Problems with Making the Ultimate MMOG
Moderators: th15, Moderators
Problems with Making the Ultimate MMOG
I have a deep question to propose to you all:
Let's face it, MMOGs have one basic flaw - it involves you interacting with other gamers. I don't mean this on a social level, it's nice to interact with other gamers, but I mean this in a gaming sense: it's you versus them. So therein lies the problem.
Let's take an example:
Frustrating:
After spending nearly half a week building up your forces in Generic BBG A, you suddenly are attacked by a much more experienced player who's spent an entire week, and now half a week's work is now down the drain.
Fun:
After spending nearly a week building up your forces in Generic BBG A, you suddenly attack a much less experienced player who's spent only half a week in the game, and you steal all the resources he's built up in the last half week.
You see the problem there? It's fun for one, frustrating for the other. Now if you ask me, games are better played when you've just laid the ownage on like a glutton given free syrup and a stack of pancakes. However, that means that somewhere else, some n00b might be crying over their lost work. To combat this, most games attempt to impose some sorts of arbitrary limits on such things, preventing that week old person from attacking the half-week old person. Yet, that doesn't help anything. Case in point:
Frustrating:
After spending nearly half a week building up your forces in Generic BBG A, you are suddenly attacked by another half-week old player and find that even though your forces were equal, the other player stole all your resources since they got lucky.
Even More Frustrating:
After spending nearly a week building up your forces in Generic BBG A, you attempt to attack one of your equal neighbors, but are thoroughly crushed and your entire week's work goes down the drain, and now you're open for attack.
Basically, that just ruins the fun for everybody. So here's the question.
How do you make MMOGs fun for everyone?
Let's face it, MMOGs have one basic flaw - it involves you interacting with other gamers. I don't mean this on a social level, it's nice to interact with other gamers, but I mean this in a gaming sense: it's you versus them. So therein lies the problem.
Let's take an example:
Frustrating:
After spending nearly half a week building up your forces in Generic BBG A, you suddenly are attacked by a much more experienced player who's spent an entire week, and now half a week's work is now down the drain.
Fun:
After spending nearly a week building up your forces in Generic BBG A, you suddenly attack a much less experienced player who's spent only half a week in the game, and you steal all the resources he's built up in the last half week.
You see the problem there? It's fun for one, frustrating for the other. Now if you ask me, games are better played when you've just laid the ownage on like a glutton given free syrup and a stack of pancakes. However, that means that somewhere else, some n00b might be crying over their lost work. To combat this, most games attempt to impose some sorts of arbitrary limits on such things, preventing that week old person from attacking the half-week old person. Yet, that doesn't help anything. Case in point:
Frustrating:
After spending nearly half a week building up your forces in Generic BBG A, you are suddenly attacked by another half-week old player and find that even though your forces were equal, the other player stole all your resources since they got lucky.
Even More Frustrating:
After spending nearly a week building up your forces in Generic BBG A, you attempt to attack one of your equal neighbors, but are thoroughly crushed and your entire week's work goes down the drain, and now you're open for attack.
Basically, that just ruins the fun for everybody. So here's the question.
How do you make MMOGs fun for everyone?
[url=http://www.fallingsandgame.com/][img]http://www.gaussianstudios.co.cc/hosting/fsgbanneram3.png[/img][/url]
tl;dr-ers will be shot on sight.
[size=75][url=http://bsf.wikidot.com/]BSF Wiki[/url]
"I have measured your 'fun', and science has quantitatively rated it a three." ~Lord Tim (Data Realms Fan Forums)[/size]
tl;dr-ers will be shot on sight.
[size=75][url=http://bsf.wikidot.com/]BSF Wiki[/url]
"I have measured your 'fun', and science has quantitatively rated it a three." ~Lord Tim (Data Realms Fan Forums)[/size]
Tabula Rasa. No forced PvP. You -can- duel if you want to, but it's not necessary to achieve anything. You can essentially solo the entire game (if you're both badass and know what you're doing) but half the fun is in grouping.
I believe EvE suffers from the frustration/time mechanic, but I can honestly say that it's worth it, seeing as I get to ogle shiny internet spaceships on a regular basis.
I believe EvE suffers from the frustration/time mechanic, but I can honestly say that it's worth it, seeing as I get to ogle shiny internet spaceships on a regular basis.
/l、
゙(゚、 。 7
l、゙ ~ヽ
じしf_, )ノ
゙(゚、 。 7
l、゙ ~ヽ
じしf_, )ノ
Now thats one extensive topic...
I myself have thought alot about this myself, and about game theory in general. And i have to say, ive failed to invent or find an ideal plan for a 'perfect MMOG', if such thing is even possible. Too many problems, too many conflicting factors to consider...
However, im not prepared to spit the vast thinkings of my deranged mind in a coherent manner, so for now, ill limit myself to smartass comments and annoying remarks
Just one important note: My arguments are based on the assumption that 'we' want to make a 'good' MMOG. So grind, timesinks, arbitrary limits etc. are bad things, mmkay?
Second, competition doesn't always equal loss of resources or whatever else that need spending countless hours grinding. There are MMOGS out there (quite a few, in fact) in which loss in pvp doesn't mean loss of your earnings, Guild Wars being a good example here.
Now onto the problem itself. At first glance, it would seem that there are two easy solutions: pvp devoid of any kind of loss, or getting rid of competition itself.
Getting rid of competition is a horrible idea. You can get only so far with player interaction and sense of achievement, you will absolutely need pvp if you want to keep things running. Furthermore, competition is another factor of awesomeness for your game, it will bring you people, and most of all - itll keep them playing. Without it, you're left with your run-of-the-mill crpg with a (most often simple) co-op multiplayer mode and a fancy chatroom. Just look at how that poor excuse for a MMORPG named World of Warcraft is constructed - its somewhat of a vaporware amongst MMOGS, they had to fill it up with unoriginal and dull content (quests, monsters and dungeons) to keep players from leaving, and they have to keep adding more of this fast-food. Thus, i don't really consider MMOGS without any competition as 'true' MMOGS.
Getting rid of losses from pvp is different though. Yes, its still is risky, because you're still removing an important factor in gain-loss chain (if not the whole link altogether...) which flattens the 'sense of achievement' factor. But if the whole game is done 'right', meaning all the features that tie in with this kind of pvp, it can actually work, and its been done already, so its not impossible (Guild Wars again...).
Considering the cons of such approach, i myself am against making an MMOG without any kind of pvp in which you can actually hurt someone, although i agree its a problem for those who don't want to loose. Best idea ive come up with so far is making it optional while including the other pvp type as well. Then again, i do not consider that frustration you're describing to be the root of all evil either, i see both options as viable ones, its just a matter of taste.
Of course, this is just one problem with MMOGS. Grind vs achievement, timesinks, static content, arbitrary boundaries and forcing players to do/not do things, economy and inflation - to name just a few others.
And like i said, no forced PvP/interaction is not always a good thing.
It does suffer from many other problems, though.
I myself have thought alot about this myself, and about game theory in general. And i have to say, ive failed to invent or find an ideal plan for a 'perfect MMOG', if such thing is even possible. Too many problems, too many conflicting factors to consider...
However, im not prepared to spit the vast thinkings of my deranged mind in a coherent manner, so for now, ill limit myself to smartass comments and annoying remarks
Just one important note: My arguments are based on the assumption that 'we' want to make a 'good' MMOG. So grind, timesinks, arbitrary limits etc. are bad things, mmkay?
Ok, so first off, not every single MMOG is (or has to be) based upon the idea of pitting players against other players. In fact, not that many of them are. Then again, you could say MMOG that doesn't promote competition is not really an MMOG, but ill get to that later.Normandy wrote:Let's face it, MMOGs have one basic flaw - it involves you interacting with other gamers. I don't mean this on a social level, it's nice to interact with other gamers, but I mean this in a gaming sense: it's you versus them. So therein lies the problem.
(...)
After spending nearly half a week building up your forces in Generic BBG A, you suddenly are attacked by a much more experienced player who's spent an entire week, and now half a week's work is now down the drain.
Second, competition doesn't always equal loss of resources or whatever else that need spending countless hours grinding. There are MMOGS out there (quite a few, in fact) in which loss in pvp doesn't mean loss of your earnings, Guild Wars being a good example here.
Now onto the problem itself. At first glance, it would seem that there are two easy solutions: pvp devoid of any kind of loss, or getting rid of competition itself.
Getting rid of competition is a horrible idea. You can get only so far with player interaction and sense of achievement, you will absolutely need pvp if you want to keep things running. Furthermore, competition is another factor of awesomeness for your game, it will bring you people, and most of all - itll keep them playing. Without it, you're left with your run-of-the-mill crpg with a (most often simple) co-op multiplayer mode and a fancy chatroom. Just look at how that poor excuse for a MMORPG named World of Warcraft is constructed - its somewhat of a vaporware amongst MMOGS, they had to fill it up with unoriginal and dull content (quests, monsters and dungeons) to keep players from leaving, and they have to keep adding more of this fast-food. Thus, i don't really consider MMOGS without any competition as 'true' MMOGS.
Getting rid of losses from pvp is different though. Yes, its still is risky, because you're still removing an important factor in gain-loss chain (if not the whole link altogether...) which flattens the 'sense of achievement' factor. But if the whole game is done 'right', meaning all the features that tie in with this kind of pvp, it can actually work, and its been done already, so its not impossible (Guild Wars again...).
Considering the cons of such approach, i myself am against making an MMOG without any kind of pvp in which you can actually hurt someone, although i agree its a problem for those who don't want to loose. Best idea ive come up with so far is making it optional while including the other pvp type as well. Then again, i do not consider that frustration you're describing to be the root of all evil either, i see both options as viable ones, its just a matter of taste.
Of course, this is just one problem with MMOGS. Grind vs achievement, timesinks, static content, arbitrary boundaries and forcing players to do/not do things, economy and inflation - to name just a few others.
I believe i have to disagree. Sense of achievement in Guild Wars is weak, and outside of pvp, which is fully consensual, with heroes and henchemen its mostly a singleplayer game. Its also very static.The Boz wrote:Guild Wars.
I believe I have said enough.
Most people say Tabula Rasa is rather... unspectacular. As in, nothing interesting, or even poorly done. I havent played it, but after reading a few reviews and getting to know about the game, im inclined to agree.Arcalane wrote:Tabula Rasa. No forced PvP. You -can- duel if you want to, but it's not necessary to achieve anything. You can essentially solo the entire game (if you're both badass and know what you're doing) but half the fun is in grouping.
And like i said, no forced PvP/interaction is not always a good thing.
Time, yes, but not really frustration. You don't absolutely HAVE to pvp, and even if you do pvp - its not always frustrating in the way Normandy presented it, depends on the conditions.Arcalane wrote:I believe EvE suffers from the frustration/time mechanic
It does suffer from many other problems, though.
I could write volumes on this matter... heck, to make a better MMORPG one would need to put in more RPG elements than just charachter stats.
And let's not forget the level scaling, HP scaling, combat mechanics, items scaling..all of that would need to be re-worked too.
I can see hundereds of things that could be done better (IMHO at least) and are achievable. I can see even more that I know aren't (too resource intensive)
And let's not forget the level scaling, HP scaling, combat mechanics, items scaling..all of that would need to be re-worked too.
I can see hundereds of things that could be done better (IMHO at least) and are achievable. I can see even more that I know aren't (too resource intensive)
[img]http://www.wizards.com/magic/images/whatcolor_iswhite.jpg[/img][url=http://www.wizards.com/magic/playmagic/whatcolorareyou.asp][b]Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.[/b][/url]
[url=http://www.wyrdysm.com/battleshipsforever/shipdatabase/uploads/VANavy.rar]VA FLEET[/url]
[url=http://www.wyrdysm.com/battleshipsforever/shipdatabase/uploads/VANavy.rar]VA FLEET[/url]
Arcalane wrote:Tabula Rasa. No forced PvP. You -can- duel if you want to, but it's not necessary to achieve anything. You can essentially solo the entire game (if you're both badass and know what you're doing) but half the fun is in grouping.
I believe EvE suffers from the frustration/time mechanic, but I can honestly say that it's worth it, seeing as I get to ogle shiny internet spaceships on a regular basis.
Eve suffers from it mildly but you can normally dodge it by entering an leaving corps.
As for the shiny ships, I'll agree except for one thing. I thought Trinity was supposed to fix the bug where people kept trying to salvage minmattar ships.
Second Life.
Solved :D.
But to specify; you mean MMOGs that are geared towards PvP combat ? Well of course old players are going to kick the asses of all of the newbies - unless you want something horribly unrealistic, the big guys in real life dominate over the small fries, be it via war or business competition. The solution is often quoted to be worse than the problem : put everyone on an equal playing field.
Solved :D.
But to specify; you mean MMOGs that are geared towards PvP combat ? Well of course old players are going to kick the asses of all of the newbies - unless you want something horribly unrealistic, the big guys in real life dominate over the small fries, be it via war or business competition. The solution is often quoted to be worse than the problem : put everyone on an equal playing field.
The preferred outcome of war, is peace. Ironic; huh ? -[citation needed]
Yes, MMOGs more towards PvP combat, since fighting the AI is only that much fun. Something on par if Spore was actually Multiplayer. (I'd commit genocide on a massive scale for a multiplayer spore).
But the problem with this whole 'experience' thing is that experience doesn't always lead to win. America's been a country for less than 300 years, and China's been a country for millennia. How do you properly model this? Why is America, at the moment, at a much better position than China?
More importantly, how can we model this so that people do not lose their sense of achievement?
But the problem with this whole 'experience' thing is that experience doesn't always lead to win. America's been a country for less than 300 years, and China's been a country for millennia. How do you properly model this? Why is America, at the moment, at a much better position than China?
More importantly, how can we model this so that people do not lose their sense of achievement?
[url=http://www.fallingsandgame.com/][img]http://www.gaussianstudios.co.cc/hosting/fsgbanneram3.png[/img][/url]
tl;dr-ers will be shot on sight.
[size=75][url=http://bsf.wikidot.com/]BSF Wiki[/url]
"I have measured your 'fun', and science has quantitatively rated it a three." ~Lord Tim (Data Realms Fan Forums)[/size]
tl;dr-ers will be shot on sight.
[size=75][url=http://bsf.wikidot.com/]BSF Wiki[/url]
"I have measured your 'fun', and science has quantitatively rated it a three." ~Lord Tim (Data Realms Fan Forums)[/size]
idea:
RTS style game. you have a massive world and build bases and armies to fight for you. it has an incredibly large number of possible units and upgrades you can get, so many that you'll have to pick and choose how to tech up. and some tech trees might be strong against your current enemy but a newer enemy, even a newer player, might choose a tech tree your weak against and wipe the floor with you. meaning that it all comes down to strategic choices and skill in combat
RTS style game. you have a massive world and build bases and armies to fight for you. it has an incredibly large number of possible units and upgrades you can get, so many that you'll have to pick and choose how to tech up. and some tech trees might be strong against your current enemy but a newer enemy, even a newer player, might choose a tech tree your weak against and wipe the floor with you. meaning that it all comes down to strategic choices and skill in combat
Yes, but that imposes arbitrary limits, meaning the experienced player who spent a week building up his forces will be utterly destroyed by this new person who simply got lucky.
That and we haven't even begun discussion on server limits...
That and we haven't even begun discussion on server limits...
[url=http://www.fallingsandgame.com/][img]http://www.gaussianstudios.co.cc/hosting/fsgbanneram3.png[/img][/url]
tl;dr-ers will be shot on sight.
[size=75][url=http://bsf.wikidot.com/]BSF Wiki[/url]
"I have measured your 'fun', and science has quantitatively rated it a three." ~Lord Tim (Data Realms Fan Forums)[/size]
tl;dr-ers will be shot on sight.
[size=75][url=http://bsf.wikidot.com/]BSF Wiki[/url]
"I have measured your 'fun', and science has quantitatively rated it a three." ~Lord Tim (Data Realms Fan Forums)[/size]
This is discussion of the problems of creating such a game, not making the game directly.
[url=http://www.fallingsandgame.com/][img]http://www.gaussianstudios.co.cc/hosting/fsgbanneram3.png[/img][/url]
tl;dr-ers will be shot on sight.
[size=75][url=http://bsf.wikidot.com/]BSF Wiki[/url]
"I have measured your 'fun', and science has quantitatively rated it a three." ~Lord Tim (Data Realms Fan Forums)[/size]
tl;dr-ers will be shot on sight.
[size=75][url=http://bsf.wikidot.com/]BSF Wiki[/url]
"I have measured your 'fun', and science has quantitatively rated it a three." ~Lord Tim (Data Realms Fan Forums)[/size]