This week, Garrett Fuller returns with his Outside the Box column discussing the use of end game content in MMORGPs.

What makes a good MMO? That question is on the minds of every developer, player, marketing person, and business analyst in the industry today. We have our main model right now as World of Warcraft. We have our historical pillars with Ultima Online, EverQuest, and Dark Age of Camelot. We have our history with Meridian 59 and MUDs. So after years of this industry finally coming into its own, what makes a good MMO? I want to try to present ideas for discussion in this week's column. The main point of continuing MMO game play, in my opinion, is the end game.

Players can level up all they want, heck you can have unlimited leveling in your game and some players will go for infinity. The concept of leveling goes back to RPGs in their earliest form. Remember your first copy of the Players Handbook for Dungeons & Dragons? Remember looking at the high levels and wondering how long it would take your character to get there? Some philosophers will say it is the journey that counts not the goal. Well, in MMOs players try to achieve both goals and good times. This is still done through leveling or advancement in some form. The question is when do you put a stop to leveling, and what do you do from there?

Read the whole column here.

or you can get rid of levels altogether and forget about end-game. examples? EVE, UO, SWG (old good one)

those games dont have end-game, that's why they are inherently superior to any other mmorpg.

If I were a developer I would look at character development in a couple of ways:
(1) Skills/Abilities. This is the classic MMO method of character imporvement. However, I'd also have it so that little used abilities would decrease over time and that you have to do things to maintain your uber leet skills. Keep a character always involved in their characters development, not finalized at a certain level. Also, skills should improve at a decreasing level. Your first few levels/advancementns get you a lot of ability and it tapers off the more you advance that ability. That way people can get up to speed quickly and then continue to work for an edge.

(2) Loot/Gear. Not only items that make you more powerful, but things like houses, towns, pets, NPCs and what not. All of these things should be carrots to keep you in the world and working for a goal.

(3) Social Advancement. This is the one that most games totally miss. Another way to advance characters is socially. Why not let players/guilds become kings/dukes/etc. As players advance they should have more options as to how they can affect the world. If you purchase a home/fort you should have the priveledges of that.location as well as the reponsibility. You should be called to defend it, help the people in the area and other dynamic content. The people who play the game the most should have the ability to affect the world in far reaching ways. Giving them those types of perks doesn't muck up your PvP and keeps characters more equal in terms of combat capability. It does however, reward them for time spent in game.

Finally more directly aimed at end game content then player development:
(4) Dynamic Content. There are no games that I know of that have this. We don't all need to do the same quests. Monsters should move into areas and cause problems. If heroes don't root them out, they get stronger, etc. People in the area complain to the heads of state (see #3) those heads of state put out bounties (read quests) for varrious players to complete. If the players stop an incursion, those monsters need to go somewhere else and the cycle starts anew. It doesn't have to just be monsters either. If there is a drought in an area, players may have to quest for someting to change the weather, or what not.

Computers are getting to the point where this type of content should be possible. We don't need static quests for everything. Give us living beathing worlds that react to certain conditions that we can affect with our actions and you don't have to worry about end game content. The game is the journey and there is no end.

RPG's were the first MMO's if I'm not much mistaken. As the previous poster implied, getting rid of levels is where we are heading, I believe. MMO's where "endgame" is what you do all the time. Like "any FPS game"- online. The word endgame has a negativ connotation inherent in it. It's the end. In RPG's you want to build a character and when you reach endgame you can't, so, naturally, end game has to go.

Originally posted by apertotes

or you can get rid of levels altogether and forget about end-game. examples? EVE, UO, SWG (old good one)

those games dont have end-game, that's why they are inherently superior to any other mmorpg.

I think the end-game design is the most stagnant part of the MMORPG genre.  What do people offer in their games?  Raid.  PvP.  That's it.  No new ideas, nothing to innovate.  The fundamentals were laid down in the late '90s:  quest/grind up levels to the end-cap, and then forever-after you're either Raiding, PvPing, or building alternate characters because there's nothing else to do.

Here's a thought:  let's design an MMORPG that DOESN'T use Raiding as the end-all/be-all of the "end-cap" of a game.  
As for PvP, it should be present and throughout the game, but not blatantly so.  I would create, besides the duel option, world PvP that is tied to "tags".  These tags would be generated either by a quest-giver, which would "turn on" your PvP status; or by a generation-system that is tied to player behavior.

That last part?  For instance, create a system where there are sheriff's offices with wanted posters and other "risk/reward" things like wanted posters.  As a player advances in PvP, the system tracks who/what he's killing.  If the player, for instance, slaughters a lot of NPCs, he begins generating "infamy" points.  At some point, the infamy points begin generating wanted posters (with rewards appropriate to the "wanted"'s level).  A player can then "take" the wanted poster and either go after the "Evil player" himself or get a team together.  The idea is to have content that is generated entirely through player action, instead of just "being there".  Players should be able to form associations (not JUST guilds) around these ideas -- so, a group of players could create the "Townhall Mercenary Club", which then creates "posters" advertising their services, which might include hiring out some of their number to help with the wanted-poster quests. 

The "death" of a player who has enough infamy to generate a wanted poster should be significant, not simply "he's dead, wait for respawn".  Perhaps the reward/cost goes up as the infamy points go up.  For instance, we could tie "titles" to different tiers of infamy (or its opposite, fame) and players would then be able to obtain them through their actions.  The group of good-minded players might go after "evil" (infamous) players as their primary focus, and as they begin to achieve results, the participants unlock these "titles".   The fame/infamy distinction plays into the idea of "factions" as well.  Back to death.  The wanted player is killed.  Perhaps losing all the gear he had on might be too harsh, or not; I haven't thought about this that far.  At least some sort of penalty should be applied that has feeling.  Further, the more "groups" or individuals who come after the infamous player, should the player survive without being killed, the more a bonus should be applied to his infamy (and to his faction with groups in the world who are likely to support that sort of behavior, like a Thieves Guild, or whatever).  He should unlock titles, too, ones that make clear his "prowess" in not only being infamous and doing things to make himself infamous but also in surviving and winning fights without being "killed". 

At certain point totals of fame (or infamy), the player should unlock new quests and new targets.  For instance, perhaps the player's fame has reached a level high enough that the local nobility hears about him and they are now looking to hire him.  Their quests could be simple (the usual dreck of kill -x- of this thing), but should include, perhaps, more behavior-generated "tags"/quests.  Example:  the player is hired by a local noble to go after an NPC mercenary group that's targetting trade/people on a particular road.  The "famous" player could get the quest and go after the group; the "infamous" player would be able to get a quest from the mercenaries to "help them stave off any do-gooders".   And so on and so on... 

Through all of this, the player who takes the "wanted poster" or whatever becomes a quest-generator themselves.  They should be able to "share" the poster with other people, who are then grouped with him on that particular task. 

Anyway.  I go off on a tangent.  You can use the idea of player-generated quests and tags to construct a whole new endgame.  The endgame SHOULD NOT be different than what led up to it.  There should a continuity to the play that doesn't "end" because you reached the level-cap and now you have to Raid.  World of Warcraft fails this test, as there is ZERO continuity to the gameplayer pre-endcap and the level-cap itself.  It's almost two games, one up to the level cap and another afterwards. 


Bottom-line:  we need innovative ideas and we should definitely be willing to try new theories not just about the endgame but spread those ideas out throughout the game.  The above stuff could be added to any PvE game and the content described would mix PvP and PvE content, with suitable rewards, titles, eventually perhaps nobility titles and land...

Wanted Posters!!!!

 

GENIUS!!!!!

That is such a good idea!!! DEVS ARE YOU READING THIS!!!!

I once posted that it might be good to go through a linear progress to master that unlocks all Professions to choose from.  In essance, turning a Profession system into a Skill System once you finish your chosen path.  If a player, does not like Skill based play, they can quit having finished the game by Mastering a single profession.

 

I to hate the term "End Game" but there it is.  I feel that multipul situations should open up for a player at Master Level.  Master should be a first requirement on unlocking content/mission/quests that are group based or single player driven.  This same content could help tailor and customize the Look and Play of this character based on the genera or setting and the choices of the player.  What does Master <character class> mean if the world does not open up other posiblities?

 

Both of these ideas, however, cause developers nightmares in balance and content building.  They are not easy repeatable or grind conent that players can continue endlessly.

 

Further, its all backwards.  Raiding and PVP should be what a character does (mundane jobs) to get to master that opens up new possiblities such as quests and missions.  Thats kinda how it is in the real world.  Work hard  for promotions to achieve better tools, higher status to work with better situations.

End game is the result of a design flaw in level/loot based games. 

It stems from a DnD like conversion using levels, and increasing hit points to create difficulty instead of more intelligent AI. (AI in DnD was determined by the GM so it did not have this issue , something not useable in MMO's, apparently, except Ryzom)

What is funny is you don’t increase in power in MMO, like creatures are just increased hit point bags that are ON PAR with your "level" creating a situation that is not harder, just longer to overcome. Its a moving bracket on a scale.

I believe SWG had the best system out there, just needed content and some polish. There was no endgame, because there was no "limit" and items did not matter in an escalating scale, it was situational, and anyone could use anything at a basic level, none of this "You cant pick up that axe" crap... Anyone can swing an axe....

Originally posted by spydermr2

Originally posted by apertotes

or you can get rid of levels altogether and forget about end-game. examples? EVE, UO, SWG (old good one)

those games dont have end-game, that's why they are inherently superior to any other mmorpg.

...

Here's a thought:  let's design an MMORPG that DOESN'T use Raiding as the end-all/be-all of the "end-cap" of a game.  
As for PvP, it should be present and throughout the game, but not blatantly so.  I would create, besides the duel option, world PvP that is tied to "tags".  These tags would be generated either by a quest-giver, which would "turn on" your PvP status; or by a generation-system that is tied to player behavior.

...

Your talking TEFs(Temporay Enemy Flags) and I can tell you that all major MMO companies will avoid them like the plague.  Why?  Those darn East Asian Regulations against Forced PVP.  PVP is only going to be avaible as a choice option now.  You have to be able to turn off your Flag.  That problem kinda hurts your idea of the surprise attack even if you are PVP enabled all the time.

BTW, I love the "Wanted Poster" idea.

Originally posted by bstripp
(4) Dynamic Content. There are no games that I know of that have this. ...

I believe a dynamic World is the Way to go. Simply because the World is what really makes the Difference between MMOs and other Games. In Terms of Endgame at least... In a static World, the Endgame degrades an MMO to a PvP-Game (like CS or WC3) or a PvE-Game/Raid-Game (like Dungeon Siege or Titan Quest) - only with an expansive Lobby. And that's sad, because if I wanted that, I could get a Game the gives me that from the Beginning. ...there's just that wicked Guild system, that keeps People paying long after they stopped actually caring about what they do in the MMO.

A dynamic World can offer you something to fight for besides personal Gain (which is ultimately the Purpose behind any PvP and all the Raids). Planetside does this, for example, but Planetside is a pure PvP Game, and that amounts to some nasty Gameplay Elements, like "Nighttime Raids" (a few People conquer back, what to a big Force all day to conquer), or forcing you to equip and behave in the officially "best" way - or lose, and it also makes many Situations play out the same Way every time, simply because it's the most effective way.

A dynamic (mostly) PvE World could offer you a Chance to behave as you like (nice for RPers), without constanty falling to the Guy with the right Tactic. You could spend your points on Skills you like, without beeing slaughtered by the perfectly specced Guy. And just because your Enemies are Mobs doesn't mean that Combat must be boring - it could actually be a lot more diverse than two equally sized Groups of equally powerful players charging each other. The GMs could send armies of Cannonfodder, flying Beasts to Raid a Town behind the Frontlines, a giant Basilisk as a Reinforcement (if the Invasion isn't going as expected), they could send an NPC that allows to Summon a mighty Elemental to break a Siege (through a Series of Quest where many can and must participate).

You could clear the Marblegolems out of the Quarry and allow the Crafters to gather Ressources without fear - and the Mobs wouldn't just spawn again, they'd just move in from the "Lands of Evil", when a Place in the World is empty for a Time. Quest could be generated depending on what's needed at the Time, in a Bordertown for example, Players would be hired to scout the Area for enemy Movements, to harass ememy Patrols or Assassinate Leaders deep in enemy Territory, once they've been found by Scouts, that is. Crafters could be given Tasks to raise Fortifications or build bridges, Teleportaion Gates or Barracs to help in the War...

When you start to think about it, you may notice that you could go on forever about this - and all it would take were a few GMs per Server to Control the Massmovements of the Enemy. And Buildings that can be owned by different Factions, or Destroyed. Nothing spectacular... And if your Content Designer aren't keeping their Deadline, just send an Invasion to Push the Players back from the unfinished Areas.

       When it comes to the full loot PvP scheme UO used, don't forget that in UO, the economy was such that armor was not that difficult to come by. Magic armor was more difficult, but the bonuses it gave were not overpowering. In modern games, the ability to loot an enemies armor would be a much more severe blow to the player than it was in UO.

To this extent, I believe any game designed around PvP should also be designed with that concept in mind. Armor and weapons should not increase statistically as level increases (and they should be relatively easy to craft/find). Combat should be chiefly based upon level/skill/ stat distribution, not weapon statistics.

Originally posted by bstripp

If I were a developer I would look at character development in a couple of ways:
(1) Skills/Abilities. This is the classic MMO method of character imporvement. However, I'd also have it so that little used abilities would decrease over time and that you have to do things to maintain your uber leet skills. Keep a character always involved in their characters development, not finalized at a certain level. Also, skills should improve at a decreasing level. Your first few levels/advancementns get you a lot of ability and it tapers off the more you advance that ability. That way people can get up to speed quickly and then continue to work for an edge.

(2) Loot/Gear. Not only items that make you more powerful, but things like houses, towns, pets, NPCs and what not. All of these things should be carrots to keep you in the world and working for a goal.

(3) Social Advancement. This is the one that most games totally miss. Another way to advance characters is socially. Why not let players/guilds become kings/dukes/etc. As players advance they should have more options as to how they can affect the world. If you purchase a home/fort you should have the priveledges of that.location as well as the reponsibility. You should be called to defend it, help the people in the area and other dynamic content. The people who play the game the most should have the ability to affect the world in far reaching ways. Giving them those types of perks doesn't muck up your PvP and keeps characters more equal in terms of combat capability. It does however, reward them for time spent in game.

Finally more directly aimed at end game content then player development:
(4) Dynamic Content. There are no games that I know of that have this. We don't all need to do the same quests. Monsters should move into areas and cause problems. If heroes don't root them out, they get stronger, etc. People in the area complain to the heads of state (see #3) those heads of state put out bounties (read quests) for varrious players to complete. If the players stop an incursion, those monsters need to go somewhere else and the cycle starts anew. It doesn't have to just be monsters either. If there is a drought in an area, players may have to quest for someting to change the weather, or what not.

Computers are getting to the point where this type of content should be possible. We don't need static quests for everything. Give us living beathing worlds that react to certain conditions that we can affect with our actions and you don't have to worry about end game content. The game is the journey and there is no end.

Bravo!  I like the way you think and I've had similar thoughts of my own.  An full eco system would be great in a game, having animals migrate during certain times of the year.  Have weather systems come in and change the land.  Trees die and new ones take their place.  Animals can become extinct if hunted to much...etc.  Yes computers are getting powerful enough to be able to do these things and it would make the world feel like a living one, and that would make it more realistic which would make the game more fun.  I've
always disliked when animals and monsters just walk around in a 10 foot area unless you aggro them.  I always figured devs did that because it was easier than letting them roam around and letting them migrate.  Maybe it was the computer power of the time, but now there can be more. 

I also like the idea of becoming a king or duke of your land.  The head of a guild should be the king/queen  or mayor of the town he/she owns.  Make the players feel like their working for something more than a number level.  Hell if your mayor or king isn't doing a good job have it so you can vote them out of office and make someone else head of the town.  Give the newcomer a chance to look at maybe becoming a head of office or the head of his own platoon and not just level 60.  Let heads of towns give rewards to people who do well, let him/her make them captains and such.  If your guild takes over another town let the mayor let someone be head of that town, and take some of the troops with him.

I hate the whole concept of an end game.  It is the result of a flawed loot/item based leveling system.  There should be no "End Game" there should just be "The Game".  We have an endgame because of games like Wow and Everquest. 

Still to this day UO was the only MMO game I have played more than 6 months.  It was a game where the content was defined by the social actions of yourself and those around you.  Even though todays games are populated by thousands of people they are mostly anti-social in every way except for the interactions between you and your guildmates.  Try talking to people in WOW more than likely you get a very anti-social response.    

I tend to agree with posters like bstripp.  These MMO's need to evolve and and do away with the mega restrictiveness of most MMO designs today.  Stop being copycats and do something creative and new. 

First I wouldn't call it end game content. I believe it is where the game actually begins, but to stick with the theme of the original poster, here is my opinion.

The gameplay we are missing in all of the MMO's is the player impact on the world. In almost every game out there, ( there are a few exceptions, bare with me) the impact of a player or thier commuinty (Guild/Clan/Gang) on the game world is zero. The quest you complete to save a farmer will be there when you roll another hero. The quest to save the village from the dragon, is never destroyed by the dragon no matter if you finish or not. The worlds are very static. I know the developers have had to wait for technology to allow them to do more things, but the next step is a Dynamic world, a living, breathing world, that reacts to the players actions for better or worse.

 If you remember in Pen and Paper games there was the one person who always made sure the world was effected by the players, the GM made sure to note the actions of the players and rewards or consequences of those actions. They burn a villiage looking for witches, when the come back in a few months nothing but charred buildings. They failed to save a princess, well she is gone, sacrificed to some evil god. To sum it up in one word we are missing Immersion. Imagin for a moment a Dev whose job it was to watch the actions of the players, and then deform the world into accordance with those actions.

Now the games so far have given us some good times, but what is on the horizon is so much more, think of it this way, way back when, Pong was fun. We will look back on WoW sometime in the future and it will be a novelty like Pong.

Lets get to more practical terms though, what could be done in today's technology?

I would think the first step is Land deforming based on player wars. If, on a server the Alliance tears down Ogrimar, then for a long time that place should be a ruin, until the Horde players rebuild it. Front lines that move according to which side happens to be winning, kind of no mans land inbetween the pve areas which boundries move depending on captured control points. Warhammer Online is a baby step of this. Player owned structures in the zone between the pve areas, some of it pvp, such as castles, forts, bases, what ever. Housing also on the fringes of that zone so that if you are losing the battle, it could be possible for them to sack the zone. And always haveing a PvE area that offers everything a losing side needs to make a come back.

 Also to keep this fresh often have NPC armies invade the zones, if players kill to many Orcs, it triggers a backlash from the Orc tribes who come together and fight back. They stay fractured and fight amongst themselves until some threshhold has been met and they unite and attack back. Let one or two large NPC factions go to war and allow the players to get swepted up in it, or make them run and hide until it is over.

And all of the time that these things are happening the world changes, one month a mountain near a city, the next the city and the mountain are gone. Maybe an evil faction releases a demon and several cities are wiped completely out. It wouldnt be the same world as when you joined. The designers could use the month of development to slow deform the and according events happening the worls, whether be player triggered or npc faction triggered. Snow comes for a few months then spring and summer.

In the end it is a new style of play called PvPvD. Player vs Player vs Dev or mayber World. The entire system is tied to the actions of the players and the Devs.

Originally posted by SkullFighter

I hate the whole concept of an end game.  It is the result of a flawed loot/item based leveling system.  There should be no "End Game" there should just be "The Game".  We have an endgame because of games like Wow and Everquest. 

Still to this day UO was the only MMO game I have played more than 6 months.  It was a game where the content was defined by the social actions of yourself and those around you.  Even though todays games are populated by thousands of people they are mostly anti-social in every way except for the interactions between you and your guildmates.  Try talking to people in WOW more than likely you get a very anti-social response.    

I tend to agree with posters like bstripp.  These MMO's need to evolve and and do away with the mega restrictiveness of most MMO designs today.  Stop being copycats and do something creative and new. 

I agree, I don't like end games either.   An  MMO is suppose to go on forever so why have and end game?  I too have never played a game for more than 6 months.  It pisses my friend off, (because he wants to play mmo's with me because we're both into games and most of our other friends aren't), but I keep getting bored of games because they all seem the same.  Go out, hunt, do some quest thats like every other quest in every other mmo (kill 35 spiders or bring back 50 tiger paws).  I think a lot of the U.S.  MMO community are getting board of it and look for something new.  Hopefully Star Trek Online and/or Stargate Worlds will be different, and Spore looks interesting too.  We'll see.

MMO's need a linear path progression that leads to dynamic content. If you kill the Raid Dragon, evil should fill the land and turn everything living into undead... until you kill the Raid Lich, who releases the undead curse which triggers another Raid event.

Raids need to effect the world, all MMO's are only surface deep, they have no substance. Raid the same Dragon over and over and over... and nothing happens when he dies... he just comes back later.

Raids should be something the entire server wants to conquer for a specific reason. And the world needs to "evolve" so-to-speak when these raids are conquered. Rewarding everyone who participates is another big thing... server space is getting cheaper, fiber cables are more abundant, its only a lack of design that stops us from moving beyond this limited perspective.

Originally posted by Ragemore

First I wouldn't call it end game content. I believe it is where the game actually begins, but to stick with the theme of the original poster, here is my opinion.

  Then why even bother with the other 50 levels? This is a huge flaw in Level/loot based games.

I agree with most of what bstripp said but I'm even more of a crazed lunatic than he is (from the perspective of people inside the box).

I think character progression should be thrown out almost entirely.  After character creation you should have a complete character.  No levels to gain.  No skills to increase.  You have your character and it's not a matter of how big you can build up the numbers on the character it's a question of what can you do with the character you have.

The little bit of character progression that should be kept is improvements by upgrading equipment.  But that should be kept sane.  The difference between a standard sword and the best sword shouldn't be terribly huge.  I also think that item loss HAS to be a part of the game.  Either through breakage when used or as a penalty when you die.

Also, just do one simple little thing with the points you distribute at character creation.  It goes like this.  When your character dies he is dead.  You then create a new character who is the offspring of your last one.  You are guarantteed a minimum amount of training points to use that will ensure you have a fully functional character.  BUT...depending on how long your previous character survived and how much he accomplished while he was alive you may get additional training points. 

These additional training points don't necessarily make the new character more powerful.  It just gives him/her more options.  But then if you die young with that character your next one may be back to the minimum number of training points.  It's just a way to give people another reason to want to avoid dying. 

But now, people always get hung up on this when I say that character progression shouldn't be the focus of these games.  They always ask what would be the motivation for playing.  bstripp covered some of that.

There would still be equipment upgrades to get---even if it isn't guarantteed to be permanent (remember item loss is in)

Social advancement----Of course.  But here I would suggest that people have to make a choice at creation if they want to be a part of the aristocracy or a commoner.  There would be trade-offs.

Doing things to support your home city / kingdom / tribe.

And one of the big things in my mind is that as you go about adventuring you would earn some form of points which you can use to "buy" quests.  After you spend points to "buy" a quest if you die before you complete it you have failed.  The quest is over and you don't get back the points you spent to buy it, you have to earn more.

The quests would be for a variety of things:

Unlocking other playable races

Unlocking playable monsters---Which have a limited number of lives and then they perma-die (of course you can always re-quest for another).  These could range from cheap, easy quests to gain a playable wolf to expensive and difficult quests to get a playable dragon.

Create new religions and you get to be the god---Sounds crazy?  But why?  Playing as a God would be more of a behind-the-scenes management thing.  Not adventuring in the world.  Something like being a DM in a tabletop game (sort of that feel anyway).  You would need worshipers for mana.  You could only act through your worshipers, especially your priests.  Why not let players manage the God side of things.  Not everyone would like that sort of thing but some people would and it would be pretty damn cool to have an intelligent God in the game.  Of course a player God couldn't be online all the time to answer prayers and what-not so there would also have to be some automation to it.

Founding new cities / kingdoms / tribes

Really there are all sorts of things that could be added here.

And one big point I need to add is that if players were all within the same rough power range the whole of the game world could be designed consistantly as one vast adventuring ground.  Not broken up into level appropriate areas.

Anyway...I can dream.

 

  

I wont go into in detail here , now, how the entire MMO design as Devs know it should be completely tossed AND how the devs should be tossed with the design.

Instead ill say, there is NO good reason for "end game" to begin with.

A good MMO (something we have yet to see, and probably wont for some time yet) would allow you to move on to another world,after you finished whats on the world your started on.

Think of a MMO thats lossely based on a system like rifts.

Think of the starter world as a place that needs tha players to accomplish a whole hell of a lot, and that those things acomplished changed the world.

Now think of the starter world pretty much finished, all known goals accomplished,BUT theres this gate/rift/portal/etc.. that you the players can create that will take you to the next world.

Now think of that next world in the same type of situational mess as the starter world.With its own goals to be accomplished.

And so on.And so on.

But work ethic and creativity are NOT MMO dev hallmarks. So as simple a solution as this is, dont expect any dev team to embrace it soon.

Originally posted by Neanderthal

I agree with most of what bstripp said but I'm even more of a crazed lunatic than he is (from the perspective of people inside the box).

I think character progression should be thrown out almost entirely.  After character creation you should have a complete character.  No levels to gain.  No skills to increase.  You have your character and it's not a matter of how big you can build up the numbers on the character it's a question of what can you do with the character you have.

The little bit of character progression that should be kept is improvements by upgrading equipment.  But that should be kept sane.  The difference between a standard sword and the best sword shouldn't be terribly huge.  I also think that item loss HAS to be a part of the game.  Either through breakage when used or as a penalty when you die.

Also, just do one simple little thing with the points you distribute at character creation.  It goes like this.  When your character dies he is dead.  You then create a new character who is the offspring of your last one.  You are guarantteed a minimum amount of training points to use that will ensure you have a fully functional character.  BUT...depending on how long your previous character survived and how much he accomplished while he was alive you may get additional training points. 

These additional training points don't necessarily make the new character more powerful.  It just gives him/her more options.  But then if you die young with that character your next one may be back to the minimum number of training points.  It's just a way to give people another reason to want to avoid dying. 

But now, people always get hung up on this when I say that character progression shouldn't be the focus of these games.  They always ask what would be the motivation for playing.  bstripp covered some of that.

There would still be equipment upgrades to get---even if it isn't guarantteed to be permanent (remember item loss is in)

Social advancement----Of course.  But here I would suggest that people have to make a choice at creation if they want to be a part of the aristocracy or a commoner.  There would be trade-offs.

Doing things to support your home city / kingdom / tribe.

And one of the big things in my mind is that as you go about adventuring you would earn some form of points which you can use to "buy" quests.  After you spend points to "buy" a quest if you die before you complete it you have failed.  The quest is over and you don't get back the points you spent to buy it, you have to earn more.

The quests would be for a variety of things:

Unlocking other playable races

Unlocking playable monsters---Which have a limited number of lives and then they perma-die (of course you can always re-quest for another).  These could range from cheap, easy quests to gain a playable wolf to expensive and difficult quests to get a playable dragon.

Create new religions and you get to be the god---Sounds crazy?  But why?  Playing as a God would be more of a behind-the-scenes management thing.  Not adventuring in the world.  Something like being a DM in a tabletop game (sort of that feel anyway).  You would need worshipers for mana.  You could only act through your worshipers, especially your priests.  Why not let players manage the God side of things.  Not everyone would like that sort of thing but some people would and it would be pretty damn cool to have an intelligent God in the game.  Of course a player God couldn't be online all the time to answer prayers and what-not so there would also have to be some automation to it.

Founding new cities / kingdoms / tribes

Really there are all sorts of things that could be added here.

And one big point I need to add is that if players were all within the same rough power range the whole of the game world could be designed consistantly as one vast adventuring ground.  Not broken up into level appropriate areas.

Anyway...I can dream.

 

  

Stuff like unlockable have been done for many many years in muds so this should be doable in games.  People (including myself) have suggested the other stuff.  Currently there is no monetary pressure to make such a game.  Want a challenge?  Go build a gaming company and implement what you desire.  When you are done, tell us the lessons  you have learned.