Trending Games | Pirate101 | Guild Wars 2 | World of Warcraft | EverQuest

  Network:  FPSguru RTSguru
Login:  Password:   Remember?  
Show Quick Gamelist Jump to Random Game
Members:2,899,823 Users Online:0
Games:751  Posts:6,268,601

Show Blog

Link to this blogs RSS feed

Strange Sands

Strange Sands is a place for ideas about the game industry, both tabletop and online. I'm interested in understanding how game writers can make better stories while allowing players to create their own interactions within the game world.

Author: Ortwig

Will EverQuest Next Save Us All?

Posted by Ortwig Saturday August 17 2013 at 11:46AM
Login or Register to rate this blog post!

It’s been fun watching the EverQuest Next news and reactions at SOE this year; after several development reboots, Sony finally showed off the latest direction of the venerable MMO title.  Sony has been working on this new version for awhile now, and last year they announced they were going back to the drawing board with the game, with SOE president John Smedley basically saying it was too much of the “same old, same old.”  Sony wanted to do something revolutionary with the next version ofEverQuest, not a simply polish of old engines and ideas.

The race was on to differentiate itself from the admittedly large MMO-crowd, especially from the “WoW-clones” that had sprung up in recent years, and the word “sandbox” started to appear regularly whenEQNext was mentioned.  John Smedley talked smack about how so many MMOs are basically “movie-sets” with static cardboard characters and set pieces that never changed or evolved.  EQNextwould be different – the world would come alive; it would change.  So what was the outcome of all that talk?

Well, it appears the developers have stayed true to at least the vision of an evolving world, though whether it will become The One True Sandbox is still open to debate.  The feature that caused the most chatter was the idea of “world destructibility;” that is, every object, every building, every tree, every mountain, is in fact destructible.  It is possible to blow up bridges and create holes in the ground in EQNext.  This is all based on all game “matter” being built on voxels, or “volumetric pixel elements” that can be broken apart or pieced together to destroy or create objects.  This simple change adds quite a dimension to the game, and also lends itself to all kinds of building ideas.  People have compared EQNext to Minecraft even though the technologies are not exactly the same; the idea of construction and destruction plays a heavy part in that popular game, and some of the player creations in Minecraft are simply amazing.  This plays into the idea of real change in the game world, though the developers have stated that the world will heal itself after a period of time to prevent it from being crumpled into a moon-like dust heap in a few hours as players rampage through.

The second leg of a changeable world is being introduced to EQNext by a company called storybricks, which brings some intelligence to the NPCs and monsters in the world.  Instead of walking back and forth along the same path ad inifinitum, animals, monsters and NPCs can actually migrate, move around the world based on internal and external forces.  A group of bandits may repeatedly be attacked by adventurers or city guards, to the point where they may move their hideout to a more favorable area.  Deer and wolves might move based on the season and on the food supply.  An NPC might travel between several cities on various personal errands rather than stay put in one place for all time.  Developers have also stated that there will be no “punctuation” above NPCs heads indicating quests to be obtained.  Either NPCs will walk up and talk directly to characters, or player characters will actually need to go talk to people to find up what they know.  The storybrooks AI will be used in combat, too.  Developers have boldly stated there will be new dynamics to fights and that the “trinity” (warrior/tank, healer, and mage/dps) will no longer be necessary.  We’ll see on that one, but it’s interesting to note that EQNext will sport over 40 classes.

The final element of world changeability is the idea that different servers will have different states of building and destruction, as well as animal and monster migration, so that the game world will be quite different based on where you are playing.

Other Interesting Notes

Sony is releasing an early version of the world called EverQuest Landmark that will allow players to craft items and build homes that can be later ported into EQNext via crafting instructions.  The materials will still need to be gathered and constructed within EQNext, but it’s an interesting way of getting some early experience with the building system.

There will be no level-based progression in the game, but individual skills can be progressed through a tier system.  The number of active skills will be limited to 8.  Similar to The Secret World or Guild Wars 2, the game will have many available skills, but only a limited number that can be equipped at a time.  Finally, players can pull from many class skill sets so that a warrior/mage is quite possible to create.

So is it a sandbox?

It’s really still an open question.  There’s more to be discussed regarding player-vs-player in EQNext; will there be open world PvP with consequences, or will it be limited to battlegrounds or designated areas within the game?

Are there multiple paths of progression in the game, and will linear story paths be shunned?  Little has been said regarding questing, so this is a big missing puzzle piece; my recommendation, as always, is to leave the adventure threads hidden with NPCs and objects, but easily discoverable.  Give us clues to possible adventures and let us decide whether or not to follow them.  Make us work a little bit to find those adventures – give us an in-game notepad, and let us discover the story rather than have it told to us.

Finally, can we create our own adventures?  Build our own scenarios?

Are We Saved?

There’s a lot to be excited about, but too many questions this early to call EQNext our MMO savior.  Old Star Wars Galaxies and Ultima Onlinefans are playing close attention, but much remains to be seen.  I’m optimistic about the prospects for the new Norrath; most of what I am seeing and hearing is sounding like the developers have taken a hard turn from the traditional themepark game, but are finding ways to make the world and systems interesting enough that it’s not a pure sandpark.  It’s the closest to anything I’ve seen to a hybrid, or sandpark, but the questing system and PvP will reveal much, when we find out more.

What about you?  Are you excited, or is EQNext just another in a long line of the same old stuff?

Can the Cash Shop Be Perfected?

Posted by Ortwig Saturday August 3 2013 at 10:20AM
Login or Register to rate this blog post!

With World of Warcraft adding an in-game store, or cash shop, one of last bastions of pure subscription MMORPGs is yielding to market forces and testing the micro-transaction model.  There’s no indication that the WoW subscription is going away completely, but it seems today that the line between using in-game money and real money to purchase virtual items (cosmetics, potions, mounts) is becoming increasingly blurred.  Purists complain that adding an in-game store breaks immersion in the game world, with filthy real-world lucre polluting and destabilizing the in-game marketplace not to mention adding dollars or pounds to silver or gold piece in-game currencies.  But can the in-game store be made palatable, or even “immersive?”

The hardest thing for many old-school players to reconcile is the idea of real money being used to purchase in-game items.  The term “pay-to-win” describes the fear that any newbie player can just come in and purchase a stack of high level gear or items and never learn to actually play the game.  Early subscription games simply gave you access to the world, and hard “work” was required to advance within the game world.  The most dedicated players would, having logged many hours in the game, would be the experts, and also be the ones who were decked out in the best gear or equipment. They “earned” those rewards through dedication and hard work.

Enter the Gold Farmer: companies literally sprang up (around WoW especially) founded on the objective of gathering in-game gold to sell to players who were looking to find faster ways to advance in the game.  This is a multi-million dollar industry, which the creators or WoW, no doubt, discouraged heavily.  Even so, it has never been completely eliminated.

Fast forward to 2013, where many players today have competing obligations and cannot log the hours they could when they were younger.  Many players today have family or work or school obligations, so play time is scheduled and regulated.  In a way, this has actually created divisions between the gaming groups – those who have plenty of time to game, and those who do not – many a spirited debate on the forums is launched on the basis of the convenience/casual player vs. the dedicated “hard work” gamer.

Even so, newer games that could not compete with WoW’s loyal subscriber-base started looking for ways to make it easy to try a game without the commitment of a subscription, yet still earn enough money to continue development and enhancements.  Turbine’s Lord of the Rings Online (LOTRO) was one of the larger games to convert to a “free-to-play” model with a microtransaction store.  Players could start a new character at any time, free of charge, and even progress through most of the game without paying a dime.  That said, they certainly offered lots of little incentives to buy shortcuts – coins that allow you to teleport back to the quest giver, expansion packs, many convenience items, like extra bags or potions.  Many players left the game due to the “nickel and diming” and intrusiveness of the “buy now” prompts, but many more came to the game, and LOTRO lives on now, and arguably would have gone under if it had stuck with a pure subscription model.

Since LOTRO’s success, many more games have moved over to the cash shop model, and indeed, there are few games without a cash shop these days.  The biggest complaints, however, are still immersion, “pay-to-win” and disruption of the in-game marketplace.  How could those concerns be addressed?

Integrating the Cash Shop

What if instead of lots of immersion breaking pop-ups or prompts, the cash shop actually was a real location within the game world?  Instead of a virtual window that can op-up anyplace and anytime, the cash shop could be integrated in to the game’s lore.  Perhaps it is located in the underground, sort of a shady back-alley sort of place where deals can be made to “skirt the system?”  It could even be something like visiting a loan shark – in exchange for the head start, your reputation with the underworld grew the more you used the back alley?  Maybe you could make enemies of certain factions by using it, which would restrict your involvement with them unless you worked your way back into their good graces?  What if the cash shop were a wealthy benefactor that expected some in-game quests be done in return for the advantage.  Or more simply, what if wealth were factored in as part of your starting character?  If you used the cash shop, your background would reflect a wealthy upbringing and again reputation increases and penalties based on where you start.  I think the cash shop could make sense within the lore if (1) the cash shop(s) held physical locations and unique lore-inspired characteristics, (2) there were in-game repercussions of making use of the shop, and (3) explained the influx of wealth from “outside sources.”

Reducing the Impact of "Pay to Win"

This is a big one for many players, especially in the west – culturally, eastern players seem to have less of an issue with it.  Using the multiple cash shop locations model, within specific lore-inspired characteristics for each, wouldn’t it be easier to tailor the items in the shop to the overall level or experience of the character?  A level 1 character might be able to purchase Level 80 armor, but would he or she actually be able to equip and use it?  Wouldn’t it make more sense to offer items that would serve the player well at their current level?   Sure, there might be common XP potions that everyone could buy at any time, but that would only boost XP for the level the character is currently at.  And the cash shop in the level 1-10 zone would be a lot different than the one in the big city.  The trick here is to offer items that can help a character through the current zone and levels, without giving them complete shortcuts.

And would buying a character starting at Level 30, 40, 50, 60, 70 or 80 being that bad a thing?  You start the character in a higher-level zone, along with the starter equipment appropriate to their level, and let them get on to playing with their friends who are already there.  The WoW Death Knight is a little bit of an example here – that character starts at Level 60 and has its own backstory within the world (you need a level 55 or higher character to be eligible to roll one).  It’s simply a higher-level character that is starting in a later zone – players can make up their own backstory if they want, and they still need to learn to play the character well.

As long as potions or equipment do not completely negate the need to learn to play the character, I think “pay to win” can be averted.  Purchased equipment should never be better than the equipment that can be obtained by simply playing the game, either through exploring, doing dungeons or crafting.  Another suggestion was that a purchased piece of gear would get a different look and title than the one obtained through play.  Ideally, purchased equipment should be good enough to allow a player to group in a dungeon or raid with friends, but would be quickly replaced by better equipment found by simply playing.

Keep the In-Game Marketplace Stable

One of the disadvantages of completely separating real-game money from in-game money is the opportunity offered to 3rd party gold farmers.  Game companies must hire or program algorithms to police the world and then ban the gold farmer.  By allowing purchase of gold in-game, that money actually stays with the game developer and can go to creating new features or content.  There’s also less control over the marketplace when gold is flooding in unexpectedly.  Blizzard took a step toward addressing this with the real-money auction house in Diablo 3, but there were problems in the implementation there; instead of playing the game to obtain items, players would simply purchase the best items through the AH.  The other problem with introducing purchased gold into the market – even if it is sold by the game developer rather than gold farmers – is that it essentially devalues gold and consequently all items in the game.

A better option might be to allow players to sell “second hand” cash-shop purchased equipment through the standard auction house, or even some character-bound equipment.  Players wanting cash-shop gear could get it at a discount, while players who purchased gear get an influx of in-game gold.  Sure there’s the intermediary step of buying the gear then selling it, but it gets around directly flooding the market with purchased gold.  You could even apply a “used” look and title to some of the gear sold this way for fun: “Marco’s Gently Used Staff of the Magi.”  Maybe the maximum repair level of the item could be lowered a bit.

What it really comes down to is finding some sort of translation of game-time/effort to money.  How much is the effort in a dungeon to obtain the great Staff of the Magi worth?  Instead of making that decision as a company, why not let the market decide?  The complaint will be that people who did not do the work will have access to the item, but the counterargument is that those users will need to spend actual dollars in order to obtain it.

The change that all these suggestions bring is a blurring of the line between those who choose to work to advance within the game, and those who wish to buy their way to higher levels and challenges (pay to win).  At the end of the day, is it more important that players be able to play the game the way they like, and with the friends they want, or that everyone go through the “work” of advancement?