Break the Diku! (Panties)

[pxib]

Does anyone who's arguing in favor of the "treadmill to victory" mechanism play any games other than MMOGs, ever?

Single-player computer RPGs from Final Fantasy to Diablo II have the same mechanic. God games like Civilization and MOO are arguably similar. Most of what distinguishes power is how much time has been invested in playing. With a fun, well-tuned grind it can be very relaxing to go through those motions while receiving intermittant rewards. The pen and paper games which spawned the RPG genre, though perhaps more complex and customized, work functionally the same. What's enjoyable about a "monty haul" game is watching your avatar (or nation) go from ordinary to heroic to superheroic.

The treadmill doesn't have to be challenging to be entertaining.

There are two pitfalls that place happy treadmill victory at risk:
- The grind isn't entertaining.
- Players interact competatively.

1If the grind isn't entertaining there is no reason to play the game. Blatant cockblockery, even with spectacular and delightful gameplay waiting just across the way, will drive players away. If the players interact competatively (in any theatre, profession or arena), they will be placed in situations which feel viscerally "unfair" because solely will be superior to them for no reason other than time devoted.

[tazelbain]

I think we have lost focus on what is really is important: The Panties.

Also, the subscription fee really changes what people expect. Got to give people something for their 15 bucks.  Being online doesn't cut it any more.  Can't create content fast enough to justify it.  "The Unskilled" aren't going to pay to be perpetual losers.

[Samwise]

My introduction to online gaming was via Quake II.  I'm eagerly awaiting UT3.  I also play alot of MMO.  I'm actually basing my analysis theorectical-mental-masturbation on what happens in the FPS market - overtime the playerbase drops off until it's servers with people who are really good at it (that eventually go password-only), or servers with people who cheat. 

You're making some very large assumptions about what causes that effect.  How does a game like Counter-Strike, which has been one of the most popular FPSes in the world for coming up on 10 years now, fit into your theory?  It's almost the complete antithesis of the characteristics that you say are requirements for long-term retention.

I would suggest that the falloff that's seen in the playerbases of most online FPSes has more to do with new games coming along that do the same thing but a little better.  CS is largely immune to that because nobody seems capable of making a better CS.

(edit) Also, I will reiterate that I always approach these discussions from the perspective of what I think would be fun to play, rather than what I think I could get people to play.  If I were just trying to get people to play something, I'd make another WoW but with a higher level cap and less content per level.

[Typhon]

Although it must not seem like it from my posts, mostly I come at it from that perspective as well.  There is no satisfaction like getting good at a a game that requires/rewards some degree of skill (FPS, Oni, console fighthing games).

At the same time, I have fun in games where my perceived character power increases.  There was an older game called Rune (pretty sure that was the name).  First person melee, you are a Norse warrior.  Near the end of the game you go through a process which changes you.  Run speed, jumping ability all go through the roof.  The game was only average, but I honestly thought it was brilliant at that point.  Getting new toys to play with, new things to learn, is just fun.

I have a brother who isn't so good at FPS.  No matter how much I try to coach him, he's just never going to be very good.  Diversity is all well and good, and skill based progression makes sense to me... but I like playing with my bro, and there is going to come a time when he wants to shot something, be the soldier for a bit.  If there is no alternate route to progression, we'll probably be playing a different game (or I'll be playing alone).

[Samwise]

There's no reason that you can't have both.  I've played a number of games that feature a mix of character progression and player skill progression.  In fact, even CS has that (via weapon purchases -- all players earn money toward weapons, but more skilled players tend to earn it faster).

[Merusk]

Hey congrats, Sam, you just introduced a time-based treadmill.   You're back to square one.

As Tazel pointed out, money changes everything.  Perpetual losers will not pay to lose.

Also, CS's persistance is exactly how long?  A day, a week? Forever, so long as that server is maintained? I haven't played CS, ever so I have no idea. (No interest) Does it save your 'character' for years?  So someone who's been playing CS since day 1 has ungodly amounts of money, weapons & ammo? 

Wow.  Does anyone who's arguing in favor of the "treadmill to victory" mechanism play any games other than MMOGs, ever? 

Seriously.

Yes. Most of them are single-player, however, and have difficulty settings and/or cheats.  If I get really really gimp I have a way out, a way of finishing on my own that affects only one person, me.  That's not the case in multiplayer games, in the name of "fairness." (Although in pay-to-play games where such things only equate to e-peen, the lack is in the name of 'retention')

 In those games other than MMOs that I do play, I watch exactly what Typhon is describing happen.  People get tired of losing all the time and quit.  Hell, the only reason so many folks here stuck with BF2 for as long as they did was the grind-for-unlocks.  That whole treadmill thing once again.

If you're using skill as the primary factor in a pay-to-play game, you have to decide how you're going to accommodate those less skilled, or accept you're going to be niche very quickly.  This isn't a new discussion here and 'real' designers such as Raph have pointed it out in various lectures and musings.

[Alkiera]

As Tazel pointed out, money changes everything.  Perpetual losers will not pay to lose.

And my thought when I read it was, "How, then, do you explain Las Vegas?"  People pay hundreds to fly there, stay in a nice hotel, for the express purpose of standing in the lobby feeding money into a machine that, the vast majority of the time, they will never see again.  Alternatively, they give it to a cashier who gives them chips they will quickly lose to someone else, and/or the house.

So, you make the game somewhat random, so occasionally the newb can defeat the master.  The masters won't like it too much, but won't mind if the penalty is not harsh.

On the other hand, consider what happens at a casino, vs. your average, say, team-based FPS title.
Casino: You pay your money, you see the spinning lights, or see the cards dealt, maybe make a decision, maybe not.  If you win, (unlikely) you get a reward, but more importantly, if you lose, no one makes a big deal out of it.  The game doesn't make a loud BZZZ!! or say 'You have now lost 6 of the last 6 hands', or 'You have pulled the lever 20 times, and have won $2.  Try again? [y/n]'.  It just stops, and the person pays more money, and the lights come up again.  Ideally, they don't realize how much they've spent/lost until they reach into their pocket and don't find any more money/chips/tokens.

In online FPS titles, dying means you either respawn immediately after some sort of demeaning comment 'Soandso exploded his rocket in your ass!', or you're out till the next level restart, or there's a respawn timer, etc... and there is almost always a scoring mechanism at the end of each level, or that displays when you've died, showing you just how poorly you are doing in comparison to the other players.  Worse yet, it may have detailed information indicating how much lower your kill/death ratio is, and e-peen stats like hit/miss %, ammo per kill, etc.  FPS even has the 'random' thing going for it, as it's entirely possible that the newb will end up looking the right way with a loaded weapon when the better player wanders by; even the noob gets the occasional headshot.  It's just that the system punishes losing (oddly enough, by the same mechanic that praises the winner).  MMOs are much worse about this, given the 'Ha, you've lost exp/gained debt/lost item durability/whatever, and now must run/fight your way back to your corpse!' factor.

It's no wonder Las Vegas has people paying to fly in, whereas it's tough to get people to drive to walmart to pick up yet another MMO.

--
Alkiera

[Merusk]

Well, because games of chance always give you exactly that, a chance.  Games of skill don't guarantee that (no matter how small), and only reinforce "you suck" with each loss. 

It also helps that people have an inherently flawed understanding of probability.  Each time they lose at a game of chance, the expectation that the NEXT time they'll win becomes greater.  Nevermind that probability dictates the chance to win each time is the same.  You see this all the time in games of chance, particularly after big losses, "Well I CAN'T lose AGAIN, I just did!"

Those win/loss details you're mentioning are inherent in the games, however.  They're the e-peen measures and if you take them out, people won't play your game. What's the point of pwning noobs if nobody knows how awesome I am? 

Another layer not added-in to the discussion yet is the limited number of partners in an MMO environment.  In the free skill-based online games (And we need to move this beyond just FPS, I'm talking Chess, Checkers, FPS, etc.)  your pool is anyone who ever logs into the site, or owns a copy of that game.  In an MMO your pool is limited to the people on your server if you want to maintain that persistant 'world' feel.

But then, Persistence always implies progression.  Progression always gives the further-progressed people advantages over the 'noobs.'   That is the problem with skill based games.  The longest playing, most-skilled people will have ALL the advantages, limiting things even for newer, skilled players.

[Samwise]

Progression always gives the further-progressed people advantages over the 'noobs.'   That is the problem with skill based games.  The longest playing, most-skilled people will have ALL the advantages, limiting things even for newer, skilled players.

I don't see how that's any worse than a pure time-spent-playing progression system.  The possible benefit of a system that adds skill as a factor is allowing players to speed up the progression by playing well, and thereby not feel like they're being cockblocked completely arbitrarily.  You called CS a time-based treadmill... well, yes, but the time is heavily dependent on skill, so a skilled player who's just joined the server can potentially "max out" and catch up with everyone else in the space of one round (a few minutes). 

I wouldn't mind MMOG treadmills if I could get to the "endgame" (which in most MMOGs just equates to "PvP between maxed-out characters") by playing really well for five minutes.

(edit) I make the assumption here (a fairly large one) that "playing" the MMOG means doing something fun.  Which is the real reason that CS doesn't feel like a time-based treadmill -- it is a game, and playing it is fun, independently of the progression rewards.  And I don't think you can have a game be "fun" for any length of time without having some element of challenge.

[Typhon]

I wouldn't mind MMOG treadmills if I could get to the "endgame" (which in most MMOGs just equates to "PvP between maxed-out characters") by playing really well for five minutes.

Maybe I'm reading this the wrong way, but it seems like you don't enjoy character progression.  If you get no innate satisfaction out of your character growing through struggle, and the only progression that you enjoy is the progression of your own skill then it's no surprise that you dislike MMO games.  (I'm not being pithy here, those games just fundamentally might not be your cup of tea)

[andar]

Brief thoughts:

SWG's class system almost got it right, imo, but failed in the end because there was no coordination, no teamwork even when you were with a team--just a bunch of guys with lazer guns blowing some stuff up;  if someone got separated from the pack it wasn't a big deal because as long as you still have the numbers individual contributions don't matter so much.  Get something like SWG (and I don't remember there being a tank class required for grouping in that game) and add in teamwork and coordination and you might have some interesting combat that doesn't fall back on the trinity or whatever.

If you're going to have a 'tank' class in the future, please have collision detection--aggro is retarded.  Try doing something where you physically prevent or distract the enemy from reaching the mage or archer or whatever.

The idea of the tank itself isn't so stupid--looking at media such as movies, there is often a point where some weaker character is on the verge of death but his much stronger, brutish companion steps in at the right moment to deflect the blows and save is pard'ner so that physically weaker guy can strike some more devastating blow to an enemy (might be exagerating a little  ;p   ).  What's dumb is the way this is abstracted into a raiding situation such as WoW where a tank takes hundreds of direct hits over the course of a battle yet remains standing (HEALING IS SO RETARDED)

Healing makes no sense for gameplay or realism or immersion.

Make more dynamic encounters--that is don't repeat the same scripted actions over and over during the course of a battle.

Static encounters, such as raid bosses, seems to reinforce the holy trinity concept in MMOs, and in my opinion, breaks immersion every time you kill him again.  Take out static bosses, take out static instances.  My vision for a superior PvE game might require better AI, but here it is: make normal monster encounters that take a while to end, either through brute force or horde-ish numbers--but make it a dynamic fight, don't limit it with simple scripting and a small range of skills on the monster's side.

(sorry if any of these things were already discussed, i didn't actually read every post)

[Slayerik]

Hey congrats, Sam, you just introduced a time-based treadmill.   You're back to square one.

As Tazel pointed out, money changes everything.  Perpetual losers will not pay to lose.

Also, CS's persistance is exactly how long?  A day, a week? Forever, so long as that server is maintained? I haven't played CS, ever so I have no idea. (No interest) Does it save your 'character' for years?  So someone who's been playing CS since day 1 has ungodly amounts of money, weapons & ammo? 

CS's persistance was that of a match, usually something like first to 5 wins. If I kill a guy, I get more money for next round to buy a better weapon/grenades/armor. If my team wins I'm rewarded more money as well. In a round, if you are killed you are out until the next round.

The system is flawed because many times the better team skillwise also gets the advantage of better weapons. But on the bright side, it all resets after that match. So to answer your question, the only persistance would be server stats.

[Samwise]

Maybe I'm reading this the wrong way, but it seems like you don't enjoy character progression.

I've said a couple of times that I DO enjoy character progression.  I just don't think that character progression in and of itself makes a game fun.  If it were, Progress Quest would dominate the RPG market.

Raph's "Theory of Fun" hits pretty close to the mark, IMO.  Once you completely understand the pattern (i.e. hit the end of the possible "player skill progression"), it becomes much less fun.

[Hoax]

Even diversifying the gameplay isn't a really good solution.  Maybe I'm the best puzzle-solver EVER.. but all I want to do is bash some PC/ NPCs.  I don't get to, ever, because I'm bad at button mashing?  Yeah, great.. I can be the top in that one segment of gameplay, but if it's not what I'm after I don't give a flying fuck how good I am at it.

If someone actually thinks like this then they are doomed to be unhappy no matter what.  So fuck them to begin with.  You get to button mash as much as you want.  But you wont be good at it.  Nobody can make up for the fact you aren't good at it.  Except by trivializing the entire game for everyone so you can keep up.

[Typhon]

Just because they are doomed to have a shitty experience doesn't mean that game developers can't use that scenario to try to create a game that adjusts itself to provide a player-desired level of challenge.  There are two parts to that, 1) giving the player the ability to say how much of a challenge they want (like CoXs difficulty slider), 2) proper metering in the game to get a relative measure of how skillful/powerful a player+character is, and then modifying the challenge to the player's taste.

At the very least that level of metering will game game dev's a better understanding of character balance, so I see it as a decent exercise in and of itself.

[Calantus]

Raph's "Theory of Fun" hits pretty close to the mark, IMO.  Once you completely understand the pattern (i.e. hit the end of the possible "player skill progression"), it becomes much less fun.

This is something I've been thinking lately and I keep coming back to Magic. In MMOGs it doesn't take long to figure out the best path to victory, what ability to use when your opponent does X move, etc. In magic this is true also, but you don't have perfect control of your options. If you could pick your cards it would be boring as shit because you'd always do the same thing and eventually one deck is just flat-out better than everything else or you get hard-coded rock/paper/scissors. But because you have random options the game becomes much more about making do with what you have (especially in limited formats) which adds a huge amount of variance. Any idiot can grab the best decks and win with a good draw vs a bad draw, better players win more often because they have the skill to win with more even draws, and the best players win the most because they have enough skill to turn games where they are at a disadvantage. It's like a shifting handicap of sorts. I also like this sort of randomness much better than the crits other games seem to love, because the randomness becomes a point of skill, how do you react to this random event, not oh you do more damage, lucky you!

The problem of course is introducing something like this to the RPG formula.

[Samwise]

I agree, having slightly unpredictable options does make it a lot harder to get bored.  It's a pretty common feature in puzzle games as well. 

As for mixing that into an RPG... Puzzle Quest, anyone?

[Nerf]

Yes, I realize I'm an evil bastard for resurrecting this, but panties get me hot.

I think alot of the questions and comments people have been saying here have actually already been answered, some have been implemented and we can see the problems that arose from it.

#1) Time spent progression  -  Eve Online has this exact system in place, and it's both brilliant and frustrating at the same time.  There are no classes, races are only important for the min/maxers who want that extra 1.5% bonus, you choose whatever you want to be, even if you want to be everything.  The issue with this is that there is no way to speed it up.  I played Eve for several months, I got to a pretty sporty mid-level spot, nice battleship, some t2 gear (phat lewts), etc.  It's about the 3-4 month (5-7mil skillpoint) mark that you realize that there is absolutely no way to compete with the older players.  Sure, you'll max out core skills for one "class" choice in about a year, but this just means that they have to play rock to your scissors, and you have to wait another year to play paper.

#2) Open-ended class choices - As stated above, Eve did it an acceptable job making a game that doesn't pigeonholed you, while insuring that noone could ever beat the people who started first.  What surprises me is that Asherons Call very rarely comes into discussions on this board, save for the clusterfuck that was AC2.  (Did anyone ever actually PLAY AC2? What the fuck was turbine thinking?)
  I started AC shortly after its release, hot off of UO and itching for some 3D PK.  The standard RPG choices were all there, choose your name, do you enjoy getting constantly hit on by hordes of middle-aged obese nerds who still live at home, are you black/white/a midget/a pony/etc.  Then came the class selection, except instead of the standard diku mag/cle/thf/war/rog/cle/mnk/sor/pony was an extensive list of skills, the options to train/untrain/specialize in different skills and a few "suggestions" that could be modified to your hearts contentment.
    As you leveled, your skills raised both automatically by use, or you could choose to spend XP anywhere you like, including stats which act as modifiers against different schools.  Total freedom.

That was 8..9 years ago, and not a single mmorpg has even come close to the level of customization that we had in one of the very first MMOs on the market.

[cmlancas]

This thread was more about breaking DIKU and less about which one was better than the other. I'm not sure I follow you.

[pxib]

That was 8..9 years ago, and not a single mmorpg has even come close to the level of customization that we had in one of the very first MMOs on the market.

Because most of the market doesn't want that level of customization. A huge pile of skills dropped in the player's lap on day one is an enormous barrier to entry. The learning curve starts with so steep a first step that most folks give up before they even see the game. AC (and UO) worked because there weren't any other major options except EQ... which absolutely buried them in terms of subscriber numbers: Pick a race, pick a class, level level level level level level.

To see more customization we're going to need either an innovation that smooths the learning curve or venture capital money that isn't interested in any silly "return on investment". The former seems more likely... got any ideas?

[cmlancas]

Where is Samwise's DDO cartoon?

[bhodi]

You mean samprimary?

[cmlancas]

Yeah. Sorry. 

[Nerf]

Because most of the market doesn't want that level of customization. A huge pile of skills dropped in the player's lap on day one is an enormous barrier to entry. The learning curve starts with so steep a first step that most folks give up before they even see the game. AC (and UO) worked because there weren't any other major options except EQ... which absolutely buried them in terms of subscriber numbers: Pick a race, pick a class, level level level level level level.

To see more customization we're going to need either an innovation that smooths the learning curve or venture capital money that isn't interested in any silly "return on investment". The former seems more likely... got any ideas?

The statements in bold need to be addressed first, I think you're both wrong and absolutely correct at the same time, while uncovering some of the underlying problems with high levels of customization.

Players love customization, look at how much more advanced character appearance creation has gotten lately, and how much it has been appreciated by the communities.  The difference of course between appearance and skill selection is that one of them really has no bearing on what might happen in 2,4,6,pony, or 400 hours.  I will be the first to admit that starting a new game, and having a huuuuge array of choices before you and not knowing what any of them do is scary, it almost forces your playerbase to reroll once they figure things out.

The goal of any game is to get someone hooked, frustrating people right away is a good way to scare them off, so how do we avoid this?
The answer is to remove critical decisions from character creation.  Get people hooked first, then let them decide.  The system that Age of Conan is implementing does this perfectly, although they opted away from the customization and to go the general diku class route, this system would be perfect for a game with high levels of customization.

Find someone who has never played an RPG before, and sit them down in front of NewMMO, and leave.  Generally, they're overwhelmed with choices right out of the gates.  Do you want to be a sneaky stabby? A burly basher? A seductive spellslinger?  How do you expect someone new to know, they've never done this before.

Instead, NewGuy enters the world after choosing only his name and what he looks like (assume if you would, that race has no bearing on anything outside of appearance), now NewGuy has the next 3-10 hours to decide what style of play is the most fun for him, to talk to people and ask questions, and to actually make an _informed_ decision on char creation!

Once you break way from the idea that character creation needs to take place before you ever play the game the problem begins to sort itself out.

Edit: Apparently, the squirrels I'm training to cheat at golf snuck over to my computer while I was tearing apart the pantry for sugary goodness and did a number on my grammar.  They have been dealt with.

[pxib]

I'll define my terminology better. Players love the customization, but not specialization. The question every new player is asking isn't "How would I go about making myself entirely unique?" it's "What's the best class/race/set-of-skills?" When they learn that best is a complicated ideal, that if they need to pick a role before they pick what sort of character to play, they tend to be disappointed. They want to play a demigod who can do whatever is necessary in whichever situation they run into.

Y'know... the character they play in single-player RPGs.

If customization results in a player being any gimpier than anybody else AT ANY TASK, they'll tend to feel robbed. Go read the class forums of any MMO. The more skills available, the more opportunities to specialize yourself away from being the ultimate badass. Players want to be a badass the moment they make a character, and get more awesome with every passing minute that they play. So it's nice to be unique, but if originality comes at the sacrifice of power you will find most people playing the same two or three "classes" no matter how many skills you offer. You will also notice them leaving your game to go play a Diku.

[Nerf]

Unique is such an ugly word.  No one wants to be unique, they want constant reassurance that whatever it is they are doing, it's OK.
Unique without that reassurance simply doesn't sell, of course that reassurance requires that we only offer the illusion of being unique, or at least, more unique than the next guy.

Balance is the holy grail when it comes to skill design, and it's often completely ignored in favor of the dark seductress, shiny.

I'm going to largely ignore the last paragraph, simply because you ascribe an issue that DIKUs suffer from will force them to leave DIKUs for a DIKU..

Edit: Fucking squirrels.  Their rebellion will be quashed.

[Glazius]

Find someone who has never played an RPG before, and sit them down in front of NewMMO, and leave.  Generally, they're overwhelmed with choices right out of the gates.  Do you want to be a sneaky stabby? A burly basher? A seductive spellslinger?  How do you expect someone new to know, they've never done this before.

So you provide a solo tutorial instance with a mid-game example of each of the above.

To reuse art assets you can call it a story of the ancient days and have people visit the same places later in their own adventuring career and find remnants of the tutorial characters.

[Nerf]

I like it, the only problem is that with customization theres stabby spellslingers, a sneaky basher, etc etc etc.
That being said, I still think its a very workable idea.  Player starts the tutorial as a recruit right before the great war/castle siege/pony invasion and is given a crash course on different skills/spell schools and what they do.

I'd like to hear some other opinions on it, but it could definitely be doable.

[tazelbain]

It sucks and you are bad person for liking it.

But its a good point, that's probably the number 2 reason I didn't stick with UO.  Sure there was lots of stuff I could have done, but had no idea about what's, how's and why's of it all.

[Alkiera]

I like it, the only problem is that with customization theres stabby spellslingers, a sneaky basher, etc etc etc.
That being said, I still think its a very workable idea.  Player starts the tutorial as a recruit right before the great war/castle siege/pony invasion and is given a crash course on different skills/spell schools and what they do.

I'd like to hear some other opinions on it, but it could definitely be doable.

In fact, someone already did it.  The name of that game was Horizons.  There were several caves in the newbie area, each had you go in, where you could read about the class there, and a trainer to change you into that class.  If you didn't like it, you could go to another cave and it'd turn your sorry mage self into a sneaky thief type.

On the other hand,  Giant signs pointing to monsters on the way out of town.  See, Blizzard might have done that in beta to be funny, but it wouldn't have gone live.

--
Alkiera