With AoC being a let down for me, and I have already finished Deus Ex 2 and Mass Effect (both of the fun games, but not much motivation for replay) I am seeing what else I can get for free-ish.
Being the old geek that I am, SOE really likes me. I think have been at the beginning of every game they have except Matrix Online. So right now I have free access to play Vanguard, Everquest and Everquest II, again. And I since they count veteran rewards since initial account creation and not timed played, I have a decent amount of swag waiting for me.
So this weekend I chose Vanguard. Of the games, it has the most interesting "other features" then the basic quest-grind-loot-level. I was a big fan of Vanguard Diplomacy and had a few server and world firsts to my credit when the game came out.
Most of the time was spent figuring out where I was again and what I could do. It took a while to relearn my character's skills, but I seemed to get the hang of it.
However, I realized something. I hate "quests." Well I hate the plethora of quests that are not littered in games these days. I thought it was a good thing when WoW made it possible to "quest" your way from 1 to 50. But then it seemed that was the only way. And with that many quests their importance and significance was diminished. And I felt like I was running around doing errands for just some bits of coin.
Going back I liked the early days of Dark Age of Camelot. There were enough quests to point you in the right direction to hunt at your level, but they were not a major part of your XP. Quests did offer rewards like good pieces of equipment for your level that although they were nice, not needed.
Also I think all "quests" should be solo-able. They are something to give you direction when you are on your own. You don't need a quest to kill and loot the Boss at the bottom of a dungeon. The "quest" reward should be looted there and then using something similar to the DDO treasure method. (Everyone gets an equal share and the "quest" items.")
Bring back the Epicness of quests by making them rarer and more significant. Make it such that you have a choice in how you want to achieve it.
Showing posts with label Game Theory. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Game Theory. Show all posts
Monday, July 7, 2008
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Crafting: Buildin the better mouse trap in game
The Warhammer devs recently released a video podcast on Crafting in WAR.
It is interesting that their two design goals (no grinding useless items, no recipes) are not completely new. They are elements of crafting that are pre-WoW. What is sad is that recent MMOs usually tend to these elements. Lord of the Rings was almost exactly like WoW. Even Vanguard and EQ2 were mostly fixed recipes, you could add some extra bonuses in some items on the fly.
At least with Vanguard and EQ2 there was a bit of a mini-game in actually creating the items and there were various levels of quality.
But putting all that aside, what has and has not worked for crafting in MMORPGs?
The first problem you have to address is which is better. Crafted items or Looted items? For example, why should I spend all my time crafting a sword when it turns out to be a fairly common drop from mobs. Then there is the flip side, why take down bosses for loot if crafting can make a better item.
There are two options to this. First is the EVE and Pirates of the Burning Seas Method. Manufactured items and loot items are the same thing. There is the occasional "named" item that is better, but there is still some rarity.
The second option is to not have the same type items both as loot and crafted. In Star Wars Galaxies, all gear was player created. There was still useful loot like (like dragon pearls and holocrons) but you had no overlap between the two sources of goods.
The second problem is one of over supply. In order to maintain a need for crafting, everything that is craftable must be consumable or destroyable. Much in the same why that you have to regulate the money supply in a game, you have to regulate the item supply.
In EVE, every item can be broken down in to it component parts in order to make different things. Due to built in inefficiencies both in manufacturing and recycling, raw materials are slowly removed from the system with every step. Also every time a ship was destroyed, some of the components would be destroyed as well.
SWG had a fairly aggressive item decay system. Every time you used your weapon it slowly lost durability. The goal here is to make sure that there is enough crafting going on to replace all the decaying equipment at reasonable cost. A player will not spend more money on an item then it will yield in its life time. In fact most players will expect at least a 10:1 if not 100:1 return on investment. For example, If I spend 1000 credits on a rifle, I better be able to make at least 100,000 credits before I have to replace it.
It is interesting that their two design goals (no grinding useless items, no recipes) are not completely new. They are elements of crafting that are pre-WoW. What is sad is that recent MMOs usually tend to these elements. Lord of the Rings was almost exactly like WoW. Even Vanguard and EQ2 were mostly fixed recipes, you could add some extra bonuses in some items on the fly.
At least with Vanguard and EQ2 there was a bit of a mini-game in actually creating the items and there were various levels of quality.
But putting all that aside, what has and has not worked for crafting in MMORPGs?
The first problem you have to address is which is better. Crafted items or Looted items? For example, why should I spend all my time crafting a sword when it turns out to be a fairly common drop from mobs. Then there is the flip side, why take down bosses for loot if crafting can make a better item.
There are two options to this. First is the EVE and Pirates of the Burning Seas Method. Manufactured items and loot items are the same thing. There is the occasional "named" item that is better, but there is still some rarity.
The second option is to not have the same type items both as loot and crafted. In Star Wars Galaxies, all gear was player created. There was still useful loot like (like dragon pearls and holocrons) but you had no overlap between the two sources of goods.
The second problem is one of over supply. In order to maintain a need for crafting, everything that is craftable must be consumable or destroyable. Much in the same why that you have to regulate the money supply in a game, you have to regulate the item supply.
In EVE, every item can be broken down in to it component parts in order to make different things. Due to built in inefficiencies both in manufacturing and recycling, raw materials are slowly removed from the system with every step. Also every time a ship was destroyed, some of the components would be destroyed as well.
SWG had a fairly aggressive item decay system. Every time you used your weapon it slowly lost durability. The goal here is to make sure that there is enough crafting going on to replace all the decaying equipment at reasonable cost. A player will not spend more money on an item then it will yield in its life time. In fact most players will expect at least a 10:1 if not 100:1 return on investment. For example, If I spend 1000 credits on a rifle, I better be able to make at least 100,000 credits before I have to replace it.
Monday, June 2, 2008
We are all Individuals
There is a very weird empirical result of online game design:
The more freedom you offer in character creation and customization, the more everyone will be the same.
It is sort of a contradiction, but it is part of the reason why there are so few "classless" MMORPG systems out there. Now this isn't entirely true as there have been successful Classless games. It all has to do with the amount of freedom of character design is useful in the game. Yet, in the last two years, every major MMORPG release has been class-based.
So how do Classless Systems fail? And why are developers cautious around them?
Back in Ultima Online and Asheron's Call, you had the choice of picking any skills you wanted and create your character freely. Over time, it turned out that there was really only one build that the great majority of players used. AC was worse since there were skills that you could specialize in that were in the end completely useless except in the rarest of cases. A player may have an alt for some of the lesser used but profitable trade/craft skills, but for the most part it was one build or death.
Class based systems suffer a similar fate. WoW has all its classes and feat trees, however, there is usually two or three "accepted" builds for each class in order to be competitive. Now for the single/solo/small group player, you can get away a bit from not being optimal. But when the end game is competition with other players (though Raids and PvP) you have to get every last edge you can.
EVE and Star Wars Galaxies (Pre-NGE) were able to have open ended character design with limited similarities.
In SWG you could easily become a Master in multiple professions. And there were usually multiple professions for different tasks. For example, you could become a specialist in pistols, carbines, rifles or heavy weapons. Ideally neither one of the ranged combat groups was always better than the other. Same for the Melee combat groups, and the different Support/Buff, and Crafter Professions. (There also hybrid professions like the Bounty Hunter and Creature Handler, and they had their own interesting bits.)
The problem with SWG is that there was a point that you were "done" improving your character.
EVE has an open ended character creation and it is also functionally limitless. Your character can always learn more.
There are limited number of skills needed create a nice Raven Missile boat with a solid passive shield tank for missions, but a different set of skills are needed to fly an Apoc armor tank. Both ships fit the same general role, and have certain advantages depending on the specific task at hand.
But then if you want to go in to mining that is a whole different set of skills, not to mention manufacturing and a host of other tasks that are profitable in game.
Over time your character can learn multiple different fields and specialties. But what you are doing at the moment depends on the ship you are flying. Your character's combat skills mean nothing when you are piloting a freighter.
In order for a classless system to succeed it needs the following:
1) There are multiple ways doing one thing. With no one way being always the best.
2) There are many different thing that one can do.
3) Ability for continuous growth.
The problem now is make sure that each method of doing something is equivalent. In EVE there are 4 different type of primary weapon systems. Though it took a while for the devs to finally make sure that each weapon system had its place. And no one weapon system was best in all cases. SWG had the same balance problem between its ranged weapon groups at start.
Having many things to do means a lot more design. You can't just create a crafting mini-game to churn out products if those products have no use in the final cause of the game itself. Or what is the point of being stealthy and have the ability to avoid combat if in the end the game is all about combat?
In SWG it was all about the Galactic Civil War. Most professions had something that could directly contribute to the cause. But a few (entertainers) had very little direct impact on the war.
EVE is much more open ended. Your personal goals are yours alone. Though even in the game of alliance domination, everyone is needed. Building a Titian, requires many different professions, not just the industrialists to make them.
The more freedom you offer in character creation and customization, the more everyone will be the same.
It is sort of a contradiction, but it is part of the reason why there are so few "classless" MMORPG systems out there. Now this isn't entirely true as there have been successful Classless games. It all has to do with the amount of freedom of character design is useful in the game. Yet, in the last two years, every major MMORPG release has been class-based.
So how do Classless Systems fail? And why are developers cautious around them?
Back in Ultima Online and Asheron's Call, you had the choice of picking any skills you wanted and create your character freely. Over time, it turned out that there was really only one build that the great majority of players used. AC was worse since there were skills that you could specialize in that were in the end completely useless except in the rarest of cases. A player may have an alt for some of the lesser used but profitable trade/craft skills, but for the most part it was one build or death.
Class based systems suffer a similar fate. WoW has all its classes and feat trees, however, there is usually two or three "accepted" builds for each class in order to be competitive. Now for the single/solo/small group player, you can get away a bit from not being optimal. But when the end game is competition with other players (though Raids and PvP) you have to get every last edge you can.
EVE and Star Wars Galaxies (Pre-NGE) were able to have open ended character design with limited similarities.
In SWG you could easily become a Master in multiple professions. And there were usually multiple professions for different tasks. For example, you could become a specialist in pistols, carbines, rifles or heavy weapons. Ideally neither one of the ranged combat groups was always better than the other. Same for the Melee combat groups, and the different Support/Buff, and Crafter Professions. (There also hybrid professions like the Bounty Hunter and Creature Handler, and they had their own interesting bits.)
The problem with SWG is that there was a point that you were "done" improving your character.
EVE has an open ended character creation and it is also functionally limitless. Your character can always learn more.
There are limited number of skills needed create a nice Raven Missile boat with a solid passive shield tank for missions, but a different set of skills are needed to fly an Apoc armor tank. Both ships fit the same general role, and have certain advantages depending on the specific task at hand.
But then if you want to go in to mining that is a whole different set of skills, not to mention manufacturing and a host of other tasks that are profitable in game.
Over time your character can learn multiple different fields and specialties. But what you are doing at the moment depends on the ship you are flying. Your character's combat skills mean nothing when you are piloting a freighter.
In order for a classless system to succeed it needs the following:
1) There are multiple ways doing one thing. With no one way being always the best.
2) There are many different thing that one can do.
3) Ability for continuous growth.
The problem now is make sure that each method of doing something is equivalent. In EVE there are 4 different type of primary weapon systems. Though it took a while for the devs to finally make sure that each weapon system had its place. And no one weapon system was best in all cases. SWG had the same balance problem between its ranged weapon groups at start.
Having many things to do means a lot more design. You can't just create a crafting mini-game to churn out products if those products have no use in the final cause of the game itself. Or what is the point of being stealthy and have the ability to avoid combat if in the end the game is all about combat?
In SWG it was all about the Galactic Civil War. Most professions had something that could directly contribute to the cause. But a few (entertainers) had very little direct impact on the war.
EVE is much more open ended. Your personal goals are yours alone. Though even in the game of alliance domination, everyone is needed. Building a Titian, requires many different professions, not just the industrialists to make them.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Crime and Punishment
One of my issues with most PvP in Online RPGs is the concept of The Gank. In short it is when the attacker has such overwhelming odds that the victim has no chance of winning. In addition, most of the time the Gankers suffer no retribution for their actions. Effectively this is similar to assault and battery in the real world. It is a criminal action with in the context of the game.
Now to be a bit clear, there are two basic types of Gank.
First, there is the Exploit Gank. This is doing something outside the intention of the game design in order to hinder the victim from responding. In Ultima Online you could set up a trap such that the victim would have to load in 1000's of objects to his client thus freezing them in place. During that forced lag, the ganker attacks the victim.
On the other end is the fairly general Ambush Gank. Either a lone powerful character is out sniping victims, or a gang is out terrorizing people, it is all about the same. You over power the opponent so much that it is no challenge at all. This also include those who wait and watch one group of people fight then go in and attack the winners while they are still damaged and weakened.
There is the hybrid Spwan/Load-in Gank. This is similar but not as bad as the exploit gank. The idea here is that there is time between when your character loads in to a new area that the character is there but your client is not ready to respond. From a design perspective, all that is needed is some level of immunity timer to cover that difference. This does not prevent the Ambush Gank, the victim is at least in control of his character before the attack begins. This type of ganking may or may not be an exploit depending on what the developers have done to allow the victim time to respond.
Exploits need to be addressed by the developers themselves to limit the ability to cause such lagging by the players and to punish via account suspension and removal any and all perpetrators of this activity. Using tactics outside the scope of the game world should be punished out side the game world.
Non-exploit ganking should be allowed to happen with in the game to a certain extent. A weaker character or potential victim should be able to have a few options to avoid or run away. In the case of a Spawn camp, the victim should have a window of opportunity to get away before the attackers close in. This should not be guaranteed, but still possible.
But what about in-game consequences for ganking?
Ultima Online had a feature that if you attacked and killed too many people you would be flagged as a murderer. EVE has it that you loose security status and eventually hunted out of some areas of the game. The basic idea is that the more "criminal" you become the more Kill on sight you become in NPC controlled areas.
There are two flaws with this. Death in most games is really just a minor annoyance. Anything that you would lose is replace in a matter of some time. The "good" criminals know how to hedge their losses such that the recovery time is negligible. Death is all the same in most games. So being KoS or even Hunted is just a mild annoyance. To be a punishment, the death as a result of being a criminal has to be more severe than a normal death in the game.
The other flaw is that it punishes the character and not the player. It is still very easy for the player to create another character to take care of any business in areas that the flagged character can not get to. So aside from another minor inconvenience, there isn't any lasting limitations. Any punishment placed on the character is bypassed by the player changing characters. There is very little stopping on character having a host of alts terrorizing the world but never enough by any one of them to get serious in-game sanctions.
In order to get around this, developers and players have to give up the idea of independent alts on an account. There are things that you share among all your characters. For example, you have a global player/account based criminal record. On the flip side you should be freely able to move goods and items between your characters. This will not stop multi-account players, but at least they have to pay something extra.
Now to be a bit clear, there are two basic types of Gank.
First, there is the Exploit Gank. This is doing something outside the intention of the game design in order to hinder the victim from responding. In Ultima Online you could set up a trap such that the victim would have to load in 1000's of objects to his client thus freezing them in place. During that forced lag, the ganker attacks the victim.
On the other end is the fairly general Ambush Gank. Either a lone powerful character is out sniping victims, or a gang is out terrorizing people, it is all about the same. You over power the opponent so much that it is no challenge at all. This also include those who wait and watch one group of people fight then go in and attack the winners while they are still damaged and weakened.
There is the hybrid Spwan/Load-in Gank. This is similar but not as bad as the exploit gank. The idea here is that there is time between when your character loads in to a new area that the character is there but your client is not ready to respond. From a design perspective, all that is needed is some level of immunity timer to cover that difference. This does not prevent the Ambush Gank, the victim is at least in control of his character before the attack begins. This type of ganking may or may not be an exploit depending on what the developers have done to allow the victim time to respond.
Exploits need to be addressed by the developers themselves to limit the ability to cause such lagging by the players and to punish via account suspension and removal any and all perpetrators of this activity. Using tactics outside the scope of the game world should be punished out side the game world.
Non-exploit ganking should be allowed to happen with in the game to a certain extent. A weaker character or potential victim should be able to have a few options to avoid or run away. In the case of a Spawn camp, the victim should have a window of opportunity to get away before the attackers close in. This should not be guaranteed, but still possible.
But what about in-game consequences for ganking?
Ultima Online had a feature that if you attacked and killed too many people you would be flagged as a murderer. EVE has it that you loose security status and eventually hunted out of some areas of the game. The basic idea is that the more "criminal" you become the more Kill on sight you become in NPC controlled areas.
There are two flaws with this. Death in most games is really just a minor annoyance. Anything that you would lose is replace in a matter of some time. The "good" criminals know how to hedge their losses such that the recovery time is negligible. Death is all the same in most games. So being KoS or even Hunted is just a mild annoyance. To be a punishment, the death as a result of being a criminal has to be more severe than a normal death in the game.
The other flaw is that it punishes the character and not the player. It is still very easy for the player to create another character to take care of any business in areas that the flagged character can not get to. So aside from another minor inconvenience, there isn't any lasting limitations. Any punishment placed on the character is bypassed by the player changing characters. There is very little stopping on character having a host of alts terrorizing the world but never enough by any one of them to get serious in-game sanctions.
In order to get around this, developers and players have to give up the idea of independent alts on an account. There are things that you share among all your characters. For example, you have a global player/account based criminal record. On the flip side you should be freely able to move goods and items between your characters. This will not stop multi-account players, but at least they have to pay something extra.
Friday, May 23, 2008
The Mythical End-Game of MMOs
When EQ first came out there was no formal concept of a Raid. It was all about just enjoying playing the game and getting more powerful to see more wonderful things in the world. Getting to level 50 was a real long term goal.
And it was almost a year before the first great dragon of Norath was finally defeated.
Then it happened. Enough people got to level 50 that the crys for "what's next" were heard. In response the first few real Multi-Group areas (aka Raids) came to light. No instead of needing 6 players, you now need 24 max level players to take on these zones. So these zones were designed to be "impossible" but give enough gamers enough time they will break anything you put in the game. And thus the "End-Game" was born.
Suddenly, the game became a race to level 50 so that your character could participate in these raids. The leisurely journey though Norath was gone. And almost every MMO since then has been built on the idea that leveling was just something to do to get to the "real" game itself.
Now lets go back and forward at the same time. Ultima Online and Asheron's Call never succumbed to the Curse of the End-Game. Ultima Online did not have a formal end game. The power difference between a noob and a fully spec'ed out character was not too great. After maybe a few hours to get your skills up to a basic level, you were only limited by your own fear.
AC Just had more levels. And even then after a certain point the levels had less and less meaning. But you did not have to be max level in order to go anywhere. Two characters of different level could still work together and be productive.
So get rid of the race to max level by getting rid of the concept of the "End-Game." Players should be able to participate at any level. For example, in the pre-CU Star Wars Galaxies, you could start taking a part in the Galactic Civil War after getting a few skills for your character. You did not have to be a Master to be a threat on the battlefield.
And it was almost a year before the first great dragon of Norath was finally defeated.
Then it happened. Enough people got to level 50 that the crys for "what's next" were heard. In response the first few real Multi-Group areas (aka Raids) came to light. No instead of needing 6 players, you now need 24 max level players to take on these zones. So these zones were designed to be "impossible" but give enough gamers enough time they will break anything you put in the game. And thus the "End-Game" was born.
Suddenly, the game became a race to level 50 so that your character could participate in these raids. The leisurely journey though Norath was gone. And almost every MMO since then has been built on the idea that leveling was just something to do to get to the "real" game itself.
Now lets go back and forward at the same time. Ultima Online and Asheron's Call never succumbed to the Curse of the End-Game. Ultima Online did not have a formal end game. The power difference between a noob and a fully spec'ed out character was not too great. After maybe a few hours to get your skills up to a basic level, you were only limited by your own fear.
AC Just had more levels. And even then after a certain point the levels had less and less meaning. But you did not have to be max level in order to go anywhere. Two characters of different level could still work together and be productive.
So get rid of the race to max level by getting rid of the concept of the "End-Game." Players should be able to participate at any level. For example, in the pre-CU Star Wars Galaxies, you could start taking a part in the Galactic Civil War after getting a few skills for your character. You did not have to be a Master to be a threat on the battlefield.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
