| 92 posts found | |
|---|---|
|
General: IMGDC Roundtable Blog: Skill vs. Class
News Discussion « General Discussion 4/23/07 4:16:53 PM
Originally posted by _Shadowmage I believe Mcgreag was referring to the "d20" system, which is the abstract form of TSR/Wizards of the Coast/Hasbro's third edition D&D ruleset... not the use of a 20 sided die, which is almost as old as I am. :) I think many people played PnP RPG's at a young age. As a child, you enjoy the game for the fantasy. As a teenager, you refuse to enjoy the game because you're trying to become old. As an adult, you enjoy the game again for the company... a few seem to enjoy it for the rule lawyering. :) |
|
|
General: IMGDC Roundtable Blog: Skill vs. Class
News Discussion « General Discussion 4/19/07 5:23:16 PM
Just a couple of quick points here.
FIrst, not all skill based systems eschew experience points or even levels. In many cases, you still earn xp, but now instead of gaining a whole level in a class, you can choose to spend it on a particular skill (or set of skills). Some games (a few text muds) lumped skills into rough groups and tracked those to determine your level... that is, if you gained enough skill points in skills that were considered "magic user" skills, you'd be shown as a "level X Mage", which made coding item restrictions or NPC interaction much simpler. Secondly, while you can make skills open-ended, in practice this isn't done. It would create a system where the oldest players will ALWAYS win, as without any form of cap, they'd always be ahead in everything. If you use repeated use instead of xp gain, then the macro/bot players will always win. To overcome this problem, EVE-Online took the unique solution of making skills train in real-time, and ONLY in real-time. That overcomes the macro/bot problem automatically, and also overcomes the oldest player problem. How, see the next paragraph. Another problem skill based systems often have is that players end up with cookie-cutter master-of-all-trades characters at end-game. Instead of seeing a hundred level 70 paladins walking around, you see 200 maxed-out players who can all do everything. Some games try to add mutual-exclusion to skills... saying if you learn "Advanced Finger Waggling", it prevents you from learning "Advanced Tin Can Opening"... but that's a sneaky form of class. The solution that works for EVE-Online (and only because of its real-time training) is to provide far more skills than anyone can master in a given lifetime. Someone calculated that it would take 24 years to max out every single skill in that game, and the game has been live for only 4 years. So, you have to choose.... max out specific skills to be the best at one particular thing (such as a covert-ops pilot), or put a few points in everything but never be as good as anyone who has specialized? That's where skills shine, IMHO. |
|
|
What will we see in the future of MMOs?
The Pub at MMORPG.COM « General Discussion 3/20/07 7:22:09 PM
"Welcome to the world of tomorrow!!!!" ... "Please get on the probulator"
Well, let's see... 0th generation MMO's were text muds. They ran the gauntlet between hack-and-slash, social/builder games, room based, coordinate, fantasy, sci-fi. The vast majority though were fantasy hack-and-slash games. First generation MMO's include EverQuest, Anarcy Online, perhaps even Earth and Beyond. They were graphical worlds, using coordinates and objects instead of rooms, but still based around the "zone" idea. The user interface was generally given to you, and you adapted to what you were given. Maps might be available, but they weren't meant to be radar... you still had to learn your environment and keep your eyes open. Crafting and building weren't really cental to the game. NPC enemies generally spawned predictably, and most figfhts involved you and them facing each other swinging weapons with no real tactics. Second generation MMO's include Star Wars: Galaxies, Everquest II, World of Warcraft, and EVE-Online. These games usually have some amount of custimization in the UI. They have a full crafting system which is part of the gameplay. Combat usually has minor tactical implications where things like facing and distance matter. Content is organized around groups, so the solo player will find it more difficult to "level up". NPC's typically spawn a little more randomly and show minor signs of intelligence (trying to stay behind you, calling in reinforcements). Faction systems are also usually part of these games, so killing mob X will make you disliked by anyone friendly with their faction, and more liked by those who oppose them. My guess is that to be a Third generation game, mob AI is going to need to improve dramatically. I'd expect mobs to hunt in packs with lookouts who can relay the player's location and strengths back to the main group. Players might find themselves being tracked and followed by NPC's as they approach a city or den. Weather will play an actual role in adventuring and trade... tracks in the snow, slower movement, reduced visibility and perhaps even "false maps" which show where the player "thinks" landmarks are, even though they can't currently see them. I'd also expect the economy to be fully player based with more flexibility. No more finding magic halberds in the guts of a random seagull you slaughtered... you may find dropped weapons have to be sharpened and repaird to use, or perhaps the wards on a magical sword have to be disabled and realigned so they allow you to use them. Resources should be harvestable by players, but you should also be able to pay NPC's to do the job for you. In PvP, I'd expect to be able to see those NPC's and kill or rob them to hamper your production. You'll note I make little reference to graphics quality or world size... those things are (IMHO) not defining. Better graphics is nice, but it won't make a game more evolved. Neither will a gigantic world, although I'd expect that too. The other big part that I'm avoiding is the "grind". Games with levels typically have ways to "grind", and skill-based games also have ways to "grind". While I can think of ways around it... the fact is players insist on having more than just gold to differentiate themselves, and as long as there is some kind of rank system, there will be a way to grind it. To my mind, the quality of the gameplay and how everything in the world reacts to everything else is what will make the next generation stand out. |
|
|
My Goodbye, and I really wanted to like Vanguard - Honest Opinions
General Discussion « Vanguard: Saga of Heroes 3/20/07 6:56:05 PM
Originally posted by Arcken I don't feel the need to flame you. I'd just like to point out that *I* (not YOU) find the game to be quite a lot of fun, and a breath of fresh air in the land of MUST-GET-TO-MAX-LEVEL WoW knockoffs. The diplomacy system is perhaps the only truly original facet of the game, but everything else has been recycled and fit together rather nicely so I've never felt like I was forced to "level up" so that I could start having fun. Yeah, it's buggy... it's buggy as hell. Yeah, I can't run the graphics on very high settings. I, personally, with my aging Nvidia 6600XT, don't find the game "janky" or that it "barely works". The lag is no worse than the first few months of SWG, or for that matter, the way EQ1 was all the time since we had to use modems back then. It has enormous potential, but we'll have to see if the devs get enough funding to realize it, or if it collapses a year from now. Like I said though, *I* (not YOU) find the game quite entertaining and well worth 50 cents a day. If the bads outweight the goods for you, then journey onwards and find something else. Pirates of the Burning Sea looks interesting, and for non MMO games... I'm looking forward to Spore. |
|
|
Do all MMOs ship as unfinshed products?
The Pub at MMORPG.COM « General Discussion 3/14/07 1:34:28 PM
Short answer: Yes.
Longer answer: What would you consider "finished"? Lots of people have been griping about Vanguard, because their financial problems caused them to launch 3 months early rather than scrap the game entirely. I play it, and I have fun playing it. To me, that's what matters. So, it lags a bit, and has a fair number of bugs that I wouldn't expect a game to have in 2007... it's still fun (to me). As far as I'm concerned, an MMO is only "finished" when they stop developing and let it run on auto-pilot until the servers cost more to run than the handful of players still paying provide. If you can't have fun with a game, for whatever reason, then it's not worth playing. If you can, why does it matter if it's not "perfect"? |
|
|
World of Warcraft: Blizzard Banning Accounts
News Discussion « General Discussion 11/24/06 2:31:59 PM
Blizzard, like every game company to date, is guilty of treating the symptoms instead of the cause. If you want to build an online game that doesn't have the problems of gold fermers, ebay gold sellers, and third-party hacks, you have to design your game that way from day one.
Rule 1: Never trust the client. ALL changes of state need to be determined on the server side, allowing the client to only issue commands, which the server then performs or ignores. They learned that one in Diablo, where the server blindly trusted the client when it said "I have a +9999 sword equipped". Rule 2: Never trust the client *grin*. Seriously, all traffic between the client and server needs to be encrypted to prevent packet injection. SSH tunnels would work for TCP streams. The server establishes a public/private key pair when you create your account. The client makes another key pair when you install it. If you re-install, you have to re-upload (and authenticate) your public key to tie it to your account. That also prevents people playing on other folks' computers (unless you allow a small set of "trusted" keys). Rule 3: Don't allow transfers of large amounts of wealth between characters. Force them to trade valuable goods instead. Even in the real world, transactions between individuals over a certain amount (I believe it's $10K in the US) are flagged and somoene, somewhere, looks into them. That won't stop the farmers, but it will annoy them and slow them down a bit. Rule 4: Design your gameplay so that "farming" isn't a feasable way to amass wealth. There are lots of ways to try this, ranging from diminishing returns on repeated activities, to moving away from the faucet/drain economy and actuallying implementing a real closed system (with raw materials added as players join, or devs decide to balance things). This is the real solution, but it's also the tough one. I'm not holding my breath here. :) IMHO, Blizzard cut off their own foot when they dangled the candy in front of the community. They build a UI that allowed scripting, and have been constanly nerfing it down as people figure out ways to use it for automation. They designed a grinding game with free transfer of wealth between characters and then are shocked when farmers invade? I hate farmers, macroers, and exploiters... I'm a crafter and resource gatherer myself, and I always am forced into combat because I can't make any money from selling materials because of the market flood. I agree with the account bans, even though I don't think the way they're trying to go about it is the right way. Instead of using "warden" and hitting people with the ban stick when their anti-virus software nukes it, they should redesign their client/server communitcation to be secure, and work with microsoft to develop a secure way to get keyboard and mouse events that can't be injected. |
|
|
General: The Return of the Saturday Debate
News Discussion « General Discussion 11/14/06 2:47:37 PM
I think anyone who tries to hold a "real-life" event within the confines of a game universe is either asking for trouble to get attention, or utterly clueless beyond hope. It's sad that someone died. It's sad that their friends' feelings got hurt when their ceremony got disrupted. It's pathetic that they picked one of the high-level contested zones on a PvP server to hold their ceremony, as if the whole rest of the player population was supposed to stop playing their game because someone they didn't know and had never heard of was trying to emote about somone else they didn't know and had never heard of. Even on a Role Playing server, I would still expect some less reputable characters (note the use of the word, not players) to try something at such an event. As for people acting like they do in real life.... some do, some don't. I hope you aren't one of those people who thinks actors all behave just like the characters they play on television? Some people role play very different personalities in games, for fun, for the challenge of staying in character, or just to let off steam doing things they know they can't ever do in life. That's the point. It's a game. When things in the game start having consequences in your real life, it's time to stop playing and go outside. Oh yes, I believe part of the topic was about open PvP? WoW is not actually open PvP. WoW is a two-sided conflict with areas of contested space. In real open PvP, any player could attack any other player, regardless of allegence. WoW doesn't have the mechanics to allow double agents, backstabbing, and playing groups against one another. When I used to play regularly, there were many times I "worked with" Alliance players who happened to be out grinding or questing next to me, and many other times I would have loved to kill obnoxious fellow horde players who trained mobs on me, or ninja'd herbs while I was fighting. |
|
|
Vanguard: Saga of Heroes: PAX: Nick Parkinson
News Discussion « General Discussion 8/27/06 4:15:15 PM
Ask yourself this.... WHY does slow travel suck? It's not because it takes you X minutes or hours to get from point A to point B. It's because there not much to DO while you're traveling. Most MMO's have build their game worlds around the concept of fixed location encounters. You wander around until you find the goblin stronghold, then you travel back and forth from the nearest town to this encounter until you've out-grown it. Repeat the process for the next zone. It doesn't HAVE to work that way. If the world is dynamic enough, things could move around as conditions demand it. Someone found the goblin camp near town and started farming them? Ok, after a while the goblins decide to pick up and move elsewhere. Nobody's hanging around a certain village? Well, maybe some pirates will set up a base nearby, since it's "safe" for them. The other thing many people dislike about travel is the lack of purpose. Sure, you need to get from point A to point B, but why? Guild Wars and DDO decided that there really wasn't any reason to have all that travelling, since all you were planning to do was skip it and do the encounter at point B... so they don't have much. Not my kind of game, but maybe yours? EVE takes a different approach... there's still travel, and it's pretty boring for the most part. However, trading is a viable career option in the game, so it can serve a purpose beyond just moving from encounter point to encounter point. Travel is also dangerous in EVE, since you are a valid PvP target at every jump point. I don't know the details of Vanguard's system. Perhaps they'll give us things to do while travelling. Perhaps it won't be the automated snore-fest that it is in WoW. I guess the real question is, will you have to keep travelling back and forth between the same set of places all the time, or will the game encourage you to keep going? If the latter, I'd want it to be slower so I can enjoy it more. |
|
|
|
|
Vanguard: Saga of Heroes: New Vanguard Video
News Discussion « General Discussion 8/07/06 10:21:06 AM
The first 6 seconds of this video is painful to watch.....
The rest of it is surprisingly bad. I realize it's a low quality compressed video, but still... the large monster fights look pretty choppy, and there's no excuse for that given the kind of video horsepower available today, especially when you're making a promotional video! Folks have commented here about how SOE doesn't own Vanguard. I would suggest that they don't own them... yet. Large companies are like a viral infection. The constantly assault smaller companies with offers until they find a way in, then they gradually spread. SOE might only control distribution and server hosting now, but 6 months after launch, they'll offer their content designers and GM support. A year after launch, they'll be selecting and rejecting storyline elements and adjusting the combat system for balance. Mark my words here, those who control the purse strings, control how the game evolves. In any case, I had been trying to convince myself to try this game despite Sony's involvement. I think this video has made it MUCH harder for me to do so. |
|
|
I wish the guys at Mythic luck! DAoC was not the first MMO I played, but it was the first one I ever went back to after letting my subscription lapse. They created a game with one of the more balanced PvP systems out there, and breathtaking graphics when it came out.
Unfortunately, EA and SOE seem to share the reverse midas touch. Both are big corporations run by suits who spend their days looking at demographics and financial spreadsheets. While any large company MUST do this, it's usually helpful to have a few people at the table who really know and use the products. I get the feeling neither of these behemoths has had any real input from gamers since early 1990's. It's not just a problem of bad decisions either. It has become a problem of a tainted image. I know several dozen gamers who were all hyped up on Vanguard until they announced that SOE acquired distribution and hosting rights. Out of that dozen, only two are still willing to even consider trying the game. I see EA gaining the same kind of reputation out there, and the general feeling is if your game isn't a sports title, you might as well take their money and go to Cancun while you can. So good luck guys! If you somehow maintain your autonomy AND your funding, perhaps you can help turn this trend around. I, for one, am getting tired of having to avoid half the shelves at the software store because of the "taint." |
|
|
Too bad. Dark Age of Camelot was the first MMO I ever re-activated after letting the subscription lapse. Now that EA has their hands on it, I'm sure it will spiral down into the bottomless pit of forced releases and overpriced expansions.
I understand Mythic's problem... they have a popular but aging game and nothing new on the immediate horizon. The costs to run the thing don't go down, and as the subscription base shirnks, it gets more and more tempting to take the cash and run. Still.... EA and SOE both need to fail so horribly that they pull out of the PC gaming market and make room for other developers to grow. |
|