Action RPG MMO

[IceBlade]

I've thought about why there aren't any action rpg MMO games, and I wonder what you guys think. Is it just that it would lag too much? Is it because controls don't translate to a keyboard well? Or is it something else?

I'm personally suprised there isn't one with the sucess of so many action RPGs, Fable, Legend Of Zelda, the Thief Series, etc. I'm personally waiting because i can't stand traditional RPGs (i don't like slashing someone and missing becuase of the invis-dice). Do any of you think that the next gen consoles might try to usher this in with the headset and easy commands of the controller?

[Methulah]

There are some action MMORPGs [eg PlanetSide, D&D Online and others to come. the age of auto attack then wait is coming to an end].

It will be interesting to see what will happen to gaming and MMO gaming as these advances come, however a good MMO with a good system will be well.. good.

[IceBlade]

planetside is really an FPS, and D&D online is still role of the dice (it uses Dungeon and Dragons version 3 rules (might be wrong on the version) so it is not an Action RPG.

I site SUN as the only action RPG i know thats in development by a major studio.

[Methulah]

You are right, PlanetSide is a FPS, but as we have discussed it does have a few RPG elements (please do not let us get into another definition debate =)).

DDO uses 3.5 rules, which address many of the things wrong with v3. However, they want to make it a bit different to other MMORPGs. So there is no autoattack button. I am seeing an almost Morrowindish system, but with actual reason for the first person (ie: doding manually will actually get you to dodge.).

SUN looks to be a fantastic action RPG, there is another one I saw on MMORPG.com an FPS looking futuristic MMO with _great_ graphics. AutoAssualt is worth watching, as it looks action packed!!

This said, there is a gap in the market for an action MMORPG to fill. In the meantime, I will try to find an MMO where the roleplaying servers roleplay. =)

Thanks.

[Lord_Raven]

I honestly, am not very impressed with Auto Assault, especially its graphics, they are alright, but it does not look like a game that i could get into.

[Methulah]

The futuristic one you saw on MMORPG.com was Huxley, unless I am mistaken. It looks to be what Planetside ought to have been.

DDO will make mokery of 3.5, turning it into Diablo MMO in 3D set in Errebon (or whatever). turbine have been pissing me off recently. They got the gameplay system with most MMO potential and made it a hack 'n' slash. Then they got one of the best and deepest fantasy settings (Middle Earth) planned an awesome game, then said that it won't be middle earth made in supreme detail for all you elves and people to live in, it will be a hack 'n' slash that follows the LoTR storyline. Curse you. Now you have the Star Trek license, in what way will you cock that up!!?!

Seriously pisses me off. I want to see a real MMORPG, not some MMOH&S. *whines*

[Lord_Raven]

still breathing?

[Mihail121]

Yes, the problem with the most MMORGPs is exactly the missing RGP part. The best example i can think of is "Knights Online". In this game the only goal is to kill everything that moves and some people might also give you a reward for it :) I would like to see something like Baldurs Gate or Iswind Dale in MMO variant.

[Methulah]

I'm alive. Just.

[Lord_Raven]

I think that more people would be interested in playing games where the whole storyline affects everyone playing the game, no matter where they are, but also, creating new variants for the game itself,somewhat like an RPG, but instead of just having to kill the "bad guys", and the henchmen, many other things throughout the story. I will dwell on this thought, thank you Mihail!

[Methulah]

I would like to see something like Baldurs Gate or Iswind Dale in MMO variant.
Exactly. How hard can it be, with all those developers pouring millions into games that are basically that same as the next one, except with feature X and set in campaign setting Y.

It is really easy to create a game like Baldurs Gate or even Fallout (except in first person, I get wierded out by playing 3rd person MMO games) in MMO. Heck, Morrowind was perfectly set up for it (minus the network library) and it would have been great.

I don't think there has ever been an MMORPG project that was a true RPG. I am working on one now, but there should be a professional studio who can take the initiative to get in there and make something good.

[Axehilt]

True RPGs
The only "true RPG" that can ever exist in MMORPGs is the small sects of players who take it upon themselves to roleplay within the game's confines. This already happens in current MMORPGs to a minor extent, and you really can't expect it to happen in any greater capacity.

The expectation of a "true RPG" is usually fairly unreasonable to begin with. It brings to mind an actual sort of Dungeon Master human that you're interacting with - someone who can change how the story develops in realtime. I think it's pretty obvious that providing an army of live-human DMs for a MMORPG is not economically viable.

Besides which, most of my actual AD&D sessions were 50% adventure, 50% laughter and BS. I'm sure many of you have seen that classic Dead Ale Wives video ("roll the dice to see if I'm getting drunk!!"), and from my experience it's really not that far off the mark.
(here's the 8-bit version: http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=11945)

While I feel Voice Communication would go a long ways towards giving modern MMORPGs more of that "true RPG" feel, there are inevitably players whose expectations will never be fully met. Again, the root of the problem lies in convincing the players themselves of their responsibility to role-play. You're dealing with a massive amont of players, and expecting all of them to act in a manner befitting your personal definition of "true RPG" is going to lead you to disappointment.

Action MMORPGs
Back on topic, perhaps we should ask "Why do you feel World of Warcraft ISN'T an Action MMORPG?"

Combat is fairly fast paced and occurs in realtime. The only main differences between WOW and Diablo 2 (my "definition" of an Action RPG) is the point of view, and the rate you kill monsters. And other MMORPGs already use 3/4ths overhead points of view (Ragnarok Online) or have you kill large groups of enemies at once (City of Heroes).

Don't get me wrong: I still feel MMORPGs are rather slowish and would love to see the frenzied pace of Diablo 2 applied fully to the MMORPG genre. But really, there's not a huge difference between D2 and WOW, aside from pacing.

Baldur's Gate: The MMORPG
Lastly, Mihail121 mentioned seeing MMORPGs like Baldur's Gate. I'm not really sure that's possible.

In terms of graphics, BG's 3/4ths perspective isn't the best for MMORPGs. It's just not as immersive as the 1st/3rd person perspective used in games like WOW. And immersion is a big factor in making a game feel like a role-playing game.

In terms of storyline, solo games have a tremendous advantage because the player is the one hero of the plotline and everything can revolve around him to make him feel like the hero. This is not the case in MMOs.

In MMORPGs no matter how you portray your story, it will have disadvantages that a single player storyline wouldn't have. If you have quests take place in the main game world, your actions lack permanency (ie, the Boss monster you killed respawns 4 minutes later.) If you have quests take place fully inside private instances (Guild Wars), your actions feel less a part of a massive world. If you have epic world-changing storylines (Asheron's Call), then every player ends up feeling totally powerless to affect that main storyline because they play such a small part.

[Methulah]

It is very posible to have thousands and thousands of storylines set up, and players can very easily choose to take one, or even ten. Because the person who did this or that would get the other then there would be people competing to do these "quests."

But the aren't really quests. They are more a bunch of quests linked together, and the completion - or non-completion of them will alter the world. There could be multiple sides to the quest, helping or hindering the antagonist.

Yes, I would like to see it in 1st person view, but IO erally think that good game mechanics will seriously help roleplay. For example, if you were dumped in the up-coming Oblivion (assuming it is similar to Morrowind), with alll the things you can do, then it would seem stupid not to roleplay.

[Xanas]

The best idea I can think of is something that's a variant of the NWN system. I'm pretty sure as said it isn't commercially viable, but the idea of having a set of worlds with ~1000 players and some DMs that are unpaid as well I think is workable. I DMed in NWN myself and developed for the game, and it was a lot of work but it was fun and enjoyable stuff so I liked it. I was more the scripter type but there were a lot of DMs who did more of the in game questing and such which was really great when done well.

While this may not be commercially viable in the large scale and a company may not see it as being the most profitable, I am actually dumb enough to believe you could make some money if you made a quality game. I also think that you could still leave the DMs unpaid and people would still desire to take that kind of position in the game because it's fun in it's own sort of way.

Most MMOs already pay for GMs, they just don't have any effect on the world because they only do customer service, but they could do more if the company desired.

The problem of course is fear of customers not liking some of the changes, etc. Also the fact that DMs may not do as even you as server op would like. They do have a lot of power after all. With some experience in NWN I do believe if you keep the server size limited to around 1000 at any time, your problems could be managed. You would need a good process to select people for DM positions of course, but again I think this is possible.

Now, as for the world itself and ways of making a story. I don't think an RPG needs a single unified story. What it does need is people to care about their characters and their relation to the world. I'm sure that role-playing restrictions would be difficult to enforce, I know the problems of that but again, with the smaller server size, and with the willingness to actually ban people for violations I think you could do very well. Also, I'd always provide people a server where they wouldn't have forced role-play as well so they would only be banned from the RP server if they broke the rules.

I also agree very much with the above poster that mechanics help roleplay. If you put the mechanics in the game people will desire to roleplay, but you need to be smart about how you manage things.

I am currently working with a team for an NWN2 project that we will start when that game is released. I would really love to just make my own game and do it, but obviously starting at a higher level with a scripting language is a lot easier :) In the long run I really hope to do the game and features as well though with a team of people and am teaching myself as much as I can to that end.

Anyway, our goal in NWN2 is to develop systems which will autogenerate quests and events based on roaming NPC AI, etc. Creatures will be setup to takeover areas, fight one another, attack villages, etc. Templates will be created for various quests to be setup over time and varied slightly. DMs will be given tools to interact with the various module systems in order to liven up these basic quests whenever they are on. When they aren't on it should still make for a much more lively game by having a truly evolving world that isn't static. You won't go to an area one day and kill all the goblins only to find them respawned the next. I hated respawn systems and I believe I have a good system worked out that will allow for a more realistic "rehabitation" of areas.

I'm not just looking at this in the area of spawns and quests though. I plan to implement everything in the crafting system in a similar manner. DMs would be able to add new items on the fly that make sense for their quest and leave hints around the world to help the PCs in crafting it.

Of course a lot of work will go into the economy, trying to make something pretty dynamic in that area also that is fairly balanced and doesn't create too much inflation.

Lots and lots of work to be done at the high level anyway, so I'm figuring that it will be great fun doing this and it will be good learning if I am able to make a game of my own down the road.

[Methulah]

Good luck with your project, it sounds very interesting. I would like to states that a lot of people, myself included, would be GMs for MMORPGs, with no pay wanted whatsoever. They could target students that have a few hours a week free and get them to be dungeon masters in their free time. I know a lot of people who would be intersted.

[Axehilt]

It is very posible to have thousands and thousands of storylines set up, and players can very easily choose to take one, or even ten. Because the person who did this or that would get the other then there would be people competing to do these "quests."

But they aren't really quests. They are more a bunch of quests linked together, and the completion - or non-completion of them will alter the world. There could be multiple sides to the quest, helping or hindering the antagonist.

I never said that thousands of storylines couldn't exist. That's what you have now in WOW and other modern MMORPGs - each quest is essentially a storyline, or part of a storyline.

But I've never seen a game where completion/failure actually affects the game world permanently.

I suppose Shadowbane seemed to be mostly player-run, but I never suffered through enough of the game's abysmally dull PVE to discover if there was enjoyable gameplay past the levelling phase. My impression was that cities were all under player control (and actually built by players, I think?) and changed hands based on PVP wars. And they must've had a good system for divvying up power because there never seemed to be one totally-dominant faction. As for storyline, SB didn't have much storyline to speak of.

Most MMORPGs pay for GMs, but a Customer Service GM and an actual Storytelling GM require completely different skillsets. One person hired specifically for their excellent storytelling skills can write storylines for all of your quests - while the storylines will be static* they will be of consistently high quality for all your players. This is far easier than trying to monitor the quality of an army of Storytelling GMs, especially if they are volunteers.

(* not necessarily linear, just lacking in the flexibility that a live GM would have in adapting the storyline to player actions.)

I would definitely like to see Xanas' system of AI claiming/attacking/defending territories on its own. That's the type of thing I've always wanted to see in MMORPGs.

Autogenerating quests from these invasions might be somewhat difficult to do without being impersonal. Anarchy Online's autogenerated missions were very drab. At least it worked decently, since missions were instanced and tailored to the player's level - and created on-demand.

Xanas will have to solve the issue of creating enough strife in the world to meet with the demands of players - nobody wants to spend their game time waiting around for the Kobolds to attack Augerbrook just so they can get a quest. Also, the more players are in the game world, the more frequent these attacks have to be simply to keep people busy - leading to the possible feeling that players aren't actually accomplishing anything by saving Augerbrook since it'll be attacked by the next spawn in 5 minutes. I would guess that Difficulty Level would be handled similarly to existing MMORPGs - if you're in the level 20-30 zone, only level 20-30 monsters will invade the nearby area.

Constructive criticism aside, I'd love to see a MMORPG that got past what I have coined, "Field of Monsters" gameplay. In other words, games where monsters wander the wilderness like mindless cattle waiting to be killed. It makes the world seem so dead and fake. Xanas' suggested system (where monsters actually move around the world with purpose) is something I would love to see someone do successfully!

[Methulah]

I never said that thousands of storylines couldn't exist. That's what you have now in WOW and other modern MMORPGs - each quest is essentially a storyline, or part of a storyline.

No, sorry, I meant thousands of storylines of the scope and epicity (word?) of the Baldurs Gate and NWN storylines. They can only be done once and will have a time when the antagonist will complete their plans (for a generic concept) and then they will succeed. Players would be forced to think a little and actually care for their world as something more than just getting XP and gold.

I, for one, wouldn't call a quest that says "kill 25 of X" or "go to person Y and give him/her item Z" that stuff just isn't a storyline. I mean a stroyline along the scopes of a plague taking over a town, and... well.. all NWN fans know what I am talking about.

If we can have this sort of stuff in MMOs, then players will be able to go either way. They are contributing to a stroyline, or fighting against another group of adventurers for the power and glory to be awarded to the person who completes it - or they may take a liking to someone or something, and repel a group of adventurers who are on a "quest" to stop it.

Even the storylines in MMORPGs with storylines like Horizons and World of Warcraft were shallow and static, and left no room for two parties, instead being a collection of "quests" that could be completed multiple times by multiple parties to get the same reward and the same praise from the same NPC. Boring.

I propose that an MMORPG with multiple storylines, with new ones cropping up all the time would help roleplaying. The outcome of the story is variable, depending on who "wins" the "conflict". The outcome changes the world.

I know it is hard, but I for one would be happy to work for free - even for a commercial studio whom I hate *cough* SOE *cough*(not that they would) - scripting and designing these storylines.

[Axehilt]

I'm a bit confused on the "left no room for two parties" thing. Do you mean PVP quests?

Regarding simplistic quests in MMORPGs, I feel that's entirely a matter of presentation.

Think about your favorite novel, NWN, and WOW. Each of their plots can be simplified into a few basic objectives: "kill x monsters", "kill the boss", "escort the vulnerable person(s)", and "deliver thing x" being the most common. From the most fantastic movie you've ever watched to the dullest MMORPG quest you ever slaved through, the actual objectives aren't the issue - the presentation is.

Incidently, multiple towns in WOW are affected by plagues. Just like Diablo 2, WoW has a decent storyline; it's just presented in such a passive, easily-bypassable way that most people think the storyline either sucks or that there's no storyline at all.

For the record, I've played BG1, BG2, and NWN. I suppose the real strength of those games is (aside from the excellent writing) the abundance of options available to the player for interacting with the NPCs. Storylines can end up branching off in multiple directions because of this - something that definitely isn't found in any MMORPG I've played.

Another advantage of NWN is it primarily being a single player game. In fact I think part of my overall "blah" attitude towards NWN stems from the fact that my first few play-throughs were multiplayer, rushing through quests too fast to enjoy the storyline. The other part of my "blah" attitude stems from it using a combat system which was intentionally simplified for tabletop gaming. Since you're not relying on physical dice rolls it only makes sense to fully utilize the PC/console's computing power, by creating a truly deep combat system (WoW, Fallout, and Xenosaga to name a few.)

Guild Wars is definitely the best MMORPG I've played so far in terms of presentation. Unlike most MMORPGs where the story resignates itself to a passive role, Guild Wars thrusts the storyline into the player's face and even makes him part of the cutscenes. Poor voiceacting and questionable plot/script aside, I hope we see more MMORPGs that continue to push the envelope in terms of immersive gameplay.

I think instances are the way of the future for MMORPGs, since they have most of the advantages of solo games (ie a private game designed to make you specifically feel like the hero) and most of the advantages of multiplayer games (friends to play with or against; and the whole social aspect of gaming.) It'll take some pretty fancy ideas to convince me that epic, immersive storyline can be portrayed in an MMORPG without lots of private instancing.

[Xanas]

You make good criticism. I will definetly have to keep a lot of that in mind. Certainly autogenerated quests don't yield themselves to the absolute best presentation and writing. There just isn't a way to have a good story without a human, and you can't get away from the need for a good deal of DM involvement.

As far as the speed of invasions and such that's also a good point. Thinking about it, I can see people causing problems with the system. If I have a level 20 character going through territories where typically level 5 creatures roam and wiping everything out, what do I do? Do I tell them to go away? I mean ideally they'd have something interesting to do at their level also, but what if they just like being powerful and killing low level creatures easily?

Obviously things like that are real issues. I want to make sure there is enough area/towns for things to be happening pretty much all the time. In NWN2 the worlds will be fairly small compared to a full scale MMO and there will be less players. It may not be possible to just increase the scale up to a 1000 player game. Certainly doing that could also change the feel of the game by having change be too fast, such that players do feel powerless.

Presentation is difficult. I like WoW but it is too easy to avoid the quest text there even if it is good. And I even do agree that the Diablo 2 story is not bad really, all things considered. DMs are going to have to be the main solution to presentation, I just don't think there is any way completely around that :) I will try to make more dynamic templates and get as much DM/writer help on writing stories that I think can be replicated and still make sense, but it will be difficult.

Instancing was an interesting idea to me in WoW when I went for that game. I thought it might provide a single player feel but at least in that game it doesn't really. It did for awhile, but once you reach level 60 you redo the same instances over and over and over again, and it's just.. very lackluster at that point. I make a new alt about every time I hit 60 with a character, and people think I'm strange but honestly I like progression and exploration in RPGs and that just dies in WoW when you hit 60.

[Methulah]

Instancing was an interesting idea to me in WoW when I went for that game. I thought it might provide a single player feel but at least in that game it doesn't really. It did for awhile, but once you reach level 60 you redo the same instances over and over and over again, and it's just.. very lackluster at that point. I make a new alt about every time I hit 60 with a character, and people think I'm strange but honestly I like progression and exploration in RPGs and that just dies in WoW when you hit 60.
Everquest had a good system to overcome that. Alternate Advancement (A.A.) points were getable after you had reached level fifty-two. You can set how much of your XP goes to standard leveling and how much goes to AA points, which can buy you awesome things like extended spells and extra skills. This system was pretty cool.

Incidently, multiple towns in WOW are affected by plagues. Just like Diablo 2, WoW has a decent storyline; it's just presented in such a passive, easily-bypassable way that most people think the storyline either sucks or that there's no storyline at all.
Yes, but there is no direct influence over the world I did mention WoW aas having a storyline. As long as the storyline takes a backseat, it isn't really there. If you can play a game without being influenced by it, it need not exist really.

[Axehilt]

You make good criticism. I will definetly have to keep a lot of that in mind. Certainly autogenerated quests don't yield themselves to the absolute best presentation and writing. There just isn't a way to have a good story without a human, and you can't get away from the need for a good deal of DM involvement.

Instancing was an interesting idea to me in WoW when I went for that game. I thought it might provide a single player feel but at least in that game it doesn't really. It did for awhile, but once you reach level 60 you redo the same instances over and over and over again, and it's just.. very lackluster at that point. I make a new alt about every time I hit 60 with a character, and people think I'm strange but honestly I like progression and exploration in RPGs and that just dies in WoW when you hit 60.

Whether or not a game has instances, if players have to reptitiously farm items to increase their characters strength they'll rapidly become bored. WoW's "instance boredom" is completely derived from this forced item farming, not because instancing itself is a bad idea.

I think games can still keep their content interesting and story-driven without resorting to live DMs. I also feel that using instances would make a designers' life much easier, as it's a controlled environment and you can do so much more without having to worry about a million things that could go wrong.

Then again if you're mostly referring to a NWN 2 mod, I would probably agree that DMs might be the easiest solution to presentation. A lot of my comments are made in regards to MMORPG theory in general, and not with the mindset of working under the constraints of NWN 2's engine.

The less players you have to take into consideration at once, the easier a system will be to design. Designing an private instanced quest for a simple 5-man group is far easier than having to account for griefers, high-level bored players, players of opposing PVP factions, etc in the "overworld".

Because instances are so much more controlled, you're able to really excel in terms of presentation - the storyline can more directly involve the player and characters can move around much more freely (whereas in an "overworld" setting, NPCs like quest givers almost have to remain stationary and non-combative.)

[Xanas]

It's the "influence over the world" that is the main problem with instancing. Yes, you can have better control, but that control takes away the players ability to influence things that affect other people outside of the instance. It's an advantage and a disadvantage, depending on the type of game you want to make.

This also means that while the presentation can be better on the quests, the quests are going to be designed to be done over and over. The way I'm trying to build systems is so that the quests are "oneshot" (completed once), but that the system generates new quests/etc. so that the game remains interesting with some DM involvement.

I'm not saying instancing isn't a good idea for any game, but at least for what I am wanting to do I don't know if it would really help. It's a lot more like making a bunch of small rpg stories for each person but it doesn't give them much ownership of the world at large.

[Sate]

Hey people.

I too lament the biggest problems with existing MMONRPG fare:
1) not an RPG because nothing you ever do really seems to matter much or change anything as opposed to many wonderful offline games where you save the universe from evil
2) no action in the sense of what makes action games (RPG or not, with or without a story) such as Zelda, FPS titles, etc fun to play

This is what leads to the tedious treadmill feeling in existant titles. Exceptions prove the rule: Phantasy Star Online and Endless Ages were just flat-out more viscerally *fun* to play thanks to the action-y gameplay they offer(even if they ultimately fail for other reasons).

So No. 2 can be remedied but No. 1 can not. Each of say, 100,000 players simply can not save the world and crush all evil. It isnt even "presentation" that makes a compelling RPG its the fact that you yourself play a pivotal role in the story. If you give people little instances and DMs, its no longer MMON. Its massively tiny online. Not that that couldnt be fun.

So what might be done to salvage the situation? The good news is injecting some visceral action goes a long way- after all in really fun action games (from sports to 2d fighters to FPS) we often could care less about the plot. In the best action/rpgs for example, we rarely or never set off to "level". Leveling is something that happens along the way to doing something fun or interesting. Remember? Character advancement used to be part of how we got to some plot-related goal.. but with any significant plots now removed it simply IS the goal. And how utterly, painfully boring that is. Circular and pointless. I'm leveling so I can.. er.. fight mobs better and level some more. This lesson is clear: make the "work" part of the game unabashedly entertaining *in and of itself*, such that people would do it sometimes regardless of any loot/xp benefit.

The action soapbox aside, I do agree so much more could be done to make the shardiverse a more living, dynamic place. So you cant personally resolve the central storyline. Like some have suggested, you could certainly have autonomous faction mobs that have a plan and course of action they will execute. This plan would not be predictable or recurrng every 5 minutes or days and it would significantly impact some part of the game world- unless you stop them or perhaps so long as you help them. It should not necessarily require a 100 man army to impact the situation either. This is just an example.
There should be many mini-games, card games whatever in addition to "full scale" sub-games/activities that may or may not in any way advance your character but are fun distractions that make the world a more colorful, interesting place. Examples: race track type events that play more like GTA than WoW+ autorun, organized tournament pvp locales with more interesting game rules than "kill the other guy", dance clubs where players actually create their own dance animations, touristy vessel trips through/under air/water/earth/etc just to kick back and take in scenery, an ice rink to skate around on like a retard, a tavern with actual in-game media(audio, video, flash content) displaying on a tv-like screen pertinent content such as news etc. This content could be created by the devs or taken from pop culture sources at large (hopefully with an eye toward maintaining immersion to some extent). Just a few ideas, you could probably dream up dozens more along these lines.
Another part of the dynamicism problem is the incredibly static nature of the MMON worlds (with a very few exceptions). WoW, in spite of its popularity might be the biggest offender here. It cant even rain in WoW. Ouch that hurts, every day is identical to the last. Other things absent or brazenly static: no seasons, no way to so much as sway a tree branch or leave a footprint anywhere (beyond say 6 seconds), no change in the sky(moon, stars, etc..,), no tides, no destructable objects whatsoever. I think almost everything should be damageable if not entirely destructable(and repairable over time by work crews of elves, oompa-loompahs, or robotic drones as the genre may warrant). I agree some of this is a technology problem. But to be sure, some of it on some scale could be done today. Let me chop down a tree or something. Anything would help. Speaking of realism, anyone should be able to attack anyone else, period. In your party, guild, family, faction or not. Imagine if you could take swift revenge on that brazen ninjalooter. I bet there'd be a lot less of them around if you could. Level should be irrelevant too. To those fearful of griefers I hasten to add unsavory actions would have serious consequences, the level of "seriousness" adjusted up until an acceptable balance of freedom and griefing is met.

I'm no dev or anything. I'm just a gamer who was infinitely let-down the day EQ was released and I've tried to pinpoint why that happened. People with actual creativity and vision could/have/will address these problems and I'll just have to wait it out.

-s

[Axehilt]

This is what leads to the tedious treadmill feeling in existant titles. Exceptions prove the rule: Phantasy Star Online and Endless Ages were just flat-out more viscerally *fun* to play thanks to the action-y gameplay they offer(even if they ultimately fail for other reasons).

So No. 2 can be remedied but No. 1 can not. Each of say, 100,000 players simply can not save the world and crush all evil. It isnt even "presentation" that makes a compelling RPG its the fact that you yourself play a pivotal role in the story. If you give people little instances and DMs, its no longer MMON. Its massively tiny online. Not that that couldnt be fun.

Another part of the dynamicism problem is the incredibly static nature of the MMON worlds (with a very few exceptions). WoW, in spite of its popularity might be the biggest offender here. It cant even rain in WoW. Ouch that hurts, every day is identical to the last. Other things absent or brazenly static: no seasons, no way to so much as sway a tree branch or leave a footprint anywhere (beyond say 6 seconds), no change in the sky(moon, stars, etc..,), no tides, no destructable objects whatsoever. I think almost everything should be damageable if not entirely destructable(and repairable over time by work crews of elves, oompa-loompahs, or robotic drones as the genre may warrant). I agree some of this is a technology problem. But to be sure, some of it on some scale could be done today. Let me chop down a tree or something. Anything would help. Speaking of realism, anyone should be able to attack anyone else, period. In your party, guild, family, faction or not. Imagine if you could take swift revenge on that brazen ninjalooter. I bet there'd be a lot less of them around if you could. Level should be irrelevant too. To those fearful of griefers I hasten to add unsavory actions would have serious consequences, the level of "seriousness" adjusted up until an acceptable balance of freedom and griefing is met.
-s

Well despite my disagreeing with you about PSO's combat being fun (compared to D2 it's just too slow,) I'd like to note that you did seem to have fun with the game, despite it not really being a MMO (according to your 2nd paragraph, PSO is a massively tiny online game.) I would suggest that whether or not a game is widely considered "massive", it's the fun factor that matters most - who cares if a game instances you into personal dungeons, as long as it's fun?

This naturally leads into the question of how much people value that single persistent game world - how fun it is for them. Personally I'm really flexible in my gaming - if it's fun, I'll play it, and I won't get too stuck on technicalities.

Your second request of being able to damage the world and damage your 'teammates' is really risky stuff. Remember that the ninja looter could very well be the one killing you in order to ninja loot that awesome item. And personally I get irritated enough when a WoW boss mob which I need for a quest is killed just before I get there - imagine if grief players could destroy the town where I got the quest to begin with! (And I've heard EQ1's boss mobs have even worse spawn rates; I couldn't imagine suffering through that kind of dev-driven abuse of players.)

Still, I think there might be ways to limit team-killing properly. Planetside uses a Grief Point system which is pretty effective at preventing grief players. It's a MMOFPS where friendly fire is always on, yet you don't see a huge amount of griefing, because when your Grief Points exceed 1000 you cannot fire weapons until they drop below 1000 (you lose 1 grief point per 10 minutes real time, whether or not you're online.) In Planetside I would rarely damage my teammtes on accident, so I often had 0 grief points. Occasionally a teammate would come along whose presence actually hindered my faction's ability to be victorious - in which case I would "spend" my grief points on that player, knowing that my lack of accidents would ensure I'd never achieve "Weapons Lock".

Grief points are gained exponentially, so killing multiple teammates in a short period of time gets you far more grief than accidental damage or a TK now and then. It only took like 10 teamkills within 15 minutes and you could go from 0-1000 grief. But if those same 10 teamkills happened over the course of 10 hours, you probably wouldn't have any grief because of grief decay.

I could easily see a similarly-designed system used in a MMORPG where you can attack any player you want. But a lot of attention has to be given to the concept of griefing in MMOs - anytime a minority of players can disrupt the majority's ability to have fun, that's really bad for business.

[Sate]

Well despite my disagreeing with you about PSO's combat being fun (compared to D2 it's just too slow,) I'd like to note that you did seem to have fun with the game, despite it not really being a MMO (according to your 2nd paragraph, PSO is a massively tiny online game.) I would suggest that whether or not a game is widely considered "massive", it's the fun factor that matters most - who cares if a game instances you into personal dungeons, as long as it's fun?

Hi axe. It might not be as fun as D2, but my point is that its a lot more fun than dice-based press attack button and watch fight occur. PSO is definately not an MMO, but it was highly RPG-ish in many ways but greatly enhanced by its action-based combat.

This naturally leads into the question of how much people value that single persistent game world - how fun it is for them. Personally I'm really flexible in my gaming - if it's fun, I'll play it, and I won't get too stuck on technicalities.

Everyone's taste can vary but this is not about technicalities or labels. Large, persistent worlds have a social aspect that makes a very different experience as compared to offline or small-scale mp. I certainly value that, though you may not. I still enjoy offline RPGs and small-scale MP as well, just for different reasons. There is nothing that says you can only enjoy one genre or subgenre.

Your second request of being able to damage the world and damage your 'teammates' is really risky stuff.

...Still, I think there might be ways to limit team-killing properly... ...Planetside uses a Grief Point system which is pretty effective at preventing grief players.

I am also a veteran of Planetside and it is a great example of complete freedom + consequences to control griefing. In my experience griefing was always very rare. In a more traditional MMONRPG (which Planetside is not) there are other options on the table: NPCs of world shops/towns deciding never to do business with your grief-killin butt again, being KOS in all major cities, having NPC kings/rulers send very nasty assassins to put you down and/or collect a fine or actually imprisoning you, generating a bounty for players to kill you (A'la SWG), etc.., I would favor these methods over just incapacitating your character but that should happen in extreme cases. This is how real life works- you can make whatever stupid choices you want you just have to pay for them. I find it rediculous to stand next to some player and be absolutely unable to attack them. That is why I brought it up here, it goes to realism/immersion. freedom = realism.

One of the most joyous moments for me in Planetside was executing a general who had single-handedly lost us continent-wide struggles.

I cant tell you how many allied retards in WoW I've wanted to kill. Farmers mostly. gah damn farmers. I know anyone heavily involved in WoW has had the same feeling about some people. Right now what is the consequence for ninjalooters? People in one or a couple of guilds dont like you and wont admit you. Big deal. Imagine if 1-3 guilds worth of people(more if word of mouth spreads) were looking to kill you on sight. You might think twice about NL in that case.

You're right, it will be a trade-off. There simply will be more opportunities for griefing. I suppose any one game could have some servers "free for all" so to speak and others restricted so the player could decided whether they cared more about freedom to act or more about cushy safety & order. Personally, I put freedom of action above anything else.

[Axehilt]

You might want to check out Face of Mankind (http://fomportal.com/ open beta at the moment). It seems to focus on totally open PVP, social/politics, and permanent death. Might be a game suited to your tastes.

[Sate]

You might want to check out Face of Mankind (http://fomportal.com/ open beta at the moment). It seems to focus on totally open PVP, social/politics, and permanent death. Might be a game suited to your tastes.

Definately has some interesting ideas. Right now its (faqs) full of grand, vague promises and light on detail. We've heard claims about player-driven economies and player-driven plots a dozen times that didnt pan out. I also doubt it has any real action, all thats mentioned is a "fps style interface", but not FPS style combat. Might join the beta later on to check it out though, thanks axe.

[IceBlade]

Hey, sorry I've been gone for a while guys. I moved to Bellevue WA, I'm attending DigiPen, so expec my game in 6 yrs, lol.

Anyway, all of the points you guys bring up can be solved, its just that no one has decided to put it all together again.

1) AI
Now I know it would be great to see AI actually invading, and doing everything on there own. it would greatly help the story, but its just not cost effective for creators, they would have to create real AI instead of bots and thats too much for right now. But what could be done is having Staff that play the parts (like the Matrix Online staff) of the major enemy characters that can then move the armys around and cause actual havok and things to happen, so the enemys and missions aren't static.

2) Actual Roleplaying
Ok, I'm not sure about this one. its hard to have true roleplaying, because it requires that the players care more about creating a story, then the game itself. The best substitute, is to intreduce the above system. Having AI bots attacking and doing actual things, would force the players to Role Play, like in a fantasy/medevil setting. If an AI force sudden;y invades a guilds castle, then the guild will have to rally or if the town in there castle is attacked, they could rush out to save the civilians because they need them to make them equipment. To have roleplaying you need to have interactive bots for more than just enemies, you need to have people who will gravitate to you. Like building a town and then actually having Bots begin to move in an populate it. This wouldn't be hard to do, it is essentually the code in fable mixed with that of freelancer (the movement of AI ships on there own agenda).

3)Greifing
Sate is right, this is the easiest thing to remidy. As I've said in one of the other MMO topics, I can't wait to put this in one of my games.
To easily get rid of team kills, just create a bounty system. As a player kills other players on his team(in an amount of time, so you don't get this for an inadvertant killing) a bounty begins to grow on him/her. Now other players can incapacitate him/her and collect the money on them, and the player will be put in jail with there possesions taken.

To The combat: PSO's combat was slow, but still better than a standard MMORPG. The new PSU system may prove to be a far mroe dynamic system, because the delay in PSO was agravating.

[Axehilt]

2) Actual Roleplaying
Ok, I'm not sure about this one. its hard to have true roleplaying, because it requires that the players care more about creating a story, then the game itself. The best substitute, is to intreduce the above system. Having AI bots attacking and doing actual things, would force the players to Role Play, like in a fantasy/medevil setting. If an AI force sudden;y invades a guilds castle, then the guild will have to rally or if the town in there castle is attacked, they could rush out to save the civilians because they need them to make them equipment. To have roleplaying you need to have interactive bots for more than just enemies, you need to have people who will gravitate to you. Like building a town and then actually having Bots begin to move in an populate it. This wouldn't be hard to do, it is essentually the code in fable mixed with that of freelancer (the movement of AI ships on there own agenda).

While I agree that this would be a very cool system to see implemented, I fail to see how it would "force" roleplaying. Nothing can really "force" someone to roleplay - at least if we're talking about players really getting into their role and acting it out (let's face it: in nearly every game out there you "play" a "role", but that's obviously not the definition we're talking about.)

All you can do is increase a game's roleplayability factor, which can be summed up in one word: immersion.

AI is probably the biggest hurdle to immersion. Real-world physics and brilliant graphics will not help the player ignore the NPC who sits on a streetcorner 24/7, who never eats, sleeps, or goes about his daily business.

Oblivion (http://xboxmovies.teamxbox.com/xbox-360/1985/The-Elder-Scrolls-IV-Oblivion-Video-Interview/) (Elder Scrolls IV) will have a system called Radiant AI which sounds very promising. Unfortunately I don't have a link to the original movie I watched on it, which did a far better job covering it.

The movie I had showed a scene where two NPCs spontaneously had a conversation with each other based on events elsewhere in the world. This conversation then allowed the player to talk directly with one of the NPCs to gain a quest. The act of overhearing a conversation and following up on it seemed a lot more natural than most games handle quests - and the fact that the AI will randomly strike up conversations with other AIs makes the game much more immersive than talking with that streetcorner NPC.

[Decimatos]

Definately has some interesting ideas. Right now its (faqs) full of grand, vague promises and light on detail. We've heard claims about player-driven economies and player-driven plots a dozen times that didnt pan out. I also doubt it has any real action, all thats mentioned is a "fps style interface", but not FPS style combat. Might join the beta later on to check it out though, thanks axe.

Recent listener, first-time caller. :happy:

From my experience, the beginnings of player-driven economics and plots may be found in EVE Online. That game has a pretty vibrant market system with NPC traders to process raw goods, lower-end or basic items and for consumer goods (basically npc trading activity). Most of the market is driven by player crafted item. In addition, because the gameworld is so enormous, players can actually conduct arbitrage to add a market dynamic to npc generated goods.

As to player-driven plots, EVE has a very small version of this. Players in EVE can set up rudimentary missions such as bounties on other players and courier missions. The game just keeps them honest with an escrow system. I suspect that these mechanisms could be the seeds for more player generated content.

Another step on the path to this kind of RPG environment would be to present a wider variety of roles for players to fill. So to complement the standard Fighters, Thieves, Mages and Healers that all RPGs have in some form or other, future MMOs would do well to foster other roles. Many computer games (Railroad Tycoon, Mafia) and boardgames (Settlers of Cataan) simulate economic behaviour with little or no combat. These present roles that might be imported into an MMO to flesh out the traditional hack 'n slash (or blast and vaporize) and give other players interesting parts to play. Integrating these would be difficult, but the rewards would include a broader gamer-base and a stable of characters (power brokers, warring corps, etc.) with human personalities behind them to supplant and/or complement scripted NPCs to do these tasks.

For example, imagine an MMO with two categories of play:

Cat A: Typical adventurer fare, they do missions/quests for different guilds and houses of the realm, fight monsters, etc.

Cat B: The player could choose to be a noble, a diplomat, merchant or bard/observer. These players might use a different interface or have interfaces that have some overlap with Cat A.

Nobles would also have an interface that looks more like Age of Empires or some other management game. Intially, they could be responsible for a small fiefdom within a great house in which they develop resources and contribute to the guild/house economy, later a town in which to operate a market, provide macrolevel peace-keeping (ala Caesar or Sim City) and advance the economy. These players would have impact on the game world indirectly as their successes and/or failures could be reflected in the environments found in Cat A

Diplomats might play a "side game" akin to Diplomacy. Heavily dependant on chat and interaction. They could also provide a "random" component to broader npc plots that the devs provide, but that they flesh out. Admittedly, I am unsure how this might integrate with the environment in Cat A. One possibility would be to hold the Diplomacy game as a contest to generate backstory and or change the game-world in later updates.

Merchants would be much like traders in EVE, but with more simulation through establishing trade routes that their automaton 'pets' would travel. Their successes and/or failures might also impact Cat A by increasing traffic ni certain areas and by influencing prices. They could interact with Cat A crafters and traders/smugglers at the micro level.

The Bard/Observer idea also is difficult but could be spectacular. These players would travel around Cat A, but their function would be to report on goings on. In a modern or sci-fi game, these might be investigative reporters. Their game would be a mix of investigation and psuedo-journalism. For the latter, they could have tools for screen-captures and short films that they could edit and submit for "publication" in the game world. They events that they might report would be a source of bragging rights for Cat A players (hey, I made the news!) and a plot device for them as well (it says here that there are strange goings on in Blah-blah Town, hmmm). Another role that would be difficult to integrate, but this strikes me as pretty good way for players to enrich the gameworld.

The two categories might need separate levels of game account. The integration limits on some might require them to be cheaper, and there would need to be a barrier between the categories to discourage 'self-dealing' along the lines of a player's noble's in Cat B power-leveling his rogue in Cat A by leaving riches in the front yard of his Chateau. :whistle: Again, the integration will be a challenge.

My two shekels,

Decimatos

[Axehilt]

Some cool ideas, Decimatos. Would love to see a MMORPG take on the challenge of "Mayors and Adventurers" style gameplay - with interaction between the two styles.

One potential problem that might come out of this is the propotion of players who want to be Mayors vs. Adventurers.

Some of the "medieval intrigue" of games like The Guild (http://www.the-guild.com/) would be used to control who's in charge. Would-be Mayors (we'll call them Civilians) would start out in an existing town. Through honest work, backstabbing, and/or slander, they would attempt to rise through the town's political system until they eventually became Mayor. Civilians would have the option of moving to different towns, if competition is too fierce, or if their name has been rubbed into the ground by slander.

So with that sort of system for the Civilian players, you'd have a natural limiter to who could be in charge.

That's the half of my brain which says "limit Mayors and the # of towns so that there are lots of adventurers in each town to do various tasks, and the interaction between them will be awesome!", and then there's the other half of my brain which says "being Mayor is fun, let everyone be Mayor and have fun!" I suppose with appropriate amounts of computer-controlled adventurers and townsfolk, the proportion between Adventurers and Mayors becomes less an issue.