The kind of info in the OP should be stickied here...so many posts are put in either out of ignorance or forgetting why MMOs are the way they are now. 

The simple issue with any kind of MMO is variables.  The more freedom and allowances you have in gameplay, the more variables pop up that can be bugged, exploited and at a minimum have to be factored into balance.  That is why today's MMOs are simpler and more on rails than the first generation MMOs.

UO's developers were scrambling to keep up with the latest exploits when they should have been polishing the overall design and creating more content.  By streamlining the gameplay, current developers have alot fewer headaches to deal with on a daily basis.

Originally posted by wormywyrm

I want you guys to check out this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6_Dq1Bw0Ss&feature=youtube_gdata

My below discussion starts at 14:50 of the video and is like 5-10 minutes.

It is a video of Raph Koster talking about MUDs and how communities tended to police themselves because they were small enough that everyone knows everyone and that would lead to less griefing.  When the graphical RPGs started coming up, the developers of these games had never worked with such large communities before, and found themselves shocked with how much 'misbehaving' there was in these games.  For instance:

In UO you could attack anyone.  You could build houses.  You could place objects on the ground.  There was player collision.  These are all things that have been removed, not necessarily because they are hard to implement (although they are) but because they are very difficult to police.  Koster gives the example of when players dropped thousands of pieces of furniture at the entrance of a city, leaving only one small entrance to and from the city.  They would then camp this entrance and kill anyone coming to and from the city.  This would have not been a problem in MUDs, so it was the first time developers ever faced this issue.

How did they solve it?  They increased realism to solve the problem.  They added the ability to destory and set fire to furniture.  This allowed players to set aflame to the furniture blocking their exit to the city and it made blocking the city gates much more difficult.

Koster then explains that this continued... Players would find ways to exploit the game and the devs would combat that.  But eventually they got sick of it, and instead of increasing realism of the virtual world to fix these problems things started going the other way:  They started removing features from the game.  For instance, the new solution to the problem of furniture blocking city gates would be to remove the ability to drop items on the ground.

So now we are left with MMOs that are more restricted.  Just because some devs decided it would be easier to not have features in a game at all.

Koster goes on to describe how MMOs have become action RPGs.  He jokes that the combat was his least favorite part of Dungeons and Dragons and 'not the reason why he loves RPGs'.

What do you guys think about the decision to remove realism to solve problems in game instead of increasing it?

What a great find.

Raph and Garriot are the only true MMO geniuses.

People that really had potential to lead this genre where it was supposed to be. Instead the crap we have now.

They both decided to leave MMO development forever...

BTW

I hated it than.

But when I look back. This is exact thing i miss.

Griefing , kill stealing , PK

All these things made the world alive, opposed to non-interactive action rpgs that we have now.

Originally posted by Isasis

From what I got out of it, griefers ruined MMOs...so now we have what we got.

 

(edit)

 

People like the poster above me ^^...though it sounds like he is more kidding, there are people that did that in MMOs until the person logged out. And if they came on again, they would find them and do it again.

 gank me one time and i camp you until you escape, quit, or find a way to kill me.

i don't camp people unless they attack me or a friend. in which case, i am happy about ruinng their game, considering they tried to ruin mine.

Originally posted by VirusDancer

Originally posted by wormywyrm

Originally posted by idgarad

I think a lot of you missed something in the MUD \ Post-MUD era. A lot, and I mean a LOT of MUDs were invite only. You could apply, but you might not get in. Some of the biggest MUDs still around (200+ players) are invite only, they don't even advertise anymore on Mud Connector.

 

Here is a solution but a hell of a gamble.

 

Start a shard for your MMO that is invite only. Give out 100 accounts.

 

Each account has 1000 reputation points and 5 invites.

If anyone a player invited gets banned or suspended the person inviting them losses 200 points. The person getting banned loses 500 points. Anyone gets to 0 and that person (not account, person) is banned from that shard permanently.

Each player gets 5 and only 5 invites.

 

Now let us see how that community evolves. I'd gamble it would be a vast improvement for those playing on that shard, when it comes to the people they play with.

(Mechanics taken from a Rom MUD from back in 93-94ish based on of all things Dune)

I actually think this is a great idea.  I would start reputation at 0 and allow it to become negative, however.  And there could always be additional mechanics to modify your rep as the game expands.

I may do that for my next project; I run several small online flash games.  lysle.net

Unfortunately though, like any system that allows players a say in the matter - it can be subject to griefing.

Have you ever PUGged as DPS in a 5 man where the tank or the healer was being an ass?  Did you grin and bear it, or say something - even politely - only to find yourself back in town?

Did you ever join a basketball game or a football game as a kid - only to find yourself out of the game, because of a clique playing?

Perhaps I have a low opinion of the species, eh?  Jaded?  Likely...lol.

 i felt the same about the idea. it is stll subject to douchbagery.

Originally posted by Adamantine

Originally posted by Creslin321

Conscience?  Knowing the difference between right and wrong?

I don't know...I'm not a religious person, but having played UO and Darkfall I understand why religion can be a good thing.  Religion used to keep immoral people in check because they thought that some deity was always watching them so they would behave...apparently they are incapable of policing themselves so they need that.

Maybe we need to bring religion back.

LOL it never was gone.

And its always funny when atheists want to use religion for their very mundane ends.

 you must laugh 24/7.

It's not going to get any better down the road because every developer wants to add "mobility" to their game.  And nothing is more dumbed down as playing a game on a phone.

Originally posted by stayontarget

It's not going to get any better down the road because every developer wants to add "mobility" to their game.  And nothing is more dumbed down as playing a game on a phone.

Today's phones offer better processing, graphics, and audio - as well as multiplayer networking - than early consoles did.

It's not just about the platform - you could make a complicated game for Windows 7 Phone, Android, or iOS.

If the market wants those quick and easy games though, that is what they are going to get.

edit:

Did you ever play Everquest for Pocket PC?  http://www.mobiletechreview.com/games/everquest.htm

I used to play that on my Dell Axim X5 back in 2003.

---

Originally posted by wormywyrm
 But eventually they got sick of it, and instead of increasing realism of the virtual world to fix these problems things started going the other way:  They started removing features from the game.

---

The issue is simple - wrong solution. They tried to fix specific issues instead of going to the root of the issue and proper fix.

I guess this happened due insisting on invalid assumption that players should run the virtual world, that they should policy themselves. The flaw of this assumption is that policing means to become a job but job isn't fun nor it is realistic to happen.

Instead of implementing restriction and self policing game mechanics that would actually mean more freedom for players, they fought the windmills.

Originally posted by Chieftan

The kind of info in the OP should be stickied here...so many posts are put in either out of ignorance or forgetting why MMOs are the way they are now. 

The simple issue with any kind of MMO is variables.  The more freedom and allowances you have in gameplay, the more variables pop up that can be bugged, exploited and at a minimum have to be factored into balance.  That is why today's MMOs are simpler and more on rails than the first generation MMOs.

UO's developers were scrambling to keep up with the latest exploits when they should have been polishing the overall design and creating more content.  By streamlining the gameplay, current developers have alot fewer headaches to deal with on a daily basis.

Streamlining = dumbed down to where a zombie can play a MMORPG.

Developers are quitters and unimagineative, they take the easy way out.

People play MMOs to escape the restrictions of the real world. One of those restrictions is not blowing your gasket and kicking ass when someone pisses you off. All those times you had to stay silent, grovel, beg, kowtow to authority because you had no power, you take that into your game and if someone messes with you you camp them to obvlivion. just stick a sword in them. blast them with fire. or even just general whimsy. breaking free if repression, not killing over personal slights but just being mad. you get it out in the game. any attempt to restrain griefing will be a slow death, maybe really slow, but still.

of course invite only makes it much better, some people are just nicer, and they actually like rules and structure. but even then its still possible to get nabbed. but with smaller populations you have way more mod per person time to track down and ban griefers.

I don't think ganking is really even an issue, because there are some very simple mechanics that could be added to remove them...  A very basic emulation of policing, one that you see in some mmo's today.  When someone begins attacking another player, they lose reputation points which will slowly regenerate over time.  If your reputation is low enough, NPCs and other players will attack you at an increased frequency until you settle down on your PKing.

That would allow for freedom of PKing on occassion, but it would minimize how often it happens to new players so they do not get frustrated.  Regeneration rates of reputation would be variable across servers, the most hardcore servers not having regeneration of reputation.

So instead of fixing problems with griefing by removing all combat between players we have brought a much more realistic solution about with very little additional programming needed.  A point based reputation system emulates a smaller community than actually exists on a MMORPG...  In a game of only 100 users, when someone PKs everyone would know and that persons LITERAL reputation would decrease.  Since there are too many players for everyone to keep track of each others actual reputation, we have to designate it through game design.  There may be even more realistic solutions, but I think they would playout in a similar fashion and may require more developemental detication.

Originally posted by wormywyrm

I don't think ganking is really even an issue, because there are some very simple mechanics that could be added to remove them...  A very basic emulation of policing, one that you see in some mmo's today.  When someone begins attacking another player, they lose reputation points which will slowly regenerate over time.  If your reputation is low enough, NPCs and other players will attack you at an increased frequency until you settle down on your PKing.

That would allow for freedom of PKing on occassion, but it would minimize how often it happens to new players so they do not get frustrated.  Regeneration rates of reputation would be variable across servers, the most hardcore servers not having regeneration of reputation.

So instead of fixing problems with griefing by removing all combat between players we have brought a much more realistic solution about with very little additional programming needed.  A point based reputation system emulates a smaller community than actually exists on a MMORPG...  In a game of only 100 users, when someone PKs everyone would know and that persons LITERAL reputation would decrease.  Since there are too many players for everyone to keep track of each others actual reputation, we have to designate it through game design.  There may be even more realistic solutions, but I think they would playout in a similar fashion and may require more developemental detication.

That's been done in all kinds of games and it never really works.  The PKers think the penalties are too hard while the people being PKed think the penalties are a slap on the wrist.  Usually the PKers will find a loophole that lets them PK without suffering the consequences and the devs decline to fix the loopholes because they fear that the PKers will quit the game.

Originally posted by VirusDancer

Originally posted by wormywyrm

Originally posted by idgarad

I think a lot of you missed something in the MUD \ Post-MUD era. A lot, and I mean a LOT of MUDs were invite only. You could apply, but you might not get in. Some of the biggest MUDs still around (200+ players) are invite only, they don't even advertise anymore on Mud Connector.

 

Here is a solution but a hell of a gamble.

 

Start a shard for your MMO that is invite only. Give out 100 accounts.

 

Each account has 1000 reputation points and 5 invites.

If anyone a player invited gets banned or suspended the person inviting them losses 200 points. The person getting banned loses 500 points. Anyone gets to 0 and that person (not account, person) is banned from that shard permanently.

Each player gets 5 and only 5 invites.

 

Now let us see how that community evolves. I'd gamble it would be a vast improvement for those playing on that shard, when it comes to the people they play with.

(Mechanics taken from a Rom MUD from back in 93-94ish based on of all things Dune)

I actually think this is a great idea.  I would start reputation at 0 and allow it to become negative, however.  And there could always be additional mechanics to modify your rep as the game expands.

I may do that for my next project; I run several small online flash games.  lysle.net

Unfortunately though, like any system that allows players a say in the matter - it can be subject to griefing.

Have you ever PUGged as DPS in a 5 man where the tank or the healer was being an ass?  Did you grin and bear it, or say something - even politely - only to find yourself back in town?

Did you ever join a basketball game or a football game as a kid - only to find yourself out of the game, because of a clique playing?

Perhaps I have a low opinion of the species, eh?  Jaded?  Likely...lol.

Originally posted by Cephus404

Originally posted by Creslin321

Conscience?  Knowing the difference between right and wrong?

I don't know...I'm not a religious person, but having played UO and Darkfall I understand why religion can be a good thing.  Religion used to keep immoral people in check because they thought that some deity was always watching them so they would behave...apparently they are incapable of policing themselves so they need that.

Maybe we need to bring religion back.

There's no conscience involved in religion, it's just more threats.  You'd better behave or an imaginary man in the sky might smite you.  How is that any different than policing in MMOs, except that the mods actually exist and might actually do something to you if you're caught?

I did not know that Buddhism threatened its followers.  

Originally posted by InFaVilla

Originally posted by Cephus404

Originally posted by Creslin321

Conscience?  Knowing the difference between right and wrong?

I don't know...I'm not a religious person, but having played UO and Darkfall I understand why religion can be a good thing.  Religion used to keep immoral people in check because they thought that some deity was always watching them so they would behave...apparently they are incapable of policing themselves so they need that.

Maybe we need to bring religion back.

There's no conscience involved in religion, it's just more threats.  You'd better behave or an imaginary man in the sky might smite you.  How is that any different than policing in MMOs, except that the mods actually exist and might actually do something to you if you're caught?

I did not know that Buddhism threatened its followers.  

It does. It's called karma

Now you learned something new

Originally posted by InFaVilla

Originally posted by Cephus404

Originally posted by Creslin321

Conscience?  Knowing the difference between right and wrong?

I don't know...I'm not a religious person, but having played UO and Darkfall I understand why religion can be a good thing.  Religion used to keep immoral people in check because they thought that some deity was always watching them so they would behave...apparently they are incapable of policing themselves so they need that.

Maybe we need to bring religion back.

There's no conscience involved in religion, it's just more threats.  You'd better behave or an imaginary man in the sky might smite you.  How is that any different than policing in MMOs, except that the mods actually exist and might actually do something to you if you're caught?

I did not know that Buddhism threatened its followers.  

Since the ultimate goal of Buddhism is to stop reincarnating and do away with the final three fetters of the mind, sure it's a threat of sorts.  Purify yourself or continue to reincarnate.  Failure, or the consequences of failure, can act as a threat to act in a particular way.

Originally posted by Cephus404

Originally posted by InFaVilla

Originally posted by Cephus404

Originally posted by Creslin321

Conscience?  Knowing the difference between right and wrong?

I don't know...I'm not a religious person, but having played UO and Darkfall I understand why religion can be a good thing.  Religion used to keep immoral people in check because they thought that some deity was always watching them so they would behave...apparently they are incapable of policing themselves so they need that.

Maybe we need to bring religion back.

There's no conscience involved in religion, it's just more threats.  You'd better behave or an imaginary man in the sky might smite you.  How is that any different than policing in MMOs, except that the mods actually exist and might actually do something to you if you're caught?

I did not know that Buddhism threatened its followers.  

Since the ultimate goal of Buddhism is to stop reincarnating and do away with the final three fetters of the mind, sure it's a threat of sorts.  Purify yourself or continue to reincarnate.  Failure, or the consequences of failure, can act as a threat to act in a particular way.

If you consider it to be a threat, you will never be able to stop reincarnation, because a crucial part of the path is to not indulge in neither excessive negative nor positive thoughts. 

Originally posted by InFaVilla

If you consider it to be a threat, you will never be able to stop reincarnation, because a crucial part of the path is to not indulge in neither excessive negative nor positive thoughts. 

Since there's no such thing as reincarnation, I'm not particularly worried. 

Originally posted by Cephus404

Originally posted by InFaVilla

If you consider it to be a threat, you will never be able to stop reincarnation, because a crucial part of the path is to not indulge in neither excessive negative nor positive thoughts. 

Since there's no such thing as reincarnation, I'm not particularly worried. 

Source please :p