Richard Garfield on "why MMOGs still suck"

[Sunbury]

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. 

That may be what it turns out to be, but THE GAME is not 'power differential of your avatar' THE GAME is 'seeing all the zones, dungeons, doing all the quests'.   The power is the means to the end.   Of course someone else could define THE GAME to be "be the highest level on the server with the best equipement and beat everyone else in 1:1 PvP", but that's their goal, not the game.

In Chess THE GAME is to win 1:1 matches, thats it.   In MT:G I guess there are 2 games, one to win 1:1 matches, the other to collect rare cards?   

[tazelbain]

I am not sure why it matters what the source of a large power differential is.  If there is one its not much fun to play, wheither it is caused be catassing, or talent.  I like Texas hold'em as a pvp model. Skill is important. Experience is important. But enough luck that anyone has a shot.

[pxib]

I am not sure why it matters what the source of a large power differential is.  If there is one its not much fun to play, wheither it is caused be catassing, or talent.

QFT

If combat is entirely skill-based a lot of players will lack that skill, get frustrated, and stop playing. If combat involves skill, players will need a low-pressure, fun, friendly environment to train those skills before they're exposed to the high-stakes game itself.

[Xilren's Twin]

I am not sure why it matters what the source of a large power differential is.  If there is one its not much fun to play, wheither it is caused be catassing, or talent.  I like Texas hold'em as a pvp model. Skill is important. Experience is important. But enough luck that anyone has a shot.

Player skills are in effect soft capped by the player himself.  There are some people who just suck at Poker, or chess, basketball, or RTS games no matter how much they practice; most will never be more than average at best.  There are a few who maybe naturally gifted at them.  B/c of that, average (i.e. non uber) people tend to gravitate towards either an implementation of those games with a level playing field, or they just don't play the ones they're bad at.  Not only that, but your skills in those examples can actually deteriorate over time due to not practicing as much, or age, just as much as they can go up as you first learn them and practice.

OTOH, mmorpg avatar power is only capped by time committment (anyone can basically max out based on that alone) and it never decreases.  So long as you put in the time, you will max out, period.

Why it's important is recognizing this when you are designing a game system. Where you fall on this player skill vs avatar power concept should helps determine some design decisions you need make to try and appeal to the widest audience possible.
Compare the appeal of PvP with level restricted battlegrounds to open, FFA PvP.
Just like you can use handicap in gold, or sealed deck in MtG, you can elect to design  your game system to support as level a playing field as possible even with lots of player skills weight.

Else your game self selects into a very small audience.

[Nebu]

Let's not forget that there are many different skills found in gaming (twitch or reaction skills, strategy, etc).  To date MMOG's employ some amount of this and temper it with a time component and a RNG component.  I think this maintains a sense that even the inexperienced can win often enough to be encouraged to stick with it. 

The goal as I see it, is to find a combat mechanic that utilizes a variety of both skill sets as well as random elements while also providing a carrot (advancement scheme) that rewards the player without unbalancing game mechanics.  Having a more global focus on the conflict also sweetens the deal... though many of you appear to disagree.   

[tazelbain]

> There are some people who just suck at Poker, or chess, basketball, or RTS games no matter how much they practice; most will never be more than average at best.
I suck at Poker and I suck at FPS.  But I have more fun in Poker because mechanics of Poker let me play and win a little.  In the typical FPS, I am a grease spot and can't hardly do anything.  If I was making a MMOG, I'd be looking at Poker because there are a whole more sucky people to market my game to then not.  Replace FPS with grindy RPG, it doesn't matter. The people who don't grind 12hrs a deserves to have fun to.  Still having power differential fine, it gives people something to work for.  But it shouldn't be so great that it prevents people from having fun. 

In open pvp, I might find Kasparov when I run out the gate if the pvp is like chess.  But I'd find Howard Lederor instead if the pvp is like Poker.  The end result may be same, but I could probable get a few good hits on Howard, have more fun in process, and would have an outside chance of winning because nature of the game allows it.

EDIT: Also, I'd rather be Howard Lederor in pvp.  Because it's more exciting.  Even a complete scrub could beat me if everything lines up in their favor and I have make damn sure that happens as infrquent as possible.

[eldaec]

I am not sure why it matters what the source of a large power differential is.  If there is one its not much fun to play, wheither it is caused be catassing, or talent.  I like Texas hold'em as a pvp model. Skill is important. Experience is important. But enough luck that anyone has a shot.

Player skills are in effect soft capped by the player himself.  There are some people who just suck at Poker, or chess, basketball, or RTS games no matter how much they practice; most will never be more than average at best.  There are a few who maybe naturally gifted at them.  B/c of that, average (i.e. non uber) people tend to gravitate towards either an implementation of those games with a level playing field, or they just don't play the ones they're bad at.  Not only that, but your skills in those examples can actually deteriorate over time due to not practicing as much, or age, just as much as they can go up as you first learn them and practice.

Ability to win in MMOGs also deteriorates over time due to mudflation, emergent strategies, metagame changes, and social decay (you fall out of favour in your guild if you don't play etc).

Also, people in this thread are underestimating player skill in a MMOG. Player skill in a MMOG is organisational and communication skill. I don't care what any says : Organised Teams > Phat Lewt in almost every MMOG.

As I understand your other point (that poker/chess etc has a large population of average opponents to play against who will never all turn around and progress to uber), I think the same is true of MMOG playing - I suspect large numbers of people never reach the level cap, and they certainly don't learn all the uberist of PvP strategies or train with a top level PvP team. The difference outside of MMOGs is that a 'level 30' poker player can have fun at that level. MMOGs don't give people enough mechanisms to have actual fun before the end game, so they just quit. MMOGs also often fail to give casual players a fun way to contribute to realm or guild objectives even if they do reach the end game.

If low stakes poker was only as fun as level 20 in Everquest, nobody would play low stakes poker.

[Alkiera]

I am not sure why it matters what the source of a large power differential is.  If there is one its not much fun to play, wheither it is caused be catassing, or talent.  I like Texas hold'em as a pvp model. Skill is important. Experience is important. But enough luck that anyone has a shot.

Player skills are in effect soft capped by the player himself.  There are some people who just suck at Poker, or chess, basketball, or RTS games no matter how much they practice; most will never be more than average at best.  There are a few who maybe naturally gifted at them.  B/c of that, average (i.e. non uber) people tend to gravitate towards either an implementation of those games with a level playing field, or they just don't play the ones they're bad at.  Not only that, but your skills in those examples can actually deteriorate over time due to not practicing as much, or age, just as much as they can go up as you first learn them and practice.

Ability to win in MMOGs also deteriorates over time due to mudflation, emergent strategies, metagame changes, and social decay (you fall out of favour in your guild if you don't play etc).

Also, people in this thread are underestimating player skill in a MMOG. Player skill in a MMOG is organisational and communication skill. I don't care what any says : Organised Teams > Phat Lewt in almost every MMOG.

As I understand your other point (that poker/chess etc has a large population of average opponents to play against who will never all turn around and progress to uber), I think the same is true of MMOG playing - I suspect large numbers of people never reach the level cap, and they certainly don't learn all the uberist of PvP strategies or train with a top level PvP team. The difference outside of MMOGs is that a 'level 30' poker player can have fun at that level. MMOGs don't give people enough mechanisms to have actual fun before the end game, so they just quit. MMOGs also often fail to give casual players a fun way to contribute to realm or guild objectives even if they do reach the end game.

If low stakes poker was only as fun as level 20 in Everquest, nobody would play low stakes poker.

I personally felt this was one place WoW excelled.  Low level characters in WoW were pretty fun to play...  However, as you leveled, many classes didn't change much, and enemies (on the overland anyway) really didn't have too many tactics to learn to deal with, so you ran into enemies that their only advantage over you was statistical, but were required for quests.  That moment, where you realize it's not your tactics that are the problem, but that you just haven't killed enough bunnies yet, that it the issue.  In poker, you can have good luck and beat someone better at poker than you.  Even in chess or go it can happen...  But in MMOs, it's like a chess match where your opponent has 8 queens instead of the normal alotment of pawns.  Or a checkers game where your opponent starts out with every piece 'king'ed.

Someone needs to try to make a UO again.  Skill-based, with no levels to artificially increase HP.  Can someone get CCP to work on a fantasy game?  I just have a hard time being a ship in the blackness of space.  Rather be a ranger in the woods.

[pxib]

In poker, you can have good luck and beat someone better at poker than you.  Even in chess or go it can happen...  But in MMOs, it's like a chess match where your opponent has 8 queens instead of the normal alotment of pawns.  Or a checkers game where your opponent starts out with every piece 'king'ed.

Someone needs to try to make a UO again.  Skill-based, with no levels to artificially increase HP.

...but UO lost its popular appeal as soon as there were other options available. Its non-linear format had insufficient dings and shiny for the competitive mass market. The DIKU grind works because it's a cheap, compelling narrative: One day you'll get to visit that dangerous new area, one day you'll get to see the inside of that dangerous dungeon, "Those Sons of Arugal may have killed me now, but one day I shall return and slaughter them like mewling pups." It's just a matter of time.

This isn't quality narrative, mind you. As Mr. Garfield points out, it's not even quality gameplay. A thousand Korean MMOs have boiled the DIKU narrative to its essence, shaved off every uncritical feature, and captured the time and interest of millions. They're the MMO equivalent of spider solitaire... and folks will play them for hours if they're nominally free. It doesn't have to be great storytelling, it just has to be more evocative than minesweeper... all minesweeper has going for it is that the game's more challenging, faster paced, and more fun.

Not only is the DIKU narrative addictive, it's accessible. Any player knows that all that stands between them and the next chapter is a few hours of foozle whacking. The thrill of solving a puzzle or acquiring genuine player skill (vs. character skill) may be sweet, but it may also be frustrating. Foozle-whacking is dull, but consistant. The narrative will proceed at a reliable pace. It is, to embrace cliche, spoon fed.

A truly superb, open-ended game might inspire players to make their own narratives. If every option was equally rewarding and exciting, they would happily choose those which most fit their image of heroic adventure. Unfortunately, the most frequent question people asked in my old UO days was "So what do I do now?" The real answer was, "Well you could do X, Y, or Z... whatever you want!" Folks didn't want to hear that answer. None of those options was exciting or rewarding enough in its own right to make it an obvious choice. Answering "Let's go fight at the orc fort," was always accepted more positively. The DIKU narrative provides that answer automatically.
 
WoW's gameplay may be less fun and less challenging than Microsoft Hearts Network, but it has more bells, story and whistles... and for this it expects you to pay a monthly fee. Millions do.

I just have a hard time being a ship in the blackness of space.  Rather be a ranger in the woods.

I agree about the ship, but I'd be as happy playing a wildwest gunfighter in an urban post-apocalypse as an dwarf in the Tunnels of Olde. I like terrain. I like to wander between walls and shrubbery. Space combat feels artificial and exposed... a mathmatical game of angles and momentum. Realistic as anyone might make it, it still doesn't make me feel viscerally and immersed.

[Calantus]

The poker analogies are very interesting I think. Poker is very much a game where anyone can win at any time, simply because of luck. Skill influences the game, and over time a more skilled player will meet with more success, but it is never guaranteed in any individual hand/game. Magic is very similar also. As a newbie you can play a few games to learn the basics, then go join a limited tournament and win some games, even if you don't face other newbies. You could open up a pool of really insane cards, you could face mana screwed opponents, you could topdeck your bombs at the exact times you need them. There's just so many ways you can win without needing skill to make it happen. And yet, magic is deep, and being a skilled player will mean you win more often than a lesser skilled player despite the luck factor. I wouldn't call magic an especially newbie friendly game as it can get fairly complicated and a little overwhelming at the start, but once you get past that initial hurdle you gain the ability to win games. I think that is a large part why so many play Magic.

I think that adding some real randomness (ie. not just critical hit) into a combat system, while still requiring skill (and perhaps time) to be a factor, would be the ideal system. Nobody likes knowing that they are going to lose simply because the other guy played longer or is really really good. Them having a disadvantage is fine, people can appreciate the carrot dangling in front of them, but if you don't let them win they are going to get frustrated.

Thinking back to my CS days, I was pretty decent, and improved all the time, and loved seeing that improvement. It was a real sense of satisfaction to see myself pull off fights I wouldn't have before. And yet, if I got into a match where I'm getting dominated I'd just leave. It's no fun getting owned by someone who just flatout shoots way better than you do, and frankly, you don't learn much. Losing can teach you a lot, but only if you have a real chance of winning. It's by analysing what you did wrong that losing can teach you. If all you really did wrong was come up against a far better player, that doesn't teach you much beyond when to stop playing.

[Johny Cee]

I wouldn't call magic an especially newbie friendly game as it can get fairly complicated and a little overwhelming at the start, but once you get past that initial hurdle you gain the ability to win games. I think that is a large part why so many play Magic.

Slightly off topic, but...

Online Magic, like any online game, isn't particularly newbie friendly.  That's why DIKUs are so popular, because they railroad you for the formative levels so that you don't need to figure things out.  You don't get swamped by information and have a helping hand until you figure out what's going on.

With Magic,  the newbie friendly entry is cardboard casual.  Buy a precon, fill out with a couple boosters,  and you and your friends can have fun playing for hours with a minimal cash investment.  You can setup your own play rules for the environment (no land d, or no net decks) so everyone has a good time.

Magic Online,  like any competive online game, eats the casual and new for lunch and then assrapes their corpse.  There will always be that guy playing a tier 1 net deck in the casual room,  or the maxed out character one shoting noobs,  or the guy with the aimbot/speed hack ruining an otherwise decent play experience just because they can.

[koboshi]

  I'm not sure why the lot of you have decided that it’s fair to compare MtG, poker, and chess to mmos?  They are essentially different realms of play.  To make the point, count how many different players you have played in each game in the last year (not counting MtGO, that’s later), now compare that to how many different players you've met in the same period of time in an mmo.  The truth is you are much more likely to walk into an unknown match up online then you are in a real world game.  And unless you run in some fast crowds (Xilren) you’re not likely to be meeting any uber players in real life.  However online you are by definition playing all of them every time you log in.

  Now look at MtGO, same game, just online, and yet essentially different in character to even tournament play in the real world.  Exploitation is rampant, everyone knows the broken decks.  When a new deck comes out its only a matter of minutes before someone figures out the new exploit(s), and in the next couple of hours everyone knows how to play it and how to beat it.  Compare that to offline play where it may take weeks or months for a new exploit to percolate throughout the community of players (at least before MtGO).  The same was true of chess, different openings were championed at different points throughout history but as information became easier to store and disseminate the exploitative game disappeared (with the exception being speed chess) and the game became how many variations of moves could a player store and sort through in their mind.  Imagine how many openings aren’t played in competition because they are the wrong ones.  Just think of how many possible moves are simply out of the question and will never be played.  How much smaller is the game because those possibilities are lost? Simply put the size and skill of the community in which you play has a huge impact on how a game is played.

  My point is that although I agree with the perspective that the card game is a better metric than the dice game, there is a point you are just skipping over which is that online games pit you against the best players of the game by definition.  So any design which sets one player absolutely inferior to another is broken, whether that is because skill plays too great a roll, or because preparation plays too great a roll, or because power differential plays too great a roll.  Power should be able to overcome preparation, preparation should be able to overcome skill, skill should be able to overcome power, and vice versa, and the great equalizer should be the fickle hand of fate, or to put it another way luck of the draw.

[Hoax]

I seriously have to question how much you actually know about the CCG "scene" netdecking, playtesting and metagaming are guaranteed in anything beyond friday night magic.

Also the idea that you run into the uber players online every time is pretty silly.  Take WoW's BG's for examples from my time watching a organized team run WSG during a WSG weekend it looked like about 8/10 teams are just pug scrubs who get RUN by org groups.  When it comes to world pvp you are even less likely to run into someone wearing top tier shit.  Because they are too busy raiding.  Honestly the hardcore raid players are almost never online except when raiding, playing alts or grinding some gold from my experience.

Or take RTS or FPS games, you aren't going to run into the "uber" players every time.  Typically they will all congregate to special servers that kick noobs.  Or in RTS you'll often see rooms titled "pros only".

I'll leave you with this comment, the only MMO's that I've ever seen a metagame that came anywhere near to CCG's in terms of importance were GW and SB.