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.

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.

Chaging Times

Why should you change a good thing? To make more money!

Well that is the theory.

Next week, Wizards of the Coast will be releasing the new 4th Edition Dungeons and Dragons. I am a bit older than the original D&D. And I have played them all in some form or another. Since 3rd Edition came out about eight years ago, I have played quite a bit of it and made quite a few new friends. Though I think 90% of all my friends have been though gaming (directly or indirectly.)

The current version of D&D (aka 3.5) is fairly stable game. For a Table Top game, stable means that you can play the game with rules as written without much confusion. Many of the RPGs in my collection have requires some level of house rules to address mechanical problems or inconsistencies with the core mechanic. Earlier editions of D&D required quiet a few. House rules that address flavor (ie, in my world no one can be an Elf) don't factor into the stability of the game.

But it has suffered like any online RPG over the past 8 years. First there was some power creep as the various class books were added to "enhance" the options to character. Then there was sort of a reset when they released 3.5 in 2003. For the most part that was just a big clean up of the first three years. There were changes but for the most part you did not have to relearn everything.

Then over the past 5 years, more "builder books" were published that added more and more options. As more of these options were included more prone the system was for extreme over-powered characters. Some these options devalued some of the core aspects of the game. But since this is a table top, game a DM could easily limit the available options for their campaign.

I had the good fortune to be a play tester for 4th Edition. (I think I can say that now since my name is up on the Wizard's site.) And with out getting into details it is a playable game. Like all games it has its quirks, but for the most part I did enjoy myself. However this game is a radical change from 3rd (and previous) editions in terms of how it plays. This has lead to a Coal Miner's Debate among my local circle on "Is 4th Edition D&D?"

In away I am very much reminded of Star Wars Galaxies. There was the original game. The first major revamp call the Combat Upgrade, and then finally the redo the whole game from a classless system to a level-based system with the New Game Experience. On its own the current version of SWG is a decent game. It is just a completely different game.

Unlike SWG:NGE, 4th Edition D&D will do well. It is a good game. New gamers don't care about the history of D&D. They want a playable and fun game. And over time the majority of 3rd Players will succumb the lure of the new siren's call. In fact it is kind of brilliant for Wizards. There will be a steady selling of the core rule books over the next few years while players slowly change.

Personally, I am happy enough to enjoy a good afternoon/evening around the table playing with my friends. As long as the system does not get in way of the fun, I don't care what I play.

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.