

EVE on dial-up ?

"Mr Soft Owl has Seen Some Shit." - Sun Tzu
Chenghiz
Terracotta Army
Posts: 868


Reply #3 on: December 04, 2006, 03:33:59 PM

Wasn't Dofus turn-based?
schild
Administrator
Posts: 60345


WWW
Reply #4 on: December 04, 2006, 04:26:17 PM

Operative word being 'good.'
Sunbury
Terracotta Army
Posts: 216


Reply #5 on: December 06, 2006, 06:42:28 AM

A lot of board wargames in the 70s were developed with that in mind.  The game system could not require writing things down, and external recordkeeping had to be kept to a minimum.  External from the map and counters on it.  Normally only what the turn was and may some kind of resource points, like 3rd Reich, and that was done with little counters slid on card stock with numbers printed on them.

Also 'unit density' and 'unit count' was a factor, so the players didn't have a 1000 counters to set up.  So they scaled the hexes and units to the battle, platoons vs corps etc.   And they introduced things like 'zone of control' which you could put, say a division sized unit in one hex, and then it blocked access to the surrounding hexes, instead of having 3 regiment or brigade size units.  So one had 1/3 of the pieces to set up and move.

Modern computer wargames expanded in good ways and bad ways.  The simulation, fractional losses etc, could be made more complex, because the player did not have to keep track of them.  However, so many modern games felt that using battalions in a corps-scale game was also OK, and dropped hard-zone of control.  The player doesn't have to set them all up, but they still have to move them all, and rules normally want you to keep divisions together, so you end up with more busywork.

On the DnD side of rules, the pen and paper version was designed with that in mind, that's why I never care to see that ported to computer systems, since its abtractions seemed more for ease of play than depth of play.  The depth came from the roleplay aspects, or the 'tricky' feats and spells (rope climbing, etc), which of course were normally NOT ported to the computer.   So it kept the simple parts instead of expanding them, and scrapped the interesting parts because it was too hard to code.
Trippy
Administrator
Posts: 23612


Reply #6 on: December 06, 2006, 06:52:44 AM

A lot of board wargames in the 70s were developed with that in mind.  The game system could not require writing things down, and external recordkeeping had to be kept to a minimum.  External from the map and counters on it.  Normally only what the turn was and may some kind of resource points, like 3rd Reich, and that was done with little counters slid on card stock with numbers printed on them.

Also 'unit density' and 'unit count' was a factor, so the players didn't have a 1000 counters to set up.  So they scaled the hexes and units to the battle, platoons vs corps etc.   And they introduced things like 'zone of control' which you could put, say a division sized unit in one hex, and then it blocked access to the surrounding hexes, instead of having 3 regiment or brigade size units.  So one had 1/3 of the pieces to set up and move.
Avalon Hill games were for n00bs :D (Actually Panzer Leader was my favorite game of that era) With SPI games like War in Europe, Terrible Swift Sword and Wacht Am Rhein you could literally spend a day just setting up the pieces, not to mention needing surface area the size of a ping pong table just to lay down the map(s).
Sunbury
Terracotta Army
Posts: 216


Reply #7 on: December 06, 2006, 07:02:04 AM

We tried those, too.  I had a subscription to SPI. 

We even tried Drang Nacht Osten [sic] - War in the East, which was the start of the German invasion of Russia in 1941, at like a regimental scale (IIRC).   We had like 6 guys playing, it took us one night to just set the damn thing up on a ping-pong table.

Then we started playing, like two nights later I think we did the first combat rounds.  We looked at each other at the same time: fuck this shit.

In those games you don't move counters by picking up each piece and setting it down, instead you have to move them in mass with brushes of your forearm.
Trippy
Administrator
Posts: 23612


Reply #8 on: December 06, 2006, 07:49:58 AM

We tried those, too.  I had a subscription to SPI. 

We even tried Drang Nacht Osten [sic] - War in the East, which was the start of the German invasion of Russia in 1941, at like a regimental scale (IIRC).   We had like 6 guys playing, it took us one night to just set the damn thing up on a ping-pong table.
Heh. I never played that one (our group didn't play many of the GDW wargames) but we did try Narvik which was from that same series.
DataGod
Terracotta Army
Posts: 138


Reply #9 on: December 06, 2006, 03:49:43 PM

Um ok.....article about why a 9bn dollar industry makes no sense, yep thats right all those people buying and subscribing to games dont know wtf they are doing or what they want for gameplay

He also failed to mention that Someone who creates a game of chess, or Go and packages it up gets to sell it 1 time, kind of like you sell a package of cards once...and fail to get revenue off the secondary card trading market...whoops.


Reads like sour grapes to me...
geldonyetich
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2337

The Anne Coulter of MMO punditry


WWW
Reply #10 on: December 06, 2006, 04:33:00 PM

Perhaps one of the purist realizations of MMOG fallacy I had was the realization that the difference between a good game and a lousy one was how well it tests the player.  When success or failure in a MMORPG is based more on longevity than a capacity towards decision making, then is when I know this game does not deserve a $15/mo subscription.  Heck, they should be paying me $15/mo for wasting my life in a game that is not a game. 

Then we get into aspects such a socialization and achievement that seem to be the real crack that make MMORPGs function.  Just because I'm somewhat immune to giving a damn about whether I'm level 1 or 50 doesn't mean that the average newbie will be.

Xilren's Twin
Moderator
Posts: 1648


Reply #11 on: December 06, 2006, 07:08:55 PM

Reads like sour grapes to me...

Nah, he's done just fine for himself with the whole CCG thing.

But, i think he has a much different perspective on what the actual game part of an mmorpg is.  He's focused on the what do I do as a player any time I can, and from that standpoint, yes the moment to moment decisions in a mmorpg are really stupid and trivial.  But even in the turn based games he loves, there are still moments of "do nothing", i.e. when the other player is making their move.  All you can do is wait and think about your next move, chat, whatever, but nothing game related.  So they really aren't THAT different, he's just ignoring the whole "it's not your turn" part.

Ironically, there are a LOT of similarities in high level MMORPG raiding and sanctioned MTG tournament play, and even similarities between the RTM aspects of mmorpgs and the secondary card market that the developers/Wotc don't take advantage of....

Xilren

"..but I'm by no means normal." - Schild
HaemishM
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 42628

the Confederate flag underneath the stone in my class ring


WWW
Reply #12 on: December 07, 2006, 03:00:52 PM

The one glaring thing that he seems to be overlooking is that in all of the examples he used outside of MMORPG's have one thing in common.

They are all turn based.

So are MMOG's (especially DIKU's). They just trick you into thinking they aren't. But really they are.

But your point is valid. I think because of the faux-real time nature of MMOG's, they should be looking to the evolution of sports for ideas on unfucking the game systems, especially "chaotic" fast-moving sports like football (soccer) or hockey.

Strazos
Greetings from the Slave Coast
Posts: 15542

The World's Worst Game: Curry or Covid


Reply #13 on: December 07, 2006, 04:29:09 PM

I say removing the red line of level-centric pvp would be a nice start. I think it would be nice to see what you could come up with if "levels" made you character grow more horizontally than vertically - it would perhaps give you a lot more options of actions to take, but god damn, if I sneak attack you in the ass with a claymore, the fact that you've played more shouldn't negate the fact that I just skewered you.

Fear the Backstab!
"Plato said the virtuous man is at all times ready for a grammar snake attack." - we are lesion
"Hell is other people." -Sartre
Calantus
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2389


Reply #14 on: December 07, 2006, 07:08:35 PM

I've been thinking about lateral advancement for a while now, since I think the strict level up and class system of WoW and others is ultimately flawed. In an MMO you want your players to grow attached to their characters right? But what if at some point that player decides they don't want to be their class anymore? Their only option is to essentially discard their current character and start again. Once you've discarded one main character, it's much easier to do consider it a second time. I say consider because there comes a time when you just can't bring yourself to do the same content again to level a main. So all along players have to either be happy with their class, you're pushing them out of the game, or you're weakening their ties to the game so it is easier to quit. Why do it?

Despite my dislike of the speed of the Eve advancement and how you can't affect it directly, I think they have it right with every character able to learn anything. If you suddenly decide that what you're doing is not what you want, rolling an alt would be no better than just changing your character's focus. As a bonus you get to keep all your other skills (which will likely have some relevance regardless), you get to keep your name, your stuff, your corp, and your contacts. Everything that ties you into the game is kept intact. The ships act like changing classes in a way too. While you may have missile/shield/caldari skills, you don't get to use them if you're in a gun/armor/amarr ship.

Personally I think I'd love a system where you quest for your abilities and possibly even stats. I love doing quests that give you more than just more experience, actually I just love doing quests in general, but quests that give you unique rewards are double plus good. Oh, and players should really start closer to maximum power. Ideally you'd be powerful enough to compete right off the bat, then gain extra depth/utility as well as a slight boost in power as you "max out". FPS games/mods with advancement mechanics generally work like that. I really don't see the benefit of essentially timestamping your content by making them useless for players once they've leveled past them. Not to mention making it harder for friends to play together due to level differences, putting a damper on people coming in late or changing class/skills, etc. It's fairly silly on reflection, really.
Sunbury
Terracotta Army
Posts: 216


Reply #15 on: December 08, 2006, 07:03:26 AM

Wouldn't a MMORPG without character progressing / levels (or their equvalents, cash, traning time, skill trees) be like an FPS where you can just stoll up to the final boss and kill it?

There is no character progressing in FPS (well maybe specific weapons), but there are 'levels' - the acutal game levels.  The only way to see more of the game, is to get though the current 'level'.

Many RTS's the only way to get to other 'maps' is to win on the current map.

So in MMORPG the way to see the content is to change your character, instead of physically blocking the content, its logically blocked.

That's actually why I like MMOGs and dislike the other games!  I feel I could try and go anywhere, but I may be killed or be ineffected, instead of I *have* to finsihed Level 1 to get to 2 and then find the key to 3, etc.
bhodi
Moderator
Posts: 6817

No lie.


Reply #16 on: December 08, 2006, 07:08:07 AM

I've been thinking about lateral advancement for a while now, since I think the strict level up and class system of WoW and others is ultimately flawed. In an MMO you want your players to grow attached to their characters right? But what if at some point that player decides they don't want to be their class anymore? Their only option is to essentially discard their current character and start again. Once you've discarded one main character, it's much easier to do consider it a second time. I say consider because there comes a time when you just can't bring yourself to do the same content again to level a main. So all along players have to either be happy with their class, you're pushing them out of the game, or you're weakening their ties to the game so it is easier to quit. Why do it?
FF did it well with the 'job' system, you can just put on your black mage hat when you feel like it... of course, you have to level it up again, which is great for retention, and you can assign it as half your character's level as the subjob so it makes a difference.

I'd like games to take both that and the combat out of FF and leave the travel behind.
eldaec
Terracotta Army
Posts: 11839


Reply #17 on: December 08, 2006, 07:59:05 AM

Wouldn't a MMORPG without character progressing / levels (or their equvalents, cash, traning time, skill trees) be like an FPS where you can just stoll up to the final boss and kill it?

No. Coming full circle, it might be like mtg. Where you quest for new spells and abilities, with the aim of equipping them in synergistic combinations, rather than simply replacing old spells with strictly better new spells.

Nobody has spoken against characters progressing - but levels aren't the only model there has ever been for skill progression.

"People will not assume that what they read on the internet is trustworthy or that it carries any particular ­assurance or accuracy" - Lord Leveson
"Hyperbole is a cancer" - Lakov Sanite
Strazos
Greetings from the Slave Coast
Posts: 15542

The World's Worst Game: Curry or Covid


Reply #18 on: December 08, 2006, 08:26:15 AM

Wouldn't a MMORPG without character progressing / levels (or their equvalents, cash, traning time, skill trees) be like an FPS where you can just stoll up to the final boss and kill it?

There is no character progressing in FPS (well maybe specific weapons), but there are 'levels' - the acutal game levels.  The only way to see more of the game, is to get though the current 'level'.

Many RTS's the only way to get to other 'maps' is to win on the current map.

So in MMORPG the way to see the content is to change your character, instead of physically blocking the content, its logically blocked.

That's actually why I like MMOGs and dislike the other games!  I feel I could try and go anywhere, but I may be killed or be ineffected, instead of I *have* to finsihed Level 1 to get to 2 and then find the key to 3, etc.


So you're in favor of the current cockblocking grind we see in games?

Fear the Backstab!
"Plato said the virtuous man is at all times ready for a grammar snake attack." - we are lesion
"Hell is other people." -Sartre
Xilren's Twin
Moderator
Posts: 1648


Reply #19 on: December 08, 2006, 12:27:18 PM

They are all turn based.

So are MMOG's (especially DIKU's). They just trick you into thinking they aren't. But really they are.
[/quote]

Actually, i've consider the "phased" nature of these and you know what, they really aren't turn based. They lack the concept of locking ordered actions and turn equivalence.  What I mean by that is this, in a turn based game, when it's not your turn, you can't do anything at all other than watch.  Then when you do get your turn again, you decide what to do based on how the game has changed since your last turn, during which of course your opponent can't act.  It's a total back and forth flow.

MMORPG's arent like that at all.  Yeah, I know, behind the scenes there are "round" or "turn" timers but that's just so the computer can keep up with how often you act; i.e. you do 1 attack every 6 seconds. But that doesn't make it turn based.  When you are in a battle, both you and the mob are executing your 6 second turns at the same time, and should you ever elect not to act, the game certainly won't wait on you.  They're basically hybrid real time action games, not turn based.

"..but I'm by no means normal." - Schild
Calantus
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2389


Reply #20 on: December 08, 2006, 02:41:20 PM

Wouldn't a MMORPG without character progressing / levels (or their equvalents, cash, traning time, skill trees) be like an FPS where you can just stoll up to the final boss and kill it?

Who says there has to be a final boss? A PVP centric game doesn't need to have a final boss at all, nor does a sandbox game, only the diku philosophy forces the final boss idea.

Even with a final boss, think about WoW for a moment. Once you hit 60, you never could get another level and yet we went from MC to BWL to AQ to Naxx. It was through gear that people progressed, and the progression was very shallow in comparison to levels. The difference betweem MC gear and Naxx gear is much, much smaller than lvl 50 to lvl 60 and yet it takes much longer to gear up in Naxx than to level from 50 to 60. A shallow leveling curve and an emphasis on lateral advancement would be much the same (especially if you had to quest for progression skills like tranq shot), but from the beginning. I never felt that the boss kills were any more sweet because I had to level up to 60 before I could gear up to be ready to raid the zone. Then there's the point that often it's not progression at all that stops people from killing a boss, but simply dedication and practice. You can't just buy a 40-set of fully geared characters and roll all of Naxx, your lack of experience in the zone would effectively cockblock you.

EDIT: When I mention FPS games I am talking about their MP aspect, it's been ages since I last played an FPS on singleplayer (it wouldn't be if I could get Dues Ex to work on my computers again, grr).
« Last Edit: December 08, 2006, 02:47:01 PM by Calantus »
stray
Terracotta Army
Posts: 16818

has an iMac.


Reply #21 on: December 08, 2006, 02:44:28 PM

Sunbury's statement would stand if all games' mob zones and content were set up like they are in UO, Eve, or SWG.

I can't just "wander" around EQ or WoW in the way that he seems to be speaking of.
Sairon
Terracotta Army
Posts: 866


Reply #22 on: December 09, 2006, 04:58:21 AM

Since all dikus are goal orientated a "last boss", even if it's just for the current patch, is a concept that fits nicely. You need to feed the player base with things to look forward & work torwards.
Johny Cee
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3454


Reply #23 on: December 10, 2006, 07:14:20 PM

But, i think he has a much different perspective on what the actual game part of an mmorpg is.  He's focused on the what do I do as a player any time I can, and from that standpoint, yes the moment to moment decisions in a mmorpg are really stupid and trivial.  But even in the turn based games he loves, there are still moments of "do nothing", i.e. when the other player is making their move.  All you can do is wait and think about your next move, chat, whatever, but nothing game related.  So they really aren't THAT different, he's just ignoring the whole "it's not your turn" part.

Garfield specifically rails at busywork,  not "do nothing".

Work that must be done, that has no effect on the game state.  Shuffling,  mana burn (this was interesting), elaborate random effects (this is why, before Hypnotic Spectre returned,  Magic had no random discard for many years).

In the case of MMOs....  Timered buffing is a good example.  I have to do what every 3 minutes?  Of course,  the move to DAoC's concentration based buffing produced it's own problems....

Quote
Ironically, there are a LOT of similarities in high level MMORPG raiding and sanctioned MTG tournament play, and even similarities between the RTM aspects of mmorpgs and the secondary card market that the developers/Wotc don't take advantage of....

Xilren

Interesting.  Mind expanding on these ideas?  I'm not sure I agree,  but I'd like to see your thinking.
Strazos
Greetings from the Slave Coast
Posts: 15542

The World's Worst Game: Curry or Covid


Reply #24 on: December 10, 2006, 10:16:28 PM

I don't agree with Garfield on mana burn or other randomness. At all.

Shit happens, deal with it.



I hate shuffling though. I am terrible at it.

Fear the Backstab!
"Plato said the virtuous man is at all times ready for a grammar snake attack." - we are lesion
"Hell is other people." -Sartre
Xilren's Twin
Moderator
Posts: 1648


Reply #25 on: December 11, 2006, 09:56:16 AM

Quote
Ironically, there are a LOT of similarities in high level MMORPG raiding and sanctioned MTG tournament play, and even similarities between the RTM aspects of mmorpgs and the secondary card market that the developers/Wotc don't take advantage of....
Xilren
Interesting.  Mind expanding on these ideas?  I'm not sure I agree,  but I'd like to see your thinking.

In terms of raiding vs tournaments, what the one thing you have to have to be able to even attempt both of these things.  Huge blocks of time.  Whether it's raiding or playing through a tournament, you must have hours and hours of available time, which pretty much freezes out a large amount of people who would like to participate, but just don't have the luxury of 9 hours on a Saturday with nothing else to do.   It's part of the time = power equation in mmorpgs, but for MtG it more time = potential cash rewards (prizes for winning, invites to larger more valuable tournaments).  So no matter how good a player you are, your skill will never be more important that the time you spend.

Also related is the RTM part.  In mmorpgs, rare loot has value to other players to the point they will pay you cash to get it for them.  In MtG, rare cards work the same way.  In both, you could play the normal way/booster pack game in the hopes of getting a lucky drop/pull, but if you really want to get the best gear/best cards, the game is structured so it's very attractive to buy them outright from other players.

MMORPG dev houses have typically not offered direct item sales, and WotC has always maintained they would not sell card singles directly to the public, b/c it is actually in both of their interests that these secondary markets exist.  After all, why should Sony care if half their accounts in EQ2 are loot farmers who sell stuff to the other players, or why should WotC care if card shops and ebay traders do the same with selling rares.  In both cases, they get their money for a monthly sub or booster pack sale, and that's all they care about.  There's no real disincentive to selling accoutns to bot users or loot farmers, or boxes of cards to card shops who resell just the rarers and throw away tons of commons.  The developer has a very low fixed cost for creating any of those items, but their high value to the public at large only exists so long as they continue to be rare/hard to get.

WotC could reprint and sell every rare card they've every made at a buck a piece and make money b/c it only costs them a few cents to make ANY card.  Just like dev shops could sell ANY uber items to accounts and create them with a few mouse clicks.  But if they do that, the perceived value of those things goes right down the toilet b/c now anyone can have them cheaply.

Artificial scarcity works.  However, it has a built in shelf life that is entirely dependant on the popularity of the product.  And guess what both types of developers try to do to maintain that interest and popularity..... expansion packs.

The games might be very different but the business and the marketing does share quite a lot of similarities.

Xilren

"..but I'm by no means normal." - Schild
Johny Cee
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3454


Reply #26 on: December 11, 2006, 08:08:21 PM

In terms of raiding vs tournaments, what the one thing you have to have to be able to even attempt both of these things.  Huge blocks of time.  Whether it's raiding or playing through a tournament, you must have hours and hours of available time, which pretty much freezes out a large amount of people who would like to participate, but just don't have the luxury of 9 hours on a Saturday with nothing else to do.   It's part of the time = power equation in mmorpgs, but for MtG it more time = potential cash rewards (prizes for winning, invites to larger more valuable tournaments).  So no matter how good a player you are, your skill will never be more important that the time you spend.

I think this is a false comparison.

Time doesn't equal power.  Assuming you have access to the cardpool to deck build,  performance is a factor of:  skill,  metagame/strategy choice (i.e. what deck to play), and some luck (in what your matchups are).

Just because you show up to every local tournament,  this nets you very little.  As an example,  I show up to on average an event a month.  My last 3 appearances have garnered me two 1sts and a second,  netting me a couple hundred dollars in cards.  During the same period,  I know people who haven't placed at all despite attending every event,  netting them nothing. 

Raiding is generally designed and run so that mere participation nets you awards, conforming directly to the time=power mechanic.

You're also not accounting for the rating system.  Wizards,  through the DCI which administers sanctioned events,  tracks your wins and losses and performance.  This assigns you a rating (base 1600),  and your rating changes based on who you win or lose against and what their rating is.  If you have a mediocre rating,  and beat a highly ranked player, you can gain huge points (max gain is either 16 or 24).  Beat a low ranked player,  you could gain as few as 1 or 2 points.

Ratings directly translate to seeding at "major" events (Pro Tour Qualifiers, or PTQs, Regionals, etc.) and can guarantee you byes.  A high enough rating,  I believe,  can even get you invited to Pro Tour events without winning/placing in the requisite PTQ.

To try and summarize my rambling:  In MMOs,  time and commitment to schedules nets you increased power and is the only way to play the game.  In Magic,  time without skill nets you nothing.  Even if time starved,  you can enjoy playing the end game at any time as long as you can find at least one other person to play with.

Really,  if you keep up with trends by occasional reading,  you can keep your hand in on the competive scene with as few appearances as once or twice a month.

(For those that play with me Online:  I'm a much, much better Constructed player then I am a Limited player.  Heh.)

Quote
Also related is the RTM part.  In mmorpgs, rare loot has value to other players to the point they will pay you cash to get it for them.  In MtG, rare cards work the same way.  In both, you could play the normal way/booster pack game in the hopes of getting a lucky drop/pull, but if you really want to get the best gear/best cards, the game is structured so it's very attractive to buy them outright from other players.

MMORPG dev houses have typically not offered direct item sales, and WotC has always maintained they would not sell card singles directly to the public, b/c it is actually in both of their interests that these secondary markets exist.  After all, why should Sony care if half their accounts in EQ2 are loot farmers who sell stuff to the other players, or why should WotC care if card shops and ebay traders do the same with selling rares.  In both cases, they get their money for a monthly sub or booster pack sale, and that's all they care about.  There's no real disincentive to selling accoutns to bot users or loot farmers, or boxes of cards to card shops who resell just the rarers and throw away tons of commons.  The developer has a very low fixed cost for creating any of those items, but their high value to the public at large only exists so long as they continue to be rare/hard to get.

WotC could reprint and sell every rare card they've every made at a buck a piece and make money b/c it only costs them a few cents to make ANY card.  Just like dev shops could sell ANY uber items to accounts and create them with a few mouse clicks.  But if they do that, the perceived value of those things goes right down the toilet b/c now anyone can have them cheaply.

Artificial scarcity works.  However, it has a built in shelf life that is entirely dependant on the popularity of the product.  And guess what both types of developers try to do to maintain that interest and popularity..... expansion packs.

The games might be very different but the business and the marketing does share quite a lot of similarities.

Xilren

Three major things to point out:

1.  Magic has two major customer stakeholder groups:  active players and collectors.  Collectors will acquire sets of cards,  rare foils, etc. from various sets just to have.  Active players will tend to specialize in one or two branches of competitive play (Standard and Extended, for instance)  and will trade away rotating cards to acquire cards from newer sets.

The easiest way to see the effect of collectors on the secondary market is through the relative price differences between Online and Cardboard.  Online prices tend to run well below prices for cardboard prices.  (For instance,  dual lands will be 5-10 tickets [read: dollars] cheaper online then their cardboard equivalent).

2.  Wizards endorses and supports it's secondary market.  The secondary market creates relatively impartial values for cards,  which then give players values so that they can trade thier unwanted rares/chase cards for cards they need.  (Which is the most common way players acquire cards outside of buying boosters).

For instance,  I play Constructed online.  Margalis just sticks to Limited mostly,  though he will hold onto black cards.  He'd trade me rares he had drafted (painlands, for instance) in return for unopened booster packs at the going Online rates.  Or trade me White rares for some Black rares.

Wizards even maintains a "reserved list":  cards that it has guaranteed it won't reprint so that they maintain their relative value.

What this boils down to,  when combined with a generally low level of power inflation,  is that old cards tend to hold their value very well.  When Angry.Bob or CommanderSlack talk about selling their old collections,  these collections even tend to appreciate.  Why?  Because Wizards has stayed away from the "easy" cash in of selling individual singles and massively reprinting in demand cards.

3.  You mistake expansions for power inflation.

In MMOs,  MUDflation renders old items worthless/obsolete.  In Magic,  the movement is lateral:  cards leave play in one format,  but will still be legal in others,  as new cards are introduced.  Since old cards retain value,  they can easily be traded for the new cards coming out. (Especially since the secondary market provides players with impartial values on their cards).

At the same time,  many cards are considered "staples" and are left in base sets to be reprinted again and again.  (Wrath of God, Persecute, Phyrexian Arena, etc.) 



Just some thoughts...
Margalis
Terracotta Army
Posts: 12335


Reply #27 on: December 11, 2006, 11:46:39 PM

In any skill based endeavor, time and skill are going to correlate to some degree. The best baseball players in the world play a lot of baseball, and the best chess players play a lot of chess. That in itself doesn't mean much. The question is the relative importance of time vs. skill.

If you play a lot of magic and suck at it your rating will go down and your return on investment will be negative. Spending time isn't enough. An average player will have a negative return on investment as well, and break even at rating.

The blocks of time are an annoyance, I was thinking of doing a sealed deck tounament but playing to the end can take 12+ hours. But I wouldn't equate that with rating, it is a tournament format condensed into one day. I don't think a required time committment for a certain flavor of event makes something comparable to a MMORPG.

In Magic the Gathering, Chess and Baseball you can't grind away to level up and become better. To make a lot of money or be the best they take a heavy time committment but that is true of nearly anything.

vampirehipi23: I would enjoy a book written by a monkey and turned into a movie rather than this.
Xilren's Twin
Moderator
Posts: 1648


Reply #28 on: December 12, 2006, 07:25:59 AM

Time doesn't equal power.  Assuming you have access to the cardpool to deck build,  performance is a factor of:  skill,  metagame/strategy choice (i.e. what deck to play), and some luck (in what your matchups are).

Agreed, but, at the same time, those with the skill but without the time can't take part in the local tournament because the time commitment precludes it.  That's what i see as a comparison to raiding; sure in mmorpgs you have well run raids and poorly run ones, but without the ability to dedicates hours at one sitting, you can't raid at all.

Most people consider magic players (not collectors, which to the best of my knowledge have no mmorpg equivalent) divided into two groups: casual and serious.  The serious players are the ones who dedicate a lot of time to playing in organized events to seek some reward be it increasing their rating, winning cards, cash or a pro tour invite.  Casual players may well be just as skilled as the serious players, but without being able to pass the time barrier to entry, they will never be able to obtain those same rewards at all  (in an mmorpg, thats uber loot or locked content of course).  And you're right, it's not hard to stay skilled playing casual magic (especially now that mtgo exists).

My argument should be stated more as in both genres end games, time = barrier to entry.  It's an opportunity cost to enter the "elder" or "high level game", be it MMORPGS or Mtg.

Quote
2.  Wizards endorses and supports it's secondary market.  ...Wizards even maintains a "reserved list":  cards that it has guaranteed it won't reprint so that they maintain their relative value.
While this is certainly true, how is this any different than mmorpg dev's both refusing to do direct item sales themselves, and phasing out old uber loot in favor or new (EQ's mana stone and rubicite armor come to mind)?  Wotc long ago recognized that a healthy secondary market is in their best interests and so consciously factors that into their decision making about how to manage their game.  Dev house are no different.

Quote
3.  You mistake expansions for power inflation.
In MMOs,  MUDflation renders old items worthless/obsolete.  In Magic,  the movement is lateral:  cards leave play in one format,  but will still be legal in others,  as new cards are introduced.  Since old cards retain value,  they can easily be traded for the new cards coming out. (Especially since the secondary market provides players with impartial values on their cards).

To be honest, i see mudflation the same way i see rotating sets in magic's type 2 environment.  Much fewer people play the formats in which older cardsets are available, even though they can.   In the same way, most mmorpg players gravitate toward new content either because it is perceived as better (which could mean more powerful, or simply new), even though the old content still exists and it useable. 

But that really wasn't my thrust; I'm not talking about perceived value or power inflation.  In both mtg and mmorpgs, expansions are primarily designed to keep players retained by adding new stuff.  It's about driving and maintaining interest in the game.  And in both genres new content help drive the continuance of the RTM market as there are always some new rare card or uber drop to seek.  And this ties back to the raiding/tournament level play.  To compete at that level, you need to have lots of rare cards or good raiding gear to give yourself a decent chance of success which means as long as dev houses keep pumping out new rare items/cards, there are supporting a secondary market whether they mean to or not.

At any rate, my linkage between the two genres was mainly b/c when i looked at both of them, i found myself having the same thoughts about certain parts.  To wit, I gave up playing "serious" or tournament magic years ago b/c i simply can't devote the time to it; same for raiding in mmorpgs.  And when I consider if I ever wanted to play seriously (events or raids) again, i see a healthy secondary market ready to sell me the tools needs to compete at that level.

It's not a perfect comparison by any stretch; mtg is a much more skill based game and has things liked sealed deck play and drafts which have no mmorpg equivalent.  Pus the whole monthly fee vs pack purchase revenue models.  But even though the games themselves are very different, the marketing and management of them has some overlap, IMHO.

Xilren

"..but I'm by no means normal." - Schild
Sunbury
Terracotta Army
Posts: 216


Reply #29 on: December 13, 2006, 01:06:57 PM

I'm confused as to what MTG has to do with taking levels/progression out of MMORPGs?

You can't see some zone until you defeat another player x times playing cards?

My point is that without some game mechanism to restrict content (no matter if its grinding levels, trading to make cash, beating player X times, whatever) is it even an MMORPG?   

I don't consider arena or 1:1 matching games as MMORPGs.  Its just semi-in-game ways to set up games, like the MSN web site matched you up to play Backgammon, and then you could rank your results on a ladder.   That's not a MMORPG.

For me WoW ended when my char hit L60 and I visited most instances (once).  I rerolled most race/class combos to 20, some to 30 some to 40, when I noticed I had done those zones/quests with another char.

To me the 'game' in WoW is to 'experience the content successfully', meaning finish the quests, see the zones, kill all the mob types, maybe even become that top-level of PvP.   I could see some of those tripped off 'non-time invested' or 'skill based' or 'non-grind', but what does that really mean?   Getting 1200 on some in-game SAT test before I can leave the newbie zone?

Xilren's Twin
Moderator
Posts: 1648


Reply #30 on: December 13, 2006, 03:11:53 PM

I'm confused as to what MTG has to do with taking levels/progression out of MMORPGs?
You can't see some zone until you defeat another player x times playing cards?
My point is that without some game mechanism to restrict content (no matter if its grinding levels, trading to make cash, beating player X times, whatever) is it even an MMORPG?   

To me the 'game' in WoW is to 'experience the content successfully', meaning finish the quests, see the zones, kill all the mob types, maybe even become that top-level of PvP.   I could see some of those tripped off 'non-time invested' or 'skill based' or 'non-grind', but what does that really mean?   Getting 1200 on some in-game SAT test before I can leave the newbie zone?

Speaking only in terms of the mythical MtG ORPG that lives in my head, levels are replaced by card pool, and the progression of your character development is simply the growth of said pool and say your starting life point total.  So content would be locked only in that in order to do anything useful outside of the newbie area, you would have to have a sufficent card pool to defeat mobs that had a mid level or better card pool and corresponding LP.

So sure, you could take your all commons goblin deck and 10 LP into a battle against a mid level counter deck, you might even win sometimes, but overall, the decks made from deeper card pools (read more uncommon and rares) would smoke you regularly.  If you every played the old microprose MtG PC game, you'd know what I was talking about.

It's still character growth, but it's not levels and loot.  Plus the combat is much cooler :)

"..but I'm by no means normal." - Schild
Akkori
Terracotta Army
Posts: 574


Reply #31 on: December 14, 2006, 05:24:45 PM

Immerision is a valid and useful part of all MMO's. It's sorta what defines the genre, right? Putting yourself in an environment with other people? But I do agree that the "level" system bites ass. I agree with the previous poster that stated that it shouldn't matter how long someone has been playing (their Level) if I shove a claymore up their ass. Critical hits, aimed strikes, and weapon of choice shoudl all play a part. Instead of making poeple more powerful as they level up... aka D&D... give them greater oppotunity to gain new skills, new weapons, better gear, etc. But whena bullet enter's their brain, they are just as dead as someone 10 minutes intot he game.

Eve's system of time-based solo-skill progressino is nice. Add to it a BF2-like lateral skill base where people pick from a very large list of abilities, weapon certs, and gear, and you might have a winner.

I love the position : "You're not right until I can prove you wrong!"
Daeven
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1210


Reply #32 on: January 17, 2007, 02:49:39 PM

My point is that without some game mechanism to restrict content (no matter if its grinding levels, trading to make cash, beating player X times, whatever) is it even an MMORPG?   

I don't consider arena or 1:1 matching games as MMORPGs.  Its just semi-in-game ways to set up games, like the MSN web site matched you up to play Backgammon, and then you could rank your results on a ladder.   That's not a MMORPG.

For me WoW ended when my char hit L60 and I visited most instances (once).  I rerolled most race/class combos to 20, some to 30 some to 40, when I noticed I had done those zones/quests with another char.
Best differentiation between a 'game' and a 'world' yet.

A game has an identifiable linear progression which gates content such that the user starts, experiences a mid-state, and an ending. Once you reach the 'ending' you start over.

If that's what an 'MMORPG' is then no wonder I don't like them.

A persistent world would have no 'ending', and avoid massive power differentiation between the illusory 'beginning' and 'end' state. Stuff happens in the world. You may experience that 'content', or not. If you miss it, it doesn't really matter because some other 'content' will occur.

Or to put this another way: Standard DIKU based 'MMORPG's' are shallow, predictable, boring and fail to live up to their potential in any way other than providing lots of busywork instead of interaction.

Which was Garfields point.

"There is a technical term for someone who confuses the opinions of a character in a book with those of the author. That term is idiot." -SMStirling

It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion
eldaec
Terracotta Army
Posts: 11839


Reply #33 on: January 18, 2007, 01:16:09 AM

In Magic the Gathering, Chess and Baseball you can't grind away to level up and become better. To make a lot of money or be the best they take a heavy time commitment but that is true of nearly anything.

I'd argue that in M:tG, Chess, Baseball, the grind is exactly the same as in WoW.

In WoW you become stronger by using time to attempt to complete quests, and kill mobs, at the same time you hope to improve your player skill by learning stuff. You also use time to read message boards, in order to learn strategies (both in terms of play and in terms of character design). If you are successful at completing quests, killing stuff, or learning stuff, your character power or player skill increases. If you don't play your chances of winning do not improve.

In non-Diku games the model is similar. You use time to practice, and to read about your game. Just like with the Diku, this time will result in a variable amount of skill increase. If you don't commit time, your chances of winning will remain low.

The real difference between most MMOGs and everything else, is that in a MMOG you have the game's entire population lumped together, so the gaps between different players' chances of winning are made more obvious, and severely reduce opportunities for fun.

If every chess player in the world was matched by WoW's battleground system, or could randomly run into each other in EVE 0.0 space, people would would be just as annoyed at the amount of grinding they had to do to get good at chess.

"People will not assume that what they read on the internet is trustworthy or that it carries any particular ­assurance or accuracy" - Lord Leveson
"Hyperbole is a cancer" - Lakov Sanite
Xilren's Twin
Moderator
Posts: 1648


Reply #34 on: January 18, 2007, 07:23:39 AM

I'd argue that in M:tG, Chess, Baseball, the grind is exactly the same as in WoW.

In WoW you become stronger by using time to attempt to complete quests, and kill mobs, at the same time you hope to improve your player skill by learning stuff. You also use time to read message boards, in order to learn strategies (both in terms of play and in terms of character design). If you are successful at completing quests, killing stuff, or learning stuff, your character power or player skill increases. If you don't play your chances of winning do not improve.

Sorry but i disagree.
Character power and player skill are entirely different concepts.
Chess is purely about player skill b/c the pieces are the same; there is not power differential.
MtG has SOME power differential based on rarity of cards, but again is mostly player skill based.
WoW is all about power differential of your avatar, not player skills.  The ONLY time player skills enters the picture is when two similarily powered avatars square off.  If player skill had the majority of sway, a level 10 character played by a skilled player (say an alt reroll) could beat a level 60 in a straight up fight.  Not happening.

Yes, time is a neccessary investment to get good at all of the above, but the difference in chess YOU are getting more skilled, in WoW, your avatar is.  Strategy in WoW is rather...limited.

"..but I'm by no means normal." - Schild
Pages: [1] 2 Go Up Print 
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  The Gaming Graveyard  |  Game Design/Development  |  Topic: Richard Garfield on "why MMOGs still suck"  
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.10 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC