Options

Do you think this is as far as MMORPGs will evolve?

123578

Posts

  • Options
    Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    It seems like what a lot of people want is basically an FPS (in the sense of lack of conequences for PvP), but with the cooperative aspect of an MMO.

    Planetside used to do that, and maybe this new Huxley game will as well.

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
    that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
  • Options
    PoketpixiePoketpixie Siege Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    delroland wrote: »
    I personally hate PvP, as cooperation has always been more fun to me than competition, but I am curious as to whether you have played DAoC, pocketpixie. What did you think of the PvP in that game?

    I enjoyed the setting of DAoC immensely....game mechanics and interface fell a little short though. I played that waaaay back in the day when you had to grind pve in order to do the pvp. I was completely uninterested in the pve portion of the game and the pvp didn't have enough depth to keep me interested. It was fun for a little while but it needed something more...not sure what.
    Dyscord wrote: »
    It seems like what a lot of people want is basically an FPS (in the sense of lack of conequences for PvP), but with the cooperative aspect of an MMO.

    Consequences are fine....just not when they are heavily punitive in nature and applied liberally on an individual basis(loss of gear, money, exp, level, etc). It's simply too easy to grief people and I don't play these games to explore some latent sadomasochistic streak. I'm here to have fun. Persistent world with lots of people running around, exploring, building, conquering, fighting over stuff is fine. Territory changes hands? Fine. A structure I helped put time and resources into building gets razed to the ground? Fine. Someone kills me and loots all my stuff? Not fine.

    Poketpixie on
  • Options
    Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Now, that is kinda interesting.

    I can't think of a game that had real, serious PvP consequences, but that spread the risk inherent in them around socially, rather than on an individual basis.

    EVE sort of does that, I guess, but the individual risk is still massive.

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
    that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
  • Options
    piLpiL Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I think at this point many people say territory, an arbitrary non-game reliant resource is the best way to spur pvp on. If other people haven't said it, I know I have. On second thought, I think I may be having doubts. Maybe the kind of people that like to build cities and decorate houses are the kind of people that hate losing them.

    I'm conflicted. I'm afraid it might be one of those things where the people that keep them would totally love it, but since that can only be so many percent, its really a lose lose. Who knows. Player cities seem widely regarded as fun, but generally end up as player-sprawl, aka why you can't just hit numpad and drive your speederbike in one direction.

    piL on
  • Options
    GlalGlal AiredaleRegistered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Yeah, but with this (MMO) many players territorial wars tend to turn into "either it's a cakewalk because my side is winning or a doomed fight because my side is losing". Both in Planetside and WoW (world PVP both before and after the changes) what you personally did didn't really feel like it contributed any to the outcome; the sides were rarely evenly matched, and even when they were once the ball started rolling it was almost impossible to stop.
    Not that it wasn't fun, but being a sprocket in a factory of clocks doesn't really yell "consequence! Skill!" to me.

    Glal on
  • Options
    RingoRingo He/Him a distinct lack of substanceRegistered User regular
    edited December 2007
    The fact of the matter is this: You must build a PvP world, and then conform the PvE world to the rules dictated by fun PvP.

    You can't make people conform to the standards of behavior that rule your PvE content. First you isolate the standards of behavior that the players themselves dictate, and then program your enviromental AI to accomodate those.

    Which is pretty much completely backwards from the current way games are designed. Which is why even the developers who realize that they need to change their thinking are having problems - because to get your big ass MMO made you need to sell an idea that has a proven market, which these games do not.

    Ringo on
    Sterica wrote: »
    I know my last visit to my grandpa on his deathbed was to find out how the whole Nazi werewolf thing turned out.
    Edcrab's Exigency RPG
  • Options
    Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Yeah, to look at just the direction the mass market is moving, I think you'll see more games emulating WoW's accessibility. WoW's sort of implemented this as it's gone along, but I could see an MMO designed to be played a minimal number of hours per week being pretty successful.

    I don't think it's too much of an exaggeration to say that most of WoW's 'srs bsns' playerbase is either in college or shortly out of college; the successful MMO of the future is going to be one that targets that demo as they age and develop more commitments on their time.

    To me that favors a PvP oriented approach, since the content can be arranged in smaller chunks.

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
    that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
  • Options
    GlalGlal AiredaleRegistered User regular
    edited December 2007
    CoX handles pick-up-and-play just fine. I certainly didn't see my tastes shift toward competitive when I got a job. If anything, just the opposite is true- after a long day at work the last thing I want is frustration from some asshat kicking my ass repeatedly because they're a kid, have far more time to get better and aren't burned out from working all day.

    Glal on
  • Options
    KiTAKiTA Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Considering that this gen hasn't even used up all the ideas that have already come (for example, there's no other MMORPG quite like Asheron's Call, in terms of loot randomness or skill set not class based gameplay), I think we have a big more growing to do current "gen".

    Then someone will invent cheap VR headsets, and we'll be off to the races.

    KiTA on
  • Options
    PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    i'm telling you guys

    fuck VR

    AR is where it's at for the future of online gaming

    Pony on
  • Options
    KalkinoKalkino Buttons Londres Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I like the idea of having territory one can hold or own, as a group. But how does that actually work in practice, say when people log off and go to bed? So in EVE, do the large corps have hundreds/thousands of members spread across the timezones that keep the territory defended?

    Kalkino on
    Freedom for the Northern Isles!
  • Options
    AxenAxen My avatar is Excalibur. Yes, the sword.Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Kalkino wrote: »
    I like the idea of having territory one can hold or own, as a group. But how does that actually work in practice, say when people log off and go to bed? So in EVE, do the large corps have hundreds/thousands of members spread across the timezones that keep the territory defended?

    Well, uh, yes actually.


    I think Goonswarm has something like 3000 some members. Just an example of how large some of these Alliances are.

    Axen on
    A Capellan's favorite sheath for any blade is your back.
  • Options
    KalkinoKalkino Buttons Londres Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Right, which kind of forces people into alliances I guess. Which would be the point. Is this how all proper PVP mmos (assuming there is enough for the plural) work?

    Kalkino on
    Freedom for the Northern Isles!
  • Options
    ZombiemamboZombiemambo Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    No, but it adds an element to the game that should be present in every MMOG with PvP aspects. WoW, for example, has world PvP but there isn't an overarching goal, nothing happens if you win for your side. However, in select areas, there are advantages to "owning" territory, such as Hellfire Peninsula. There are three towers, and if a side owns all three, every player belonging to that side gets a small damage buff. It encourages PvP because it benefits everyone in the area.

    Zombiemambo on
    JKKaAGp.png
  • Options
    KalkinoKalkino Buttons Londres Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    It would be interesting to see how quickly large organisations grew in a reasonably structureless PVP game. For you old time EVErs - how long did it take before the massive corporations or alliances formed?

    Kalkino on
    Freedom for the Northern Isles!
  • Options
    junglebloodjungleblood Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I honestly think that one thing that would be great for MMORPG's is huge maps. I'm thinking 20+ hours for a player to walk across on foot.

    Two sides, good - evil, it doesn't really matter. But each side starts out with a generated city in each corner.

    You can have one character per account and I'm thinking a limited loot on death with experience loss as well.

    So you start out with your main city and then you have the option of building player cities. The big reason to do this is because the map is so friggin huge that you want to have multiple options for base camps.

    So you build up your player cities and because of the distances between towns you pretty much end up with a hometown.

    A good crafting system is pretty important for this.

    Now the pvp aspect. Player cities can be attacked and destroyed, or attacked and captured. However the main city isn't possible to siege. This is so that the game can keep going on.

    I know this ain't gonna happen but I think that a huge ass map is really the key to making a cooperative community and intense pvp. Imagine having to gather a small army in a player city then marching for an hour to reach the nearest enemy village. It's no longer just attacking on a whim. You need to plan and dedicate time so you can pull it off. For me this would be immersion.

    jungleblood on
  • Options
    ScooterScooter Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Even without going into anything else, I don't think I could play an MMO that only allowed for one character, unless maybe it was designed so one character could learn to do everything.

    And a game would have to be really fucking good for me to play it, if it had xp loss.

    Scooter on
  • Options
    AxenAxen My avatar is Excalibur. Yes, the sword.Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    No, but it adds an element to the game that should be present in every MMOG with PvP aspects. WoW, for example, has world PvP but there isn't an overarching goal, nothing happens if you win for your side. However, in select areas, there are advantages to "owning" territory, such as Hellfire Peninsula. There are three towers, and if a side owns all three, every player belonging to that side gets a small damage buff. It encourages PvP because it benefits everyone in the area.

    Indeed, which is kinda how DAoC worked. It had keeps to conquer and relics to steal. I can't remember if owning keeps gave you any kind of bonus, but controlling all the Relics sure did.

    People talk about how PVE promotes cooperation and PVP promotes competition. However a good PVP system promotes both.

    Axen on
    A Capellan's favorite sheath for any blade is your back.
  • Options
    armageddonboundarmageddonbound Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I had a great post about how MMO designers need to look at the past for inspiration on how to make their mechanics evolve. It talked about how you dont need your game to be based on a level grind + gear grind. It gave examples of how instead of just grinding to get a bigger number next to the word "level" on your character portrait, that in UO you could spend your time hunting animals and use the skin and meat from the dead animal for crafting and cooking, how you could be a woodsman, then use the wood for carpentry and furnish peoples homes, how you could become a treasure hunter and find treasure maps, decipher them, dig up the treasure along with some baddies, how you could dabble in real estate, etc.

    If you had a triple A budget game with a breathing world like that, add in Conan/Daoc style player controlled towns/keeps, add in player created quests, a meaningful economy... I dunno, but maybe you would come out with an immersive world instead of Diablo 3 in 3D.

    armageddonbound on
  • Options
    GlalGlal AiredaleRegistered User regular
    edited December 2007
    No, but it adds an element to the game that should be present in every MMOG with PvP aspects. WoW, for example, has world PvP but there isn't an overarching goal, nothing happens if you win for your side. However, in select areas, there are advantages to "owning" territory, such as Hellfire Peninsula. There are three towers, and if a side owns all three, every player belonging to that side gets a small damage buff. It encourages PvP because it benefits everyone in the area.
    Yeah, and on most servers it means it's held by Alliance 95% of the time thanks to the population disparity. And even though it's a level 60-65 zone the PVP objectives are usually held by level 70s, which means that while you're actually in level range when that buff would be most useful (for PVE), you can't really do much about it.

    I did my share of fighting there, to get the marks (or whatever they were) and get my rings, but most of the time that consisted of capping 2 towers, then getting ganked by a level 70 sitting in a location I can't reach because they had a flying mount and I didn't.

    Glal on
  • Options
    ZombiemamboZombiemambo Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Glal wrote: »
    No, but it adds an element to the game that should be present in every MMOG with PvP aspects. WoW, for example, has world PvP but there isn't an overarching goal, nothing happens if you win for your side. However, in select areas, there are advantages to "owning" territory, such as Hellfire Peninsula. There are three towers, and if a side owns all three, every player belonging to that side gets a small damage buff. It encourages PvP because it benefits everyone in the area.
    Yeah, and on most servers it means it's held by Alliance 95% of the time thanks to the population disparity. And even though it's a level 60-65 zone the PVP objectives are usually held by level 70s, which means that while you're actually in level range when that buff would be most useful (for PVE), you can't really do much about it.

    I did my share of fighting there, to get the marks (or whatever they were) and get my rings, but most of the time that consisted of capping 2 towers, then getting ganked by a level 70 sitting in a location I can't reach because they had a flying mount and I didn't.

    I wasn't saying it was brilliantly executed, but I was giving an example of another game that has goal-oriented PvP in certain areas.

    Zombiemambo on
    JKKaAGp.png
  • Options
    GlalGlal AiredaleRegistered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I know, I was just pointing out flaws with the system. Generally, if you have level-independent PVP then it'll be pretty hard to make any sort of territorial conquest worth while for lower level characters. Even if you make it worthless for high level players to participate they still will just so they can be dicks to players who can't do anything about it.
    Though, one wonders why you even need levelling in a PVP game. Just give everyone 100 points to spend on stats and skills and off you go, have fun.

    Glal on
  • Options
    SzechuanosaurusSzechuanosaurus Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2007
    Glal wrote: »
    Though, one wonders why you even need levelling in a PVP game. Just give everyone 100 points to spend on stats and skills and off you go, have fun.

    hi5

    Sometimes I wonder why EVE even bothers with leveling. It would make just as much sense to have in-game money as a barrier to accessing bigger, stronger equipment. As much as EVEs leveling system is awesome for removing the grind from leveling and skill progression, in some ways it just makes it even more transparent that leveling seems to serve no other function than to punish newer players for no other crime than being new.

    Szechuanosaurus on
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Glal wrote: »
    Though, one wonders why you even need levelling in a PVP game. Just give everyone 100 points to spend on stats and skills and off you go, have fun.

    hi5

    Sometimes I wonder why EVE even bothers with leveling. It would make just as much sense to have in-game money as a barrier to accessing bigger, stronger equipment. As much as EVEs leveling system is awesome for removing the grind from leveling and skill progression, in some ways it just makes it even more transparent that leveling seems to serve no other function than to punish newer players for no other crime than being new.
    Mm...this would be both good and bad I guess. Good in that the smart would quickly have the best stuff. Bad in the sense that it might make the rich a little too adaptable - nano-gang jumping in? Ok fire up the Huginn and get on out there.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    SzechuanosaurusSzechuanosaurus Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2007
    Nano-gang jumping in? Ok fire up the Huginn alt and get on out there.

    Same thing really.

    Or you just end up training characters that can fly everything anyway.


    The point is, really, that in EVE money is the barrier to the better equipment. And you need to 'play the game' (ie run missions, mine rat, explore etc. - generally grind) to get the money to afford the better ships. So why bother with the skills at all? Really, money is your experience points which you then spend directly on ships and fittings which are your 'skills' or abilities. Skill training ends up being an anachronism that stands as a pointless barrier to progression in a game which is really all about the money.

    Szechuanosaurus on
  • Options
    mrflippymrflippy Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Dyscord wrote: »
    EVE's system is a good counter-example: it's largely a PvP game, but there's some PvE activity that goes alongside that, and they coexist because progression, such as it is, is pretty much PvP based. If EVE suddenly installed a completely PvE-oriented means of progressing, that wouldn't be a good thing for the game (especially when the playerbase is already fairly sparse.)

    The thing about EVE is that (skill) progression isn't PvP or PvE based -- it's time-based. The other limiting factor (money) seems to be fairly easily obtained from non-PvP activities.

    PvP is a huge part of EVE, but your character doesn't really progress because of it.

    mrflippy on
  • Options
    mrflippymrflippy Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    EliteLamer wrote: »
    I don't much like NPCs and I wish they would do away with most of them. If the game is NPC driven might as well be single player. I really want a game that forces player interaction like EverQuest or Anarchy online which forces you to look for a group to do things.
    Yeah, waiting for hours in order to get into a group so that you can actually do something is awesome.

    And god forbid you rolled a class that is extremely popular or that nobody wants to group with for whatever reason.

    mrflippy on
  • Options
    mrflippymrflippy Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Scooter wrote: »
    A modern cityscape game could it easily. You don't really see anything of an apartment from the outside anyways...just go to your building and click on the elevator, and once inside you've got windows showing a view of whatever area you're in.

    Anarchy Online did this, IIRC. It solves the space problem, but it's not as "cool" or engaging as having a stand-alone building.

    mrflippy on
  • Options
    Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I dunno, I think if you did it right it could have it's own cool-ness to it. Like, if they gave you some sort of reason to hang around in there a bit (vendors or rudimentary buffs or something), you could get to know people in your building, mabye collaborate on goals, etc.

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
    that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
  • Options
    SzechuanosaurusSzechuanosaurus Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2007
    mrflippy wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    EVE's system is a good counter-example: it's largely a PvP game, but there's some PvE activity that goes alongside that, and they coexist because progression, such as it is, is pretty much PvP based. If EVE suddenly installed a completely PvE-oriented means of progressing, that wouldn't be a good thing for the game (especially when the playerbase is already fairly sparse.)

    The thing about EVE is that (skill) progression isn't PvP or PvE based -- it's time-based. The other limiting factor (money) seems to be fairly easily obtained from non-PvP activities.

    PvP is a huge part of EVE, but your character doesn't really progress because of it.

    Why is character progression through the limited paradigm of skills even necessary for an MMO, though? The major redeeming factor of any MMO is supposed to be the fact that there are lots of other people playing at the same time. Surely any character development would be a lot more rewarding to the player if it was actually real character development, as in their character's reputation and personality as regarded by the other players.

    In EVE, the most famous characters - the leaders of the big alliances, the heroes of PvP - aren't well known for being the first person to level 50, they're well known for who they are and the deeds they perpetrate (good and bad). Very often, the major players in the game operate through characters with relatively few skills or experience points.

    It would probably be too revolutionary a concept - both for the players to grasp and for the designers to manage to balance - but an MMO that abandons skills entirely in favour of more genuine and meaningful rewards in an MMO environment (eg, infamy, fame, comradeship, enmity etc.) could be highly engaging.

    Szechuanosaurus on
  • Options
    mrflippymrflippy Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    mrflippy wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    EVE's system is a good counter-example: it's largely a PvP game, but there's some PvE activity that goes alongside that, and they coexist because progression, such as it is, is pretty much PvP based. If EVE suddenly installed a completely PvE-oriented means of progressing, that wouldn't be a good thing for the game (especially when the playerbase is already fairly sparse.)

    The thing about EVE is that (skill) progression isn't PvP or PvE based -- it's time-based. The other limiting factor (money) seems to be fairly easily obtained from non-PvP activities.

    PvP is a huge part of EVE, but your character doesn't really progress because of it.

    Why is character progression through the limited paradigm of skills even necessary for an MMO, though? The major redeeming factor of any MMO is supposed to be the fact that there are lots of other people playing at the same time. Surely any character development would be a lot more rewarding to the player if it was actually real character development, as in their character's reputation and personality as regarded by the other players.

    In EVE, the most famous characters - the leaders of the big alliances, the heroes of PvP - aren't well known for being the first person to level 50, they're well known for who they are and the deeds they perpetrate (good and bad). Very often, the major players in the game operate through characters with relatively few skills or experience points.

    It would probably be too revolutionary a concept - both for the players to grasp and for the designers to manage to balance - but an MMO that abandons skills entirely in favour of more genuine and meaningful rewards in an MMO environment (eg, infamy, fame, comradeship, enmity etc.) could be highly engaging.

    (I'm mostly thinking out loud here, so this may not be entirely cohesive or coherent)

    I think one of the problems comes with deciding how to categorize or restrict things. You'd have a lot of people wondering why NewGuy0281 can craft/attack/heal as well as their character who has been crafting/attacking/healing for months. One of the things we encounter in real life is that practice and experience allows us to do things better or more effectively. We learn skills in real life, why not in the game? Maybe the gameplay and goals and rewards can be created so that it doesn't matter whether everybody is the same or not.

    Maybe progression can be how famous you are, or how much area you control, but how accessible is that? If I only have time to play a few hours a week, how would I progress in a game like this? Maybe you just get sucked into a machine as a cog?

    mrflippy on
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    mrflippy wrote: »
    mrflippy wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    EVE's system is a good counter-example: it's largely a PvP game, but there's some PvE activity that goes alongside that, and they coexist because progression, such as it is, is pretty much PvP based. If EVE suddenly installed a completely PvE-oriented means of progressing, that wouldn't be a good thing for the game (especially when the playerbase is already fairly sparse.)

    The thing about EVE is that (skill) progression isn't PvP or PvE based -- it's time-based. The other limiting factor (money) seems to be fairly easily obtained from non-PvP activities.

    PvP is a huge part of EVE, but your character doesn't really progress because of it.

    Why is character progression through the limited paradigm of skills even necessary for an MMO, though? The major redeeming factor of any MMO is supposed to be the fact that there are lots of other people playing at the same time. Surely any character development would be a lot more rewarding to the player if it was actually real character development, as in their character's reputation and personality as regarded by the other players.

    In EVE, the most famous characters - the leaders of the big alliances, the heroes of PvP - aren't well known for being the first person to level 50, they're well known for who they are and the deeds they perpetrate (good and bad). Very often, the major players in the game operate through characters with relatively few skills or experience points.

    It would probably be too revolutionary a concept - both for the players to grasp and for the designers to manage to balance - but an MMO that abandons skills entirely in favour of more genuine and meaningful rewards in an MMO environment (eg, infamy, fame, comradeship, enmity etc.) could be highly engaging.

    (I'm mostly thinking out loud here, so this may not be entirely cohesive or coherent)

    I think one of the problems comes with deciding how to categorize or restrict things. You'd have a lot of people wondering why NewGuy0281 can craft/attack/heal as well as their character who has been crafting/attacking/healing for months. One of the things we encounter in real life is that practice and experience allows us to do things better or more effectively. We learn skills in real life, why not in the game? Maybe the gameplay and goals and rewards can be created so that it doesn't matter whether everybody is the same or not.

    Maybe progression can be how famous you are, or how much area you control, but how accessible is that? If I only have time to play a few hours a week, how would I progress in a game like this? Maybe you just get sucked into a machine as a cog?
    You could address this by having a mini-game focus to each of these activities, with varying levels of complexity and demanding of different kinds of skills. Then, time played will still be important, but the character development is with the player themselves - getting better at manipulating the little game so they can be better in the big game.

    This could provide for a lot of interesting mechanics provided the minigame variety was varied and progressive enough. One thing I really loved about Bioshock was the hacking pipe game - on PC at least, I eventually got good enough that I didn't actually need many hack mods to break anything in the game.

    Now you could really take this quite far if you wanted - mechanics, mathematics, twitch shooters, physics games - all these could form legitimate components of wider MMO game play where player skill is actually a product of genuine skills on the part of the player.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    GlalGlal AiredaleRegistered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Pipe Dream. <3

    One should be careful about how complex these things are though. I love crafting, but EQ2 soured me on it a bit with its fiddly variant (which is fun at first, but in the end it still ends up feeling like Simon Says with more fields), and Vanguard turned me away from it almost entirely. If I spend 5 minutes of dedicated focus to do something then it'd better be something GRAND, not just crap like "oh, congrats, you turned ore into iron ore. Now move on to the NEXT purification stage!".

    Glal on
  • Options
    SzechuanosaurusSzechuanosaurus Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2007
    Yeah, combat skill improvement is a no-brainer. A Battlefield 2 veteran clearly has more all-round combat skills in the game than a new comer - better use of cover, better use of weapons, better situational awareness, better squad cohesion etc. This doesn't come from allocation of stats, just from real, proper, actual experience.

    You'd have to decide how (and indeed if) you were going to apply this to other aspects of an MMO. Would crafting be highly complex like Second Life, where essentially your crafting tools are a 3D modeler and a scripting language (I could see this working actually, especially if you had different materials and mass for any object modeled and the opportunity to acquire pre-crafted scripts)? Would mining be mundane and dangerous but relatively easy to learn, just like real mining?

    it is a pipe dream though. I can tell just by the fact that even while thinking about, despite the idea sounding cool I know it'd be too involved for me to want to bother playing something that grand. I'd settle for an MMO FPS, though. Sod crafting and mining :P

    Szechuanosaurus on
  • Options
    mrflippymrflippy Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Re Minigames:

    That would require lots of thought and planning. (I'm not saying it's bad. I like the idea, but it's more complicated) One of the nice and simple things about skill-based crafting (for example) is that you can easily limit the rate of progression. People can't craft the Uber Sword of Destruction right off the bat because they don't have 325 sword crafting skill or whatever. With a minigame-based system, that might be possible.

    Of course, at that point, maybe you limit things by restricting recipes or ingredients.

    Edit: As mentioned above, another thing to watch out for is tedium or complexity. Most players may not want to sit around playing minigames every time they want to do X. (This could be a great opportunity for player-created work orders that other players could fill though) Perhaps every player shouldn't be doing crafting.

    mrflippy on
  • Options
    mrflippymrflippy Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    What did you guys think of Star Wars Galaxies' crafting system? There were some parts of it that I thought were really nice:
    • Raw materials had lots of individual properties that affected final item outcome
    • Fairly easy to produce one-off items
    • Didn't have to manually mine (once a resource was located, you placed an automated extracting machine which would mine for you) This removes the "sitting, watching your character beat on rocks with a mining pick" part of mining
    • You could set up automated factories to produce items while you went and did other things.

    This caused some really interesting things to happen. You didn't have just "iron" like you do in a lot of crafting systems. You had Ferrous Metals that had a dozen or so properties like toughness and malleability. Then you had Ferrous Metal A and Ferrous Metal B, but Ferrous Metal A mined at location X at a certain date would have slightly different property values than Ferrous Metal B mined at location Y at a certain date. The resource properties affected the quality and outcome of the final product. Higher quality materials would generally result in weapons with a higher damage or armor that protected better, for example.

    One of the big issues with this that I ran into was that the different resources didn't stack. You couldn't use Metal A from location X and Metal A from location Y interchangeably because the game viewed them as different resources. Because of this, there was an exponential explosion of items and resources. If you could make a "Small Medkit" that required Resource Q, but you had 2 different batches for Resource Q gathered from different areas and with different properties, you could make 2 Small Medkits, but they wouldn't stack in your inventory because they were different. (Even though they were the same item type)

    And, of course this is all way more complicated than having just iron laying around.


    Along these lines, one of the things that I've always thought would be interesting would be to have limited resources. Once you mine that gold vein out, it's gone and doesn't respawn. Once the iron is gone from the mine, there is no more. Obviously this would change how crafting, gathering, and consumption is handled, but I think it could be interesting.

    mrflippy on
  • Options
    BigityBigity Lubbock, TXRegistered User regular
    edited December 2007
    But then you'd have to allow for items to be broken back down into some kind of mats, as well as probably allowing for sub-optimum materials to be used (aka, a bronze sword), or steel sword melted back down into the forearm of plate armor, etc.

    Bigity on
  • Options
    mrflippymrflippy Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Bigity wrote: »
    But then you'd have to allow for items to be broken back down into some kind of mats, as well as probably allowing for sub-optimum materials to be used (aka, a bronze sword), or steel sword melted back down into the forearm of plate armor, etc.

    Yeah, you'd probably have to have some sort of scavenging implementation in place.

    Another issue with a limited number of (fixed?) resource nodes (or areas) is of how to keep gathering accessible to everybody. In other words, how do you keep the huge guilds from monopolizing the resource nodes. (Or do you not worry about it?)

    mrflippy on
  • Options
    GarthorGarthor Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    A better idea would be to set a game in a post-apocalyptic setting. There's leftover technology, but it breaks down over time, and the only thing you've got left is scavenging wreckages to try to find components for some silly over-the-top makeshift device.

    I like the idea of a reverse technology curve. As the game goes on, equipment becomes worse and worse and worse.

    Garthor on
  • Options
    DevilGuyDevilGuy Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I think alot of people here have misconceptions about the mechanics in eve, I did when I first started, and those misconceptions cost me early on, but I learned from my mistakes and adapted, and soon I found myself in the middle of what is possibly the deepest, and widest ranging game on the market.

    Let me address some of the misconceptions about eve I've seen:

    1. people can just come and kill me and take all my stuff, thats stupid.
    A: No it's realistic, whats not realistic is that you'd be carrying all of your worldly possesions through an area that they're likely to be stolen. You wouldn't liquidate all your assets, turn them into cash, and then stuff it all into a sack with a $ printed on it and take a world tour of badly lit back alley's would you? In eve what your carrying with you will rarely ammount to a signifigant fraction of what you own.

    2. But people can still come and kill me anytime they want... thats stupid.
    A: Only if you stray out of space thats unprotected, sure people can attack you in protected space, but only if they're commited to die in the act, and even then it'd be particularly stupid to stuff everything you own into a ship and then go off willy nilly into the uknown.

    3. But if I lose a ship, I'm still not going to be able to get it back so quick, it costs money right?
    A: Yes but most of the ships you'll fly in the first YEAR of play will be insurable, and the insurance will cover about 70% of the cost of the ship and fittings for it so unless your a retard you'll not be hurt that bad.

    4. I still don't like the idea of losing anything just because someone else managed to kill me.
    A: They fucking killed you! what else do you want? do they need to come to your house and hack your machine before you acknowledge that maybe they outsmarted you and maybe you need to get a little wiser to hold on to your shit? Its not like any smart player would be left assetless by getting killed.

    5. I heard that when you die you lose skill points and you have to retrain your skills just to get back where you were, thats stupid.
    A: This is another one of those instances where not being a complete retard will protect you from ever having to deal with consequences. As your character gains skills and greater amounts of total skillpoints you have the option of upgrading your clone to be able to house more skill points, when you die (your ship gets shot and someone manages to kill your escape pod before you can get away.) you revert to said clone, if you don't have it up to date you do lose some skills (usually a day or two's worth.) but if you go anywhere without that clone up to date your a retard.

    6. you can only level one character at a time in eve, that sucks because I want to power level a PvPer and a crafter at the same time, but I don't have the money for two accounts, eve sucks.
    A: EvE allows people to pay for time with in game money, and trade and crafting is by far the the most lucrative career you could train for. Put two and two together, if you get a crafter going and he gets good he'll support as many acounts as you want including himself and you'll never have to pay a dime to play the game, many smart players do this already, I'm working on setting myself up this way.

    TLDR: your perceptions of eve rarely match up to the reality, unless your playing it.

    DevilGuy on
Sign In or Register to comment.