Originally posted by nariusseldon

because the technology is not there.

The boss has to want to drink the poison drink. Either you have to script that .. which makes it NOT dynamic .. or at least you have to code every single possible action (very expensive), or you have to have a algorithm of general behavior, which no one has developed yet.

 

That is not true. The technology is there. Scripting AI has been around for awhile. Sure, it would probably be more like a library of possible actions that the AI chooses to use or not. The king of a castle might not be approachable between 5 and 6 because he's out riding. Next time, he might decide to go hunting from 5:30 to 6:30.

Unpredictable content might be a better way to describe it.

And "coding every single possible action" is not "very expensive." You make a set of physical actions that determine how a character moves. Then you determine how a robe interacts on that model while it's moving. Now, whether you use Robe A or Robe B won't have you running around changing the movement code. Same idea for content.

And imagine the quantity of private content users could generate. Give us the tools.

chrswlf was absolutely right with his final statement. "I don't need or want a developer to create a series of quests, I want them to create a world."

Give us the base upon which we, the players, can build. Not event content, make player interaction change the world. Let people shape the MMO. Let each server, if we even have them, be different from the next. Let each guild be more than just a chatroom. Let it be a part of the game.

I imagine too much imbalance and a whole lot of bitching in a system like this, leading to lots of unfun and griefing mechanics.  People accomplishing what others can't because they easily exploited something and since its a part of the game its suddenly OK.  Thats not going to fly mainstream and its going to take someone mainstream to do it right.  As long as you have a playerbase willing to be experimented on, which is exactly what this would be, you're golden=)  But give too much control to the player and the worst comes out.  Look at Eve.  Years of work and I call it work because thats what playing Eve basically is, flushed down the drain.  No going back.  No recovery.  Accomplishments gone in a day, because of the players.  You may THINK that makes the game better.  No.  it just doesn't make it a game anymore.  It becomes a simulation and I understand some people want that.  Most don't.  They don't see their games as simulations.  They see them as breaks from the biggest simulation we have, life. 

Most don't want to step out of the daily grind and walk into another even WORSE one.

Originally posted by Vexam

Originally posted by nariusseldon

because the technology is not there.

The boss has to want to drink the poison drink. Either you have to script that .. which makes it NOT dynamic .. or at least you have to code every single possible action (very expensive), or you have to have a algorithm of general behavior, which no one has developed yet.

 

 

That is not true. The technology is there. Scripting AI has been around for awhile. Sure, it would probably be more like a library of possible actions that the AI chooses to use or not. The king of a castle might not be approachable between 5 and 6 because he's out riding. Next time, he might decide to go hunting from 5:30 to 6:30.

Unpredictable content might be a better way to describe it.

 

And "coding every single possible action" is not "very expensive." You make a set of physical actions that determine how a character moves. Then you determine how a robe interacts on that model while it's moving. Now, whether you use Robe A or Robe B won't have you running around changing the movement code. Same idea for content.

And imagine the quantity of private content users could generate. Give us the tools.

chrswlf was absolutely right with his final statement. "I don't need or want a developer to create a series of quests, I want them to create a world."

Give us the base upon which we, the players, can build. Not event content, make player interaction change the world. Let people shape the MMO. Let each server, if we even have them, be different from the next. Let each guild be more than just a chatroom. Let it be a part of the game.

It won't work unless all the NPCs are doing random things. Otherwise you have to script for EVERY SINGLE ONE of them, and all teh possibilities, and the interaction. Combinatorial explosion set in very fast.

And the bugs will be really bad.

Unfortunately I also agree with Josher

The vast bulk of folk just want a game, and one that they can learn how to win, or at least read a walkthough for some of the tougher bits. When we make fantasy-sim regardless of how many RPGers will love it, I doubt we'll find enough players to fill the world and so fuel a global economy.

Its a matter of ensuring that the gamers get a game and the RPGers get role-play and the sandboxers have a world to play around with. Get it right and each of these groups will enjoy all aspects, yeah- the gamers will enjoy a bit of crafting as long as they dont have to do it, and might even like a bit of role-playering if it suits them.

And as I said before thats the prob, its too easy to do wrong.

I would instead call this Alternative Quest Pathing. It’s a great idea but comes up against a few problems, the foremost being that many players would not like this approach. If we can overcome that it would make for superb play. You get this sort of play in solo RPG's

The game would tailor its game play to the type of player you are. Want to rush head on in and kill everything, well there is a quest like that for you. Sneak around and steal anther quest in the same Path. Or use diplomacy to talk your through. As long as the Paths take roughly the same time it could work. But that’s just three paths and three times the hours needed to create that one Quest Path module.

The future perhaps, but not at least for a few years yet.

Originally posted by Josher

I imagine too much imbalance and a whole lot of bitching in a system like this, leading to lots of unfun and griefing mechanics.  People accomplishing what others can't because they easily exploited something and since its a part of the game its suddenly OK.  Thats not going to fly mainstream and its going to take someone mainstream to do it right.  As long as you have a playerbase willing to be experimented on, which is exactly what this would be, you're golden=)  But give too much control to the player and the worst comes out.  Look at Eve.  Years of work and I call it work because thats what playing Eve basically is, flushed down the drain.  No going back.  No recovery.  Accomplishments gone in a day, because of the players.  You may THINK that makes the game better.  No.  it just doesn't make it a game anymore.  It becomes a simulation and I understand some people want that.  Most don't.  They don't see their games as simulations.  They see them as breaks from the biggest simulation we have, life. 

Most don't want to step out of the daily grind and walk into another even WORSE one.

Spot on.

I'd image that dynamic content is something that truly changes the state of the game. Current gameworlds are stuck in time and never change. Only game I've seen this is GW where in a quest you killed all the dwarves roaming an area. After the completion of that quest, there weren't any dwarves there! It's a small step, but it's still a step forward. I know some people hate instances but this is how it's done. I want to see the world change because of my actions. If it means more instances I say it's worth it.

Another choice would be using GMs as Elikal previously suggested. That would be the ultimate thing. Far better than any smart AI randomized area or quest with multiple endings. Definately something worth our subs.

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by Josher

I imagine too much imbalance and a whole lot of bitching in a system like this, leading to lots of unfun and griefing mechanics.  People accomplishing what others can't because they easily exploited something and since its a part of the game its suddenly OK.  Thats not going to fly mainstream and its going to take someone mainstream to do it right.  As long as you have a playerbase willing to be experimented on, which is exactly what this would be, you're golden=)  But give too much control to the player and the worst comes out.  Look at Eve.  Years of work and I call it work because thats what playing Eve basically is, flushed down the drain.  No going back.  No recovery.  Accomplishments gone in a day, because of the players.  You may THINK that makes the game better.  No.  it just doesn't make it a game anymore.  It becomes a simulation and I understand some people want that.  Most don't.  They don't see their games as simulations.  They see them as breaks from the biggest simulation we have, life. 

Most don't want to step out of the daily grind and walk into another even WORSE one.

 

Spot on.

I'd image that dynamic content is something that truly changes the state of the game. Current gameworlds are stuck in time and never change. Only game I've seen this is GW where in a quest you killed all the dwarves roaming an area. After the completion of that quest, there weren't any dwarves there! It's a small step, but it's still a step forward. I know some people hate instances but this is how it's done. I want to see the world change because of my actions. If it means more instances I say it's worth it.

Another choice would be using GMs as Elikal previously suggested. That would be the ultimate thing. Far better than any smart AI randomized area or quest with multiple endings. Definately something worth our subs.

I agree. Dynamic means the game world changes. And I don't mean changes like WoW's phasing, where the change is just an illusion, since the change is not apparent to all players.

Real change means it affects all players, and all players see the same thing.

I think cyclical change would be a step in the right direction.

Right now, you save the princess. She's not really saved, because the quest is still there fro someone else to save the princess.

WoW ads Phasing. You save the princess, and she's saved for YOU, as an illusion, but for ME she still needs saving .

Cyclical quests would work like this:

I kidnap the Princess. I get xp and rewards for that. The state of the quest is now "Princess kidnapped". No one else can kidnap the Princess, because she is already truly kidnapped for all players in the world to see.

Now, there is an opposite quest:  "Save the Princess" . if you do that the Princess is truly saved, for all in the world to see, and no one can save the Princess again, until she is kidnapped.

Now, not EVERY quest would need to be dynamic like this, but if you put a LOT of quests like this in the game, I think it would be fun.

---

Why is there no RPG (read: STORY) element in any of today's games?

---

We need a rpg mmorpg, agreed. Mmorpg's only art is making players grind as long as they can.

What in the hell is the point of an mmo if it has no grouping at all? Co-op? Are you serious? I can't think of a game where a co-op mode was implemented outside of a single player game? Bah, WoW, if that shit never got big we wouldn't have players want single player mmos.

More instances means less impact on the world, just the bit I'm stood in, and assuming I want to meet everyone else I'm going to need to leave this instance. As mentioned you can have apparent changes where the world tells me things have changed but only 'cos I've done that quest... but again thats not the same world as everyone else. Cyclic quests is closer, now at least something has genuinly changed for everyone to see, but we'd be queing up at the princesses window waiting for her to be rescued so we could kidnap her again. Or jumping the latest kidnapper as they make off with her (again).

Its a genuine problem, the solution for me is a larger world with player actions providing the quests for other players, like the princess kidnapping, except I just decided to do it rather than it being an optional quest that everyone knows about (thanks to the games wiki). Of course this means the game must have the provision for me to kidnapp folk- anyfolk. And for the families of these folk to respond in a sensible manner. Its a biggy.

An obvious solution is to be rid of NPCs of significance and instead have the player characters be the ones we kidnap for cash (or a laugh), and have thier allies and/or alts come for them- or whatever they decide to do. This means a character must be persistant and can also be lost (else you'll easy find yourself).

In fact the more odd situations we imagine we could put a character in, and dream up all the systems we'd need to add or even remove, then the more open the players will be. Indeed I've sat around doing this for many years now and its basicaly the real-world sim as mentioned earlier... and as highlighted earlier 'it will definitely make an impressive piece of technology, but maybe not a GAME'.

Let me start by saying that your post is amazing. Now, I'll say my piece. 

There are two answers, and I love both (or would if they were done with success).
 

You mentioned the first answer: Dynamic Content. But this wouldn't mean a dynamic world, therefore everyone has the same opportunities. It's brilliant, but (when) will we see it? I've heard nothing of this other than your post (so props for being original).

The second answer is being worked on by many and is probably much nearer: Dynamic world and true sandbox gameplay.  A world where everything is controlled by the players, where the only limit is imagination and skill (or so the devs/fanboys/etc. say...time will tell).

Both ideas look great, but ideas are only ideas, and are yet to be actually carried out in full. Your idea is great, but I'm not getting my hopes up. For the time being, I'll just keep playing mediocre  mainstream MMOs while waiting for Mortal Online to possibly save the world, because I have no faith in Darkfall. That being said, it would be awesome if your idea was already being used by a company for the basis of their next game and we didn't know about it yet (or I'm just making an ass of myself by being misinformed) and was within ohh...say a year and a half from projected release.

The problem with a sandbox is that development is programmer heavy.  The art side of it is rather simple and can be done with only 5 artists.  There are alot more artists/designers then programmers trying to get into the game industry considering a programmer gets paid better elsewhere.

I don't understand why people want more solo options and to limit  grouping? Its a danm MMO. Bah, I dislike that kind of thinking.

Originally posted by Eronakis

I don't understand why people want more solo options and to limit  grouping? Its a danm MMO. Bah, I dislike that kind of thinking.

Agreed.  Too much solo content ruins the whole idea of multi-player, imo.

Totally agree, we can play Oblivion or Witcher for darn good solo play. Why play a MMO unless you want to group up, want to take part in a living community of like minded players?

More options doesn't mean single player, you can choose to take down the big boss by various means, and this can include a great many of you... either directly assaulting their fortess, or more likely split into a few teams each with a task. By working together you can ensure the enemy army is else where and their defences are down and their guards are drugged and you have the only weapon that can kill them. How you do all this, if indeed you decide to- is up to you, and if you fail any bits then you decide to continue or not... not the game system. You never know, you might get lucky.

Like I said, not single player.

Sounds like you need to get this on your blog

http://www.mmorpg.com/blogs.cfm?&val=1

Good stuff 

Originally posted by Eronakis

I don't understand why people want more solo options and to limit  grouping? Its a danm MMO. Bah, I dislike that kind of thinking.

You clear do not understand the bulk of the players. Solo options = no waiting = no depending on other people to have fun.

People like to show off their gear to others, like to chat when playing, like to have a large auction house. Those are quite enough to warrant a MMO.

And it is symantics anyway. If a lot of people find if fun to solo when on a chat channel, who are you to say that shouldn't be supported?

Originally posted by spades07

 

---

Why is there no RPG (read: STORY) element in any of today's games?

---

 

We need a rpg mmorpg, agreed. Mmorpg's only art is making players grind as long as they can.

The Old Republic will be just that. It's basically a massive multiplayer version of KOTOR. I just hope it won't be to solo friendly, which will ruin the whole point of it being massive multiplayer, IMO.