Roads and rivers are two nitpicks of mine in MMOS.

I'll start with roads. 

Roads served a purpose in olden times.  They were a means of quickly conveying people from one area to another.  Paved roads meant that wagons and caravans didn't sink into the mud, some roads were guarded, some were not.  Roads, even the unpaved ones, were generally much more clear of obstacles that could otherwise slow down troops, horses, wagons, and travelers.  Last, but not least, they provided a handy path to follow to get from point a to point b.

In MMO's, about the only part that is true, is that they form a path from A to B.  With the exception of possibly mountainous areas, there is no other reason for a person to follow a road. (granted, some mmos make roads less mob filled, others do not).  I would much rather see MMOs make roads much more utilitarian.  First, if you have vehicles that take wear and tear while traveling, reduce that amount if the vehicle is travelling on a road.  Second, provide a speed buff to anyone travelling along the road.  It doesn't need to be too high, but enough to make people want to use the road for faster travel.   I feel this would make roads much more important in MMOs.  (Plus in a sandbox styel game, it provides a point of contention as your caravans would most likely be travelling on roads, open to brigands)

Next, I'll rant abit about Rivers.

Rivers have long proved to be, in the real world, an obstacle.  If you wanted to cross it, you had to either find a shallow part to wade across, or use a bridge.  Rivers had enormous tactical importance.  Rivers were the superhighways of the old world.  Barges travelled along them carrying goods.  Rivers also provided a fair amount of protection against enemy forces from at least one side.

In MMO's on the other had, rivers are an inconvenience.  They slow down movement, but other than that they have no effect.  Who needs to walk up to that bridge 3 min away, when I can swim across in one.  Rarely is there any danger in the water, a fully clad knight in steel armor can swim across without the slightest worry of drowning.  A set of raging rapids near a waterfall provides you a place to swim with loud noise and a neat view.  At least horses and vehicles don't normally go through them.

Rivers need a few things.  The first and formost is a Current.  If I hop in a river and swim across, I should end up on the other side of the river if I'm lucky, but 100+yards downstream from where I left.  If the river is a set of rapids, start a dot as people swim in and get "banged up" by the river.  Put in sinking mechanics for plate mail.  Inconvenience people for "wet" clothing (perhaps a movement debuff).  Make rivers and chokepoints an actual point of contention again, not just something to swim across.

"Hmm... does anyone think we should put those ideas in our game?"

"Nah, the players will see those things as inconveniences and hinderances  to their fun, so they're not worth spending time and money to develop, realistic or not."

~Developers of any game, at a random meeting to evaluate potential features

Originally posted by saebrin

"Hmm... does anyone think we should put those ideas in our game?"

"Nah, the players will see those things as inconveniences and hinderances  to their fun, so they're not worth spending time and money to develop, realistic or not."

~Developers of any game, at a random meeting to evaluate potential features

Unless of course the goal is to create a more realistic game in the first place.

Originally posted by saebrin

"Hmm... does anyone think we should put those ideas in our game?"

"Nah, the players will see those things as inconveniences and hinderances  to their fun, so they're not worth spending time and money to develop, realistic or not."

~Developers of any game, at a random meeting to evaluate potential features

It depends, Both options open up tactical options in an OPEN PVP warfare game.  Roads would let your armies move faster, rivers would provide strategic obstacles/advantages to armies.  Bridges become important objects to hold, in order to allow or deny passage of armies.  They become alot less important if the entire army can swim across to the other side.

I do see your point, however....the majority of players could care less but will resonate with some players.

The main factor to incorporate your suggestions would require more programing.
Someone may pick up on it for new releases but would be a major effort to do what you suggest.

For any of the Top 10 MMOs, it would  burden the existing ongoing manitenance.
"Patching" is a  continuous and ongoing responsibility to maintain an existing good product.

It will be interesting to see if there is genuine concern/interest with other gamers.

I can't say I agree about the roads, although it would make sense to move faster on them than through the brush. I just haven't seen roads as a problem. The fact that people make a b-line through harsh and dangerous terrain, instead of using the roads only means that the terrain isn't harsh enough and there isn't enough danger in there to deter.

As for rivers, I agree on this one. People do swim in rivers though, so it shouldn't be unheard of to swim across a river, but someone wearing heavy gear should be strong enough to swim in it, and someone wearing plate should just sink. Being wet is a nuisance, and would hinder combat and movement, if only in a minor degree. I was an infantry Marine, and I can tell you first hand that wading through swamps and rivers is a bitch, but is possible and won't distract you too much when your adrenaline gets pumping. Being wet sucks though and causes chafing.

Speaking of wet, what about temperatures in game and other atmospheric conditions. I'd like a game to require warm clothing to stay warm in the cold, and allow for hyperthermia if not properly taken care of. I'd like a game where you could see the effects of wind. A strong gust of wind could make you falter in your steps, and a continous stream of hard wind would slow you down, making you lean forward into the current, puting your arm in front of your face as you tread along. Heat exhaustion in hot climates would be interesting too. Having weapons and armor rust when in humid climates if not taken care of would be cool.

I basically like all of that realistic stuff put in game, because it adds depth. Even eating, drinking, and sleeping should be required. Think of it all as mini-games, something to micromanage as your living in the world.

Originally posted by nate1980

I basically like all of that realistic stuff put in game, because it adds depth. Even eating, drinking, and sleeping should be required. Think of it all as mini-games, something to micromanage as your living in the world.

You are kidding me. If i want to sleep, i do it in real life. I don't need to watch a toon goes zzz in a game.

If i want to micromanage my living, i go play the SIMS. MMORPG is for hack-n-slash fun.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by nate1980

I basically like all of that realistic stuff put in game, because it adds depth. Even eating, drinking, and sleeping should be required. Think of it all as mini-games, something to micromanage as your living in the world.

 

You are kidding me. If i want to sleep, i do it in real life. I don't need to watch a toon goes zzz in a game.

If i want to micromanage my living, i go play the SIMS. MMORPG is for hack-n-slash fun.

Yeah, it's a cool feature if done right. Take Fallout 3 as an example. If you get a good nights sleep, you get an XP buff.

I'd love to see an MMO implement more realistic features, environments and consequences and still sell well enough to stay afloat, but as time goes on and the genre is defined by the more accessible games, it's less and less likely that a developer/punlisher will be willing to risk time and money on features that could alienate their game to a small niche playerbase. I beta tested D&D Online precisely because I thought it would have the best chance of bringing some of the more "hardcore" RPG rules to the post-WoW MMO genre, but I really didn't like it. I just think most people play MMOs for the rewards, not the punishments, and for a game to include such unheard of "punishments" as the ones you mention, it would have to be one damn impressive world filled with equally impressive rewards for players to overlook dealing with true-to-life inconveniences.

Originally posted by bonzoso21

I'd love to see an MMO implement more realistic features, environments and consequences and still sell well enough to stay afloat, but as time goes on and the genre is defined by the more accessible games, it's less and less likely that a developer/punlisher will be willing to risk time and money on features that could alienate their game to a small niche playerbase. I beta tested D&D Online precisely because I thought it would have the best chance of bringing some of the more "hardcore" RPG rules to the post-WoW MMO genre, but I really didn't like it. I just think most people play MMOs for the rewards, not the punishments, and for a game to include such unheard of "punishments" as the ones you mention, it would have to be one damn impressive world filled with equally impressive rewards for players to overlook dealing with true-to-life inconveniences.

You balance the penalties with equally believable rewards. For example, what would happen if you put an arrow in the head of an opponent? He'd be dead, no question about it. Well, give players the ability to snipe enemies. Basically, a game with Oblivions combat model. Deflect arrows, sneak around, snipe people, dodge attacks, block attacks, you get the idea.

I actually agree with the OP on both counts. Roads should make for faster travel and i must admit (cant believe im about to say this) that WOW makes better use of them than other games, and to good effect. They really should be the fastest way to travel and i would imagine having a slight speed bonus, on both foot and with mounts, coupled with lesser chance of encounters with dangerous mobs could acomplish this. Rivers would require a sort of currents system which can also make for interesting mechanics in underwater fights. Dont think neither of these points would discourage players, quite the contrary, it would improve exploring.

Originally posted by bonzoso21

I'd love to see an MMO implement more realistic features, environments and consequences and still sell well enough to stay afloat, but as time goes on and the genre is defined by the more accessible games, it's less and less likely that a developer/punlisher will be willing to risk time and money on features that could alienate their game to a small niche playerbase. I beta tested D&D Online precisely because I thought it would have the best chance of bringing some of the more "hardcore" RPG rules to the post-WoW MMO genre, but I really didn't like it. I just think most people play MMOs for the rewards, not the punishments, and for a game to include such unheard of "punishments" as the ones you mention, it would have to be one damn impressive world filled with equally impressive rewards for players to overlook dealing with true-to-life inconveniences.

If you are talking a wow styel MMO, then roads and rivers would not be worth the hassle.  If you are planning a guild warfare game like (shudder) Darkfall, then the benefit from these comes from the added tactical options that are offered by the features with the rules added.

Originally posted by nate1980

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by nate1980

I basically like all of that realistic stuff put in game, because it adds depth. Even eating, drinking, and sleeping should be required. Think of it all as mini-games, something to micromanage as your living in the world.

 

You are kidding me. If i want to sleep, i do it in real life. I don't need to watch a toon goes zzz in a game.

If i want to micromanage my living, i go play the SIMS. MMORPG is for hack-n-slash fun.

 

Yeah, it's a cool feature if done right. Take Fallout 3 as an example. If you get a good nights sleep, you get an XP buff.

Fallout3 is a SP game. When you sleep, you "skip" ahead time. You cannot do that in a MMO. Of course you can call the 30 sec resting "sleep" in an MMO, but it does not make it so.

 They already have sleep. When you log off you gain a bonus to exp via rested exp or whatever.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by nate1980

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by nate1980

I basically like all of that realistic stuff put in game, because it adds depth. Even eating, drinking, and sleeping should be required. Think of it all as mini-games, something to micromanage as your living in the world.

 

You are kidding me. If i want to sleep, i do it in real life. I don't need to watch a toon goes zzz in a game.

If i want to micromanage my living, i go play the SIMS. MMORPG is for hack-n-slash fun.

 

Yeah, it's a cool feature if done right. Take Fallout 3 as an example. If you get a good nights sleep, you get an XP buff.

 

Fallout3 is a SP game. When you sleep, you "skip" ahead time. You cannot do that in a MMO. Of course you can call the 30 sec resting "sleep" in an MMO, but it does not make it so.

Yet in a MMORPG, you could buy a room for the night/day and sleep, while you're logged out. If you have a house, you can just travel there and sleep while offline. It's definitely a fluff feature, I know that, but it adds more depth to a game. I guess I'm just the type that likes more depth than the average player, regardless if it's seen as an inconvenience by others.

Originally posted by Kaisen_Dexx

 They already have sleep. When you log off you gain a bonus to exp via rested exp or whatever.

There's no debuff for not sleeping though, such as decreased accuracy, stamina, and concentration.

Agreed completely on both roads and rivers. I remember playing AoC talking about how cool it would be to hop in the river and ride the current back to town. Riding through rapids and even down waterfalls wouldn't be a hinderance at all. It would be great fun!

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by nate1980

I basically like all of that realistic stuff put in game, because it adds depth. Even eating, drinking, and sleeping should be required. Think of it all as mini-games, something to micromanage as your living in the world.

 

You are kidding me. If i want to sleep, i do it in real life. I don't need to watch a toon goes zzz in a game.

If i want to micromanage my living, i go play the SIMS. MMORPG is for hack-n-slash fun.

When did this happen? last time I checked a RPG was about building and connecting with your ingame character, and MMO was about massivly multiplayer online.

AKA tons of people connecting with there character. So you are deffinitly wrong. MMO's are NOT just about hack-n-slash. If I want that i'll go play a FPS or assasins creed...

The cardinal rule when considering features for any MMO, (or any game period) is whether or not that feature will benefit the playing experience, compared to how much it will negatively impact the gaming experience.

Sleeping, while in a Single player game, is a very interesting resource to manage.  However, in a multiplayer game, sleeping is downtime, since you do not have the magic "Skip forward" ability.  If sleeping gives negative penalties (or it's positive ones are seen as mandatory) then sleeping becomes forced downtime that is not needed in a game. 

Originally posted by robert4818

The cardinal rule when considering features for any MMO, (or any game period) is whether or not that feature will benefit the playing experience, compared to how much it will negatively impact the gaming experience.

Sleeping, while in a Single player game, is a very interesting resource to manage.  However, in a multiplayer game, sleeping is downtime, since you do not have the magic "Skip forward" ability.  If sleeping gives negative penalties (or it's positive ones are seen as mandatory) then sleeping becomes forced downtime that is not needed in a game. 

What you say is true, but if sleeping can be done in a way that makes it fun, then it'd be an asset to the MMORPG.

The same can be said for your river idea. It does more to hinder than to enhance the game, because only those with cities near a river will benefit from the stragetic advantage. If only 10% of the population has access to such a feature, then a part of the other 90% will complain about there not being enough rivers or that the penalty is too harsh.

Originally posted by nate1980

Originally posted by robert4818

The cardinal rule when considering features for any MMO, (or any game period) is whether or not that feature will benefit the playing experience, compared to how much it will negatively impact the gaming experience.

Sleeping, while in a Single player game, is a very interesting resource to manage.  However, in a multiplayer game, sleeping is downtime, since you do not have the magic "Skip forward" ability.  If sleeping gives negative penalties (or it's positive ones are seen as mandatory) then sleeping becomes forced downtime that is not needed in a game. 

 

What you say is true, but if sleeping can be done in a way that makes it fun, then it'd be an asset to the MMORPG.

The same can be said for your river idea. It does more to hinder than to enhance the game, because only those with cities near a river will benefit from the stragetic advantage. If only 10% of the population has access to such a feature, then a part of the other 90% will complain about there not being enough rivers or that the penalty is too harsh.

It would really depend on the individual game for that decision to be made.  While currents, and dangerous rivers may work for one game, they may not for another.  In WOW, it probably would not really be worth it.  If you were playing a game with lots of rivers and streams, and planned on moving armies and a living economy, then it may well be worth it.

There is no blanket rule.

Vanguard rivers has currents, just saying.

---

Originally posted by rothbard

---

Originally posted by saebrin

"Hmm... does anyone think we should put those ideas in our game?"
"Nah, the players will see those things as inconveniences and hinderances  to their fun, so they're not worth spending time and money to develop, realistic or not."
~Developers of any game, at a random meeting to evaluate potential features

---

Unless of course the goal is to create a more realistic game in the first place.

---

No developers have that goal.

Wait, let me qualify that. No *successful* developers have that goal.

There is a game that already has this stuff.  Wurmonline is a pure sandbox game where you can move faster on roads , the roads are player built and they have many terrain types with different movement speeds.  You can sleep while youa re logged off and get a small skill gain bonus.

Since players can alter the terrain they can expand rivers make bridges over them, islands in the middle of them.  Too bad the game is INDI because a whole lot more people would be playing it including my self if it had better graphix , animation, updates, less grind.  I want to play a more realistic game where i can interact with the terrain/world like Wurm.  Why is it the INDI games are so innovative but look like shit and the big time games look so great but its the same shit over and over with no depth dumb down for the kiddies.

I agree with the OP on both points and the roads is something I have actually suggested on the MO forums once, there is something else that keeps bothering me mainly in MMOs that try and provide some sort of territorial control system, why are we always fed the same you get an already built caslte, or you get to build a house or whatever but we never control the details, players can never improve on the conditions of the territory they own, if there is a river  ppl cross all the time and no bridge why cant players owning the place create a bridge there, add signs, create road networks to provide easy access from and out of their town, set up guard towers, etc... ppl still wouldnt have to, but for the common mortal (players who are usually not competing for control) its the same if clan A has the territory or if clan B has the territory, but if clan A builds roads, adds safety to their roads, etc... while clan B does nothing surely it would create more interest in players supporting one clan over another.