MMOs are borked. At least according to games journo Tom Chick. Oh, and that's right, me too.
In fact, if you're a regular of this blog, you'll know that myself (being a regular MMO gamer) and Dave (who isn't) are both regularly critical of the state of MMOs today. Not to say we're against the genre, just that the present offerings haven't advanced the game significantly, and are ultimately based on outdated and, for many, flawed gameplay mechanisms; things like grinding, level progression, theme parks, long travel times etc. Not that upcoming offerings are much different.
So it doesn't surprise me that others are starting to cry out. It's time for a change. So, instead of firing another salvo against MMOs today, I'm going to offer some constructive suggestions to improve them.
1) Make the worlds more engaging
MMOs tend to come in one of two flavours: theme park or sandbox. But theme parks, like WoW, have come to the fore in recent years, probably because of the grand success of its exemplar. However, theme parks must be done well in order to be convincing, and WoW does do it well. Others don't.
In fact, Warhamme Online is an interesting case in point. You'd think Warhammer would have the ideal pretext for a theme park: a world that doesn't need to change significantly because it's always in a state of war, and no one side can win outright. But it fails, with many on the forums (myself included) finding the static nature of the world to be hollow and unfulfilling - it doesn't take long before you really feel as though your character can make virtually no impact on the world. Which is odd, because in WoW you also know you can't make much impact on the world, but the illusion that you can is more convincing.
However, theme parks aren't the only way to roll. Sandboxes work. Not for everyone, but there's definitely a substantial population who want to be a part of a world, influencing it and changing it by their actions. Or just living in it.
That said, theme parks and sandboxes are not exhaustive of the possibilities for an MMO. 'MMO' is less of a genre than a technical feature. All an MMO is is a massively multiplayer game. That could strictly speaking be just about anything. You could have an MMO that is basically a lobby for a series of Counter-Strike matches or WWII battles that each feed into a greater strategic plot. You could have a combat game where you fight through a dungeon or labyrinth, and doing so unlocks new options or classes for the next time you run through. An MMO doesn't need to be an MMORPG, if you get my drift.
2) Ditch classes and levels
This one is a part of a multi-tier rejection of the Dungeons & Dragons mechanic, which somehow has become the gold standard in MMOs. But just pause for a moment and reflect on how ludicrous it is to just stand there taking turns whacking a mob until one of you fall over. It's not like all MMOs need to be like the Battle of the Somme...
So the first step is to ditch classes. You don't need to ditch roles, just classes. You also don't need to ditch character specialisation, just classes.
Classes were a convenient way of describing a role in early wargames and role playing games. In Gary Gygax's original Chainmail you'd have light foot or heavy foot, which were useful abstractions for distinguishing between a javelin and shield skirmisher and a mailed man at arms. But by having classes like tank, ranged DPS, melee DPS just railroads players into a very narrow path of gameplay. Not all MMOs do this, but most do.
So, allow players to develop a character along mulitple lines. This could be a skills based mechanic, or a customisable power mechanic. And you needn't lock them in to just one skill set at any one time. Or force them through hoops to respec their abilities. As you can see, there are already MMOs breaking free of the classes thing, but too many perpetuate it (AoC, WAR, I'm looking at you).
And don't make the game so hard that players need to overspecialise and play their role flawlessly if they're to survive. Sure, have a hardcore mode for those who want the challenge, but don't necessititate it.
Finally, don't make items more important than skills. Certainly items should be important - but more for the extra abilities or specialisations they lend rather than the core stats. Or don't have items at all. City of Heroes doesn't, and you don't hear anyone complaining.
3) Make combat smarter
As mentioned above: stand, whack, fall over is not good enough. Compare Quake to Counter-Strike (or its precursor, Action Quake). In the former the only way to make an enemy more threatening was to up the hit points. But what made the latter so compelling was the sense of danger you had whenever you rounded a corner or entered a room. A single head shot was potentially lethal, which inspired caution - and tension.
Yet in MMOs, you uniformly blast away multiple times to take something down. That's the Doom mechanic. It's time for the Counter-Strike mechanic to hit MMOs.
Now, I'm not necessarily saying all MMOs need be twitch games, just that they aren't battles of attrition. One example mechanic might be reacting to the enemy moves - so when they attack a symbol flashes on screen, and if you click when the symbol appears, you successfully block - or conversely, a symbol appears when there's an opening in their defences, allowing you to strike for a critical blow. This needn't be adversely affected by lag, and it can still have skills contributing to your performance, such as by increasing the window when you can click for a heavier blow. And heck, that's just one mechanic off the top of my head - there must be hundreds more that aren't swing-swing-swing-dead.
4) Don't make me grind
Just don't. I know some people enjoy it. But most of us don't.
As a point of clarification, challenging, enjoyable combat isn't a grind. It's a grind when I'm motivated more by the end result (xp, loot etc) than the experience of the combat.
So, either make the combat more intrinsically entertaining or give me the end result sooner so I don't have to grind.
I know MMOs want people to play for as long as possible, but making me grind is just lazy. Give me content, or give me entertaining gameplay, or don't release your game.
5) Make mobs smarter
I can't beleive I even need to point this out. Mobs in MMOs are bloody idiots. Have we really not progressed one jot in mob AI since Ghosts 'n Goblins? Yet we've becomed so acustomed to seeing a mob 20 metres away in broad daylight and not having it notice us. Or the old chestnut of killing one and having its nearby mates not notice. It's got to stop.
Make mobs smart. Make them work as a team. Make them unpredictable. Give them special abilities. Make them a challenge.
Just imagine: you turn a corner in the dark dungeon and in the gloom ahead you surprise an orc exiting a side door. For a moment you both pause, staring at each other, waiting for one to make a move. The orc looks at you, looks back in the door from which he came, then makes a break for the room, shouting to rouse his buddies. When you enter the room, they've overturned two beds to use for cover while they pelt you with javelins, stones, plates, whatever they can get their hands on. Meanwhile two brutes advance on you, while the more gaunt leader shouts orders from the rear. After a short but vicious battle, the brutes are down and the leader felled by an arrow. At this point the remaining orcs make a break for the door, knocking you down and running for their lives.
That's not far from Half-Life AI. Why can't we have that in an MMO?
6) Encourage grouping
There should be absolutely no reason not to group. Groups should earn more xp, get more loot, fight more mobs, have bigger challenges etc. When a group completes one person's quest, everyone should get the reward as if it was theirs.
In theme parks, this hasn't worked so well to date, because you might have to run someone else's quest before you can get to yours. Or you'll be running every which where to achieve everyone's objectives. So people tend to solo becasue it's more efficient xp/min. So I declare fail to that model.
Another way to encourage grouping is give every class a group buff. It could be complementary or contrasting to the role. So tanks could give an auto damage buff or a resistance buff to everyone in the group etc. A group should be more powerful than the sum of its parts - and the mobs should scale to suit. Everybody wins.
7) Quality of life
Don't make me run for five minutes, let alone 15 minutes - especially over well trodden ground - to get to a quest location/giver. Give me fast transport no more than 10 minutes after I start the game.
Give me a fully flexible and customisable UI with multiple chat windows and quest trackers.
Give me a LFG and an LFM window.
Make the game mechanic transparent. Give me access to the real numbers going on under the hood - don't hide them away (unless there's a good reason to keep them secret).
Have everyone auto sidekick to the highest level person in a team or to the team leader.
Let me move servers to play with my buddies. Let me change my name. Let me change my appearance as often as I like. Don't restrict me doing these things unless you have a very good reason.
Allow me to download the client rather than install from disc. And, for the love of crap, don't make me have the disc in the drive to play.
8) Make subscriptions cheaper
MMOs are all about critical mass. You want as many people playing as possible. Yet at $15 a month (which becomes $22.50 in Australian dollars), most people will only subscribe to one MMO, maybe two. So, have a low subscription price, and you'll potentially pick up all those casual players or those who like to play something different from their other MMOs from time to time. As a bonus, your server populations will be higher. And for many of us, teaming is what makes MMOs fun.
9) Listen to, and engage with, players
There are a lot of fanboys and dickheads in the world, and a disproportionate number of them play MMOs, it seems. But developers who foster healthy two way communication with their players will only benefit.
There are pitfalls, to be sure. There'll always be a vocal minority, and they may not represent the interests of the majority of players. But there'll also be a lot of keen insights and helpful suggestions on how to improve the game. Listen to them. Given them what they want.
I've been struck by the changes to City of Heroes since Cryptic handed it over to NCSoft. It seems the new team have basically decided to give the players what they ask for. So several classes and powersets have received buffs (with very few receiving nerfs), xp gain has been increased, travel powers made more easily acquired at low levels, there's more customisability and flexibility over powers, and the list goes on. And the game is better for it.
10) Launch when it's finished
I shouldn't even have to say this. But an unfinished game should not be launched. If that means developers have to pare back the features to a managable level, do so. But don't release if it's not done. Period.
29 January, 2009
Ten Ways to Fix MMOs
Posted by Tim at 9:12 PM
Tags: age of conan, city of heroes, mmo, star wars galaxies, the agency, theory, war games, warhammer online, wow
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
The fact that any of this even needs to be said just helps reinforce my belief that most MMO designers don't know what the hell they are doing. They're only doing what they do because "well, that's just the way it's always been done." It's as if they're unable to come up with anything interesting, much less original. What's worse, is that the ones that *DO* understand these concepts are generally stifled by asshat producers or (perhaps even more criminally) a lack of funding.
It saddens, frustrates, and sometimes even infuriates me that the things mentioned here aren't already ingrained as common sense to designers, producers and creative directors. If it's not common sense, then it should at least be Design 101 for crying out loud. And if someone is out there designing games that hasn't taken that "common sense course," then get the hell out of the way and let more deserving folks get the funding they deserve.
Rawdge, your comment pretty much sums up the purpose for this site. You'd be surprised (or not) how often Tim and I say something along these lines when discussing anything to do with games.
Have any of you actually developed commercial games before?
What genre? What platforms?
When you design games that are going to be played by the mass public, you have to take into account their intelligence level, technical proficiency, and gaming familiarity.
The populace does not flow on the same level that regular hardcore gamers do. But, those people pay to play your games.
Who is a company going to listen to? The millions of paying customers that want things to work a certain way, or a few hundred or thousand gamers who wish the game was designed a different way?
All of the suggestions that you have made, many of them are expensive to implement and track in a large database, especially with item mall/virtual item sales in-game.
there may be 100,000 people assigned to one server, and up to 10,000 are allowed to be on one server at a time. Moving them across servers for free would be a headache on the back-end, and not worth the resources to keep such a feature. That is why many companies charge for a user to move accounts.
As for launching a MMORPG when it is done, will never happen. They are NEVER done, until the servers go down and the demand for the game no longer exists. You have to come to a point to release the game into the wild as a Beta, and have thousands or millions of players testing out the game for you.
Companies can have a small batch of in-house testers, or a few hundred, and the game is still going to ship with bugs and broken features here and there. MMORPGs are designed to be so big, and allow users to do so many things, it is impossible to test everything before launch.
Good ideas, most aren't going to happen any time soon.
End of line...
xhadoe, you make some good points, but I have a particular problem with your stance on critical voices. You appear to be saying that the fact that we *are* being critical makes us *not* the target audience, where that target audience consists of millions more (silent) people who pay the bills. I find that to be a troubling sentiment.
(deleted and reposted, apologies for the dupe, I blame Blogger)
Hi xhadoe. I must say, I disagree almost entirely.
I acknowledge that many of the suggestions I made in my post might be costly to implement, but many aren't (how about having *no* items?).
Also I think you've fallen for the 'fallacy of the mean' - the idea that all MMOs need to be developed for the mainstream. As I said, MMO is a technical spec, not a genre in itself. And EVE shows there's a demand for niche MMOs.
So, MMO devs can listen to the "millions of paying customers" (like Funcom did, for example), or they can create an MMO to target a more niche market. And a "few hundred thousand gamers" is still more than most MMOs have subscribed.
As for being defeatist about MMOs launching incomplete - I categorically disagree. I'm not talking about releasing a game in a state that will never change - I'm talking about a game with all the base features implemented and no bugs. Even with the bar that low, few MMOs make the cut.
Frankly, we, the gaming community, need to stop being apologists for an industry that consistently over promises and under delivers. And until we do, we'll get the unimaginative, buggy, clone MMOs we deserve.
Actually, yeah, I have developed games before. An MMO even. I came on board well after the game was launched, so I wasn't involved in any of the initial design decisions, but I did the best I could with the (very) small team I worked with. As a result, I'm quite familiar with the ins and outs of designing for an MMO (although I wouldn't personally call myself a 'veteran') and I understand the pitfalls and advantages of making design decisions.
I think Tim really nailed it with his previous comment there, stating that we "need to stop being apologists" for MMOs, and the larger video game industry as a whole. The industry has already seen several of the things mentioned in the original post, but we've yet to see any single MMO combine more than one or two of these concepts. UO was skill based, without pre-defined classes, and allowed players to "re-spec" as often as they liked. It also allowed for near-instantaneous travel with the use of runes and player made rune books. PlanetSide allowed for Counter-Strike style gameplay. Matrix Online provided the attack/counter/attack type combat that was mentioned. These are just examples off the top of my head. A little further digging will certainly provide more and better examples as well.
Sure, it can be argued that these games weren't super successful, or maybe that some of them even failed outright. Does that mean the ideas and concepts were bad, and shouldn't ever again be attempted or refined? No, of course not. It just means that they should be refined, or at least implemented a little differently.
In my personal experience in the industry, I've found the amount of design ego to be utterly disgusting. On the average, people in the industry (not just designers here, either) are *far* too attached to their own ideas, and aren't willing to iterate and refine them. Much less are they willing to completely overhaul or even scrap an idea or concept if they find out that it, or their implementation of it, just isn't fun. Rather than continue searching for the idea or concept that's right for the game, they cling to something and try to square-peg-round-hole it into their game. As a result, it doesn't mesh well with the rest of the game, and the game (and sometimes the company) suffers as a whole.
I'm of the belief that many, many designers need to step back and actually think about what they're trying to do. They're trying to, ultimately, put fun in a box and deliver it to customers. Hopefully for a profit, or at least a paycheck. All of us, both developers and gamers, need to hold everyone to higher standards. Developers need to quit thinking and treating their players and customers like they are stupid. Gamers have already begun to support or not support developers who put out crap games. How many big-budget AAA MMO titles went over like limp fish this past year? Unless designers (and other developers) can get their act together, expect to see plenty more multi-million dollar projects completely fucking tank.
Wandered in from a link to here, posted on another site.
I have to say, that overall, I agree with all your points. I have stopped bothering with MMO's due to many of these things. However, in the end though, I have to say that if these things were implemented in an MMO game, it would fail.
The typical MMO player, from what I have seen, wants periods of time doing nothing. Whether that be glued to the back of a bird, flying across a continent, or sitting in a town, crafting, they enjoy the idea of playing a game while not really playing it. It gives them time to be sociable. Chat with friends and guildmates, read a book, take care of a child. Subconsciously, they crave this. It's the exact same effect as having the TV on for hours at a time. It's there to help break their lives up a little bit, every few minutes.
Levels and classes are a way for someone to stand out and say, "I am exactly this person, you can expect such and such from me, but don't expect me to do this other thing!". Their role in "life" has be defined, they will not get in to situations they wish to avoid, and it becomes as easy as /who Jimbob to see who that person is, what they can do, and how experienced they are at it. In a way, it is a manual form of matchmaking, the kind that Halo 2 made automatic on XBox Live. The "casual gamer" does not want to spend time getting to know people to figure their abilities out. They simply want to find a group as quickly as possible, complete the tasks, and then go back to crafting or being glued to the back of a bird.
These people also enjoy grinding, as sick as that makes me to think about. Smarter combat, that would see an improved AI, reacting the way you described, would require someone pay much more attention then I think most want to give an MMO. Here, I'll give an example.
My girlfriend has played characters through Dark Age of Camelot a few times, and WoW once. Whenever she would play these, she would find a group of monsters that she could park her character in, engage one of them in combat, and then get up to maybe start working on dinner. Or maybe go change that lightbulb that burnt out last night. When not away from the computer, she would be chatting in game, or surfing the web.
Myself, having played the same games, would have the most time efficient route worked out, with all the time savers planned out. I would always be "playing" the game, nonstop, until my session was over. It became obvious, very quickly, that she did not like playing MMO's with me, and nor I, her. My play style burned her out, her play style put me to sleep.
Encouraging grouping... well, I think you are spot on about that in regards to all aspects of MMO players. I think Warhammer Online advanced the grouping model, but it could still use some polish.
On the subject of character transfers, I have to disagree. There is the population and resource usage concerns, my reasoning is that I wish the model of having numerous servers was done away with. Yes, I know and understand the reasons why this isn't common. Bandwidth usage, players system specs, etc. Eve Online pulled it off, and pulled it off well. It was more natural for it, given the way the game plays, however.
You gave an example of a studio listening to it's players working out for the better, but I have to counter it with an example of it working out for the worse, which takes me back to Dark Age of Camelot.
That game was in a constant flux of change, due to all the vocal minorities that would complain about every single thing in the game. For the example, I'll use the "frontiers" of that game.
When it first came out, the frontier areas of DAOC were matched with each realms style. Long travel times were a must, which gave players all the more will to keep their play at its top level, as death would mean another 15 or more minutes to get back out to the action. And the action itself was hard enough to find. The terrain lent itself to people being able to hide themselves well, or entire armies sliding past each other with no idea that the other is running right past them.
Within a few months, the vocal minority against this gained enough momentum that Mythic, the studio that created the game, went about designing the "New Frontiers". After the game was out for one and half, maybe two years, it was rolled out into the game. Now, all the frontiers were more or less identical. The textures were different, there might be a hill here instead of a grove of trees there, but it was a generic design. Teleportation was added in, so the need to group and play well drastically lowered. So what if you died? Now you can be back and fighting in 2 or 3 minutes. With travel being so fast, choke points became the only place to find any action, and the rest of the frontiers became a pointless exercise. Saddening, as the original point of the game was to take other sides territory to gain access to their "relics". People stopped caring, and just wanted to beat on each other, and run right back out to do it again. Then the hardcore players, that only wanted the PVP, realized they could have the same experience in other games, like FPS's, and left the game in droves. Last I heard, they were working on making a New New Frontiers, because the few people left playing, are stuck with a huge, generic land mass, that has lost all meaning.
In the end, while I agree with what you are saying, I think for the majority of MMO players, most of these changes would create too generic a game for them. They would lose the ability to play as slowly or quickly as they like, never have a chance to stop and smell the roses. They desire the moments of boredom, interlaced with the occasional action that MMO's provide.
I do have to ask, though, which MMO requires the game disc be in the drive to play? The nature of having a subscription would seem to negate concerns of using pirated software.
OP: Sounds like you need a station pass for SWG and a time-machine set to 2005 so you can play before it went from bad to worse.
Seriously though, a lot of your list can be found in SWG. Its a shame that they screwed it up. The Skill system is pretty revolutionary for an RPG, not just an MMO.
The first 6 points sound like a dev description of Darkfall
Do you know how much CPU time is required to run one smart AI mob? 10 mobs? A few hundred mobs?
It's possible. But it costs. MMORPGs are moneymaking machines, not playerpleasing ones, so it's unlikely they will go into any troubles implementing such costly things.
"You could have an MMO that is basically a lobby for a series of Counter-Strike matches or WWII battles that each feed into a greater strategic plot."
Boy oh boy would I love to play that game!
I am sympathetic T.Hand's laments/ideas. I kind of feel that I could easily be the target audience of an MMO if some issues were addressed. For me, I want to be immersed in the world and things like the combat system of WoW is the quickest way to bump me out of that world. I understand that the game is more about strategy than small muscle coordination, but all I know is that the quickest way to get me to like a game is to cause some sort of emotional response... other than frustration. I'm playing WoW right now as research and I was offered a quest that was actually going to find someone's lost dog. Really? That dog had better be some sort of hellhound spitting fire. I've got a life filled with mundane chores and pet wrangling. I want my game to be escapism. I want to be afraid of the enemies, not annoyed at them when they cause me to respawn and have to do another death run in search of my little lost corpse. I've played FPSs that have caused me to back my chair into stuff in an attempt to get away from my attackers. I have not had a huge amount of experience in MMORPGS but I've yet find one that made me feel like that.
A lot of people don't -want- to group in MMOs. I can't say as I've ever entirely understood this perspective (hey...if you're playing singleplayer the whole time, why not play a singleplayer RPG where you will be the star of the show and there will be a lot more exciting stuff happening), but it's true. Group-oriented MMOs get incredible amounts of player bitching.
I confess I've somewhat fallen to the dark side now, though. It's not that I don't like grouping, it's that it becomes enough of a pain in the ass to recruit people that I may as well just solo. At least modern MMOs have quests and storylines and things to do besides real grinding - repeatedly killing the same mobs for no real reason.
1) Make worlds more engaging:
The 'phasing' thing on WoW and some of the similar things in Lord of the Rings Online helps here. These take static worlds and make it so what You see relates to the progress YOUR character has made in the quests and the like.
This makes a interesting cross between 'Theme Park' and 'Sandbox'.
I really like the idea of what YOUR character does affecting the way YOU see the game. It helps things without hurting or destroying (in most cases) other people's enjoyment for THEIR experience.
I also point people to some of the things that the 'microtransaction-based' 'Free MMOs' are doing for their paying customers. In some of these games you get special content that only YOU can see, because you are paying to play the game. Those playing it free either will NEVER see that content, or may only see it when you're off playing the two expansions ahead of them.
2) Ditching Classes and Levels
I am of mixed feelings here. Humans love to put others into easily defined 'pigeon holes' that allow them to classify them in relation to themselves. We do it everywhere in life based on the types of jobs we make money in (Student, unemployed, white collar, blue collar, Executive, MMO designer, etc).
Therefore we want ways of expressing the similar things in our MMOs. Even in Eve Online, where you only barely have anything really related to classes, you get pegged into defined roles based on what ship you are flying. Yes, your skills and how you have the ship equipped has a LOT to do with how WELL you fill that role that the ship is 'normally' used for... but it is still a way of getting a small idea of the type of thing that 'person' over there is going to be able to do.
In the real world, you look at what a person wears and how they act, and, maybe their chatter to figure out what they can do. Con men and actors (and many teenagers) can dress up a certain way and act a certain way and claim to be certain things and get away with that. But if a person doesn't know how to 'walk the walk', they are going to be in trouble in short order when they can't perform the duties of what they are 'claiming' they are...
Do we really want that in our MMOs? I could see it for some niche game. Like a spy game, a 'matrix online' or something where stealth is more the thing and combat is to be generally avoided.
For now, I expect to keep seeing at least Roles, if not classes. Though I would love to see some game with a lot of $$ behind it give it a try for a game where one can be any class and any role for a given team. It would be a good experiment to see if it can be done and make it work for the masses or a niche. Eve almost does it. But I would like to see it in a Fantasy or non-spaceship Sci-fi MMO...
Levels on the other hand... it's another thing I am mixed on. I've stated in my own private blogs that sometimes I wish Real Life had them. I'd sometimes love to be rewarded with a Level Up now and then where suddenly I would find new things and abilities available to me. Like I would love to level up and find that now I can suddenly commute to work at twice the speed of my friends. And suddenly I didn't take as much damage from stumbling down the stairs... or stopped stumbling down the stairs because my agility just went up.
I'd love a progress meter in real life where I know I am improving.
Levels are part of the positive reinforcement built into these sorts of games to make people feel that there is a return for the time they are spending in the game. So are things like badges, achievement points, drops and loot.
Having that next level as a goal out there gives you something to work towards.
When I was playing Eve Online, where there are no 'levels' for a character, only for a character's skills, I felt that things were missing in the 'rewards' area of the game. Not having levels made it such that the material things like new and better ships, new and better weapons and more and more ISK were the only things I was 'earning'. And those things could all come crashing down with one person shooting me out of the sky and me having to pay for all that all over again (even with Insurance).
Even leveling up skills in Eve wasn't rewarding... because it wasn't based on ANYTHING I was doing other than choosing what skill to earn and WAITING. Nothing I did IN the game sped that learning up (other than letting me get started on a skill, which I had to BUY).
So, personally, I like levels. As a goal, as a reward to reach them. And all the things that go with a level system. I am sure something else could be worked like Eve's skill system for all the things OTHER than as a reward that levels are used for. But experience and levels do MEAN something in the 'rewards for playing and being active in DOING things' area.
3)Make Combat Smarter
Another thing I am of two minds over.
I've been observing my own play recently and seeing what I am doing in my game. And yes, it's really mostly press 1, 2 or 3 and work on getting that bad guy to go down.
But there's more to it than that. At least in group play. If I am one of the main combatants, I am watching about, planning the next enemy, watching the status display to see if any others in the team need support with their foe, and trying to keep the folks that can't take the hits as well as I can out of harms way.
If I am playing a healer or support type, I'm less worried about who I am attacking and more worried about who I need to heal next, who needs to be freed from a mez, and oh, crap, how'd that mob get through to me.
And between combats I am often my team's tactics or strategy person. Looking at the next group of mobs and giving tips (if needed... some of my teammates and I have been doing this a long time and know each others play styles and can sort of work as a well-oiled machine) and then leading the assault.
In solo play it DOES often come down to just mashing the buttons and waiting for the powers to recharge.
Sometimes I find that creates 'grind' and other times it works fine for me because I -am- gaming while doing other things. Solo gaming is that way.... unless I am going for that FINAL level... that seems to change ALL perceptions of the game. JUST a million more points to go... die, why don't you die!
Would smarter combat work with my playstyle?... it might not. It might equal frustration. And when a player suffers too much frustration, he will often turn to doing something else. Of course, if it's too simple to progress... then you feel no sense of accomplishment and the process becomes meaningless. The balance between smarter combat and entertainment is going to be a tough one.
In an ideal world where processing power isn't a problem and the code is perfect, the game would adjust the way of the response of enemies to the playstyle of the person(s) playing against it at the time, using some formula that would always keep the amount of effort it takes and the amount of skill in balance at just short of what would drive the player away to play something else.
I don't have time right now to write more response... maybe another time. :)
http://bvreloaded.blogspot.com/2009/02/once-more-into-breach.html
"Trembling Hand (TH) thinks you should encourage grouping. I am not a fan of this at all. "
Sort of continuing my response from yesterday here... I'm also keeping it here in response here as this is where I am at in reading this train of thought out in the world.
6) Encourage grouping
Playing a MMO as a part of a group is the best that MMOs can be or the worst, depending on wether the people in the group are friends or not, and how compatible YOUR playstyle is to their playstyle.
Regardless of a 'Theme Park' world or a 'Sandbox', getting together in a team of players that work well together can be the most wonderful thing ever. You cover each other's backs, you focus attacks on mobs that are causing the larger problems, and, in general, without ANY special powers beyond the normal ones, a proper team is ALWAYS already greater than the sum of it's parts. You can easily see that when it starts getting in over its head and people start dropping, because if more than two people in a 8-team drop, it often means that there may be only 1 or 2 left standing because they smartly disengaged so that SOMEONE can pull out the 'rez' abilities to put the team back together again and try a different tactic.
As to things that need to be done to encourage grouping... they already exist. Usually in the form of an XP bonus, and even more often more and better loot than if you did the exact same mission/quest solo. The GOOD games have 'instanced' missions (quests) of some sort where the content scales to match the size of the group going in. So it is 'possible' to solo the mission and get the base level of reward out of it. But do that same mission with a team of 8 and rather than 3 low grade 'monsters' to fight per group of baddies, there are going to be 10-15 of them with half of them middle grade types and 2 or more in the top grade, and with a good chance of getting elite foes to also have to fight as part of things. And on top of getting the normal XP per target being better because of more and better grade opponents, there's also BONUS xp on top of that. And in that same case the Solo guy might have gotten a few simple drops and the good one for completion of the quest, the in the TEAM all 8 people are getting drops fairly often, and all of them get a even better one for the completion of the quest.
So, if you are teaming up most of the time, XP, levels and drops are going to be really flowing fast and it's like everyone is leveling almost all the time. Where the solo player is going to take twice or three times as much playing time to get the same level of rewards...
If that's not already something to encourage grouping, at least in the game I play (City of Heroes)... I must be missing something. *grin*
On the other hand, grouping with people you have never grouped with before, that's a whole different experience. These 'Pick up Groups' tend to be chaotic and uncoordinated and generally more of an exercise in futility and frustration than something as enjoyable as I described above. And no amount of special buffs, rewards or other game mechanics are going to make it easier or more appealing.
That being said, it is hard to find those GOOD people to team with if you don't have a number of real world friends that play the game at the same time you do and on the same server. So, Pick up Groups are about the only way to discover one or more of those people that you ARE going to want to team with again. So if the game gives some sort of incentive, then it is more likely one will do it to find those people so that you can form teams that make the game a REAL joy to play on a more regular basis.
7) Quality of Life
Good design of the low level areas where most of the people in them have not yet earned some faster means of travel takes the bite out of not having those faster means of travel earlier in the game.
Quests/Missions during the part of the game where you don't have the means to cover long distances swiftly need to be in a tighter area, closer together, so that the travel to them doesn't take very long. And 'instancing' of missions/quests is almost a must in this case, as in these areas with less area to them, it will get crowded whenever folks are creating lots of new characters (which designers and the marketting folks are going to be hoping is very, very often).
Low levels are also often the part of the game where people are more likely to be playing solo. They are learning the game, or for those that have other higher-level characters in the game they are just trying to move through the low levels swiftly.
All the UI, LFG, LFM and game mechanic wishes mentioned by the oP I agree with.
As to installing from disk or downloading... I have to differ here. Most MMOs these days download 1-2 Gigabytes of data to your hard drive. Downloading that can take LARGE amounts of time even for high-speed connections. Yes, the actual CLIENT, the program that is the actual game element, as opposed to all the graphic, sound, and database details of the game, that should be a download. And there should ALWAYS be the option of downloading it all.
But for the best speed of time from deciding to install the game to playing it, having the lion's share of it on a DvD takes what would be hours or even a full day (for people with really slow connections, or source locations that are overly slammed) down into less than an hour... Still, if I pop in the original disc on a new computer that has never had the game on it, for a game that's been around for more than 6 months or so... I might as well be downloading it all again. The patching up to the current version is going to take a long time.
So, for a NEW game, close to launch, or a existing game, with a disc from a really recent expansion... I'm going to install from the disc. But if that game has been out for a year or more and all the expansions have been free or there haven't been any... then yeah, I wanna download a huge file and start from there, instead.
And as to server moves... there's got to be a better way. Maybe a central character server seperate from the 'world/shard' servers. The character database could allow the character to have somethings that are only available to the character on the world/shard where they earned it (to take care of the unique items issue) and perhaps his reputation is unique to the server it was earned on. But what that character has LEARNED, his SKILLs, his experience... those should be freely usable whatever world/shard you played him on.
I am sure there's a lot more thought that needs to go into a system by which characters were not tied to specific servers. Yes, in an ideal limitless world computer resources wouldn't limit the number of characters being actively played in the universe. And in that idea world there would be ONE place where all 11.5 million accounts on WoW all can play at the same time and all gather in the same place in that world. (Even though I don't think even the dwarven capital would be able to HOLD 11.5 million people even if they stood on each other's shoulders to the high ceilings... AND they were ALL Gnomes!) But we don't have that ideal world. So other systems are going to need to be toyed with.
And yes, the thing that made ME leave WoW was that I was NEVER on the right server, at the right time, to play with my friends. I was always having to make new characters on that server THEY were on (or they on mine) and by the time I could level up to play with them, they had either moved servers to play with some OTHER friend, or left the game for one reason or other. Had I had 'server freedom' with my characters, I would never have had that problem, and I might still be an addicted player of that game, with multiple level 80 characters etc.
And I never... EVER, want to see a QUEUE counting down showing me how many thousand people are ahead of me in trying to log into a server to play a game. NEVER Ever. I had enough of that in WoW, and even in Eve.
8) Make subscriptions cheaper
$15 a month works for me. Sure, I prefered it when the going price was $9.99 a month. Hell, I LEFT Everquest Online Adventures when they first went from $9.99 a month to $14.99 and took the annual price from $99.99 to $149.99. That game was acceptable when you were paying under $10 (on the annual plan) a month to play. (AND had three friends around to regualarly share the experience with - playing that game solo was a true grind!)
Currently I am on the City of Heroes $143 and change for 14 months plan. (Buy 12 get 2 months 'free' promotion they had for the holiday season. Sales gimmick to get the devoted player to say they are going to pay to play for another 14 months, up front. Marketted and pushed as a sort of 'reward' to those same devoted players. What can I say. I love the game.) This means I am paying something just over $10 a month in the grand scheme of things. And NCSoft knows they can count on my 'head' being counted for another 14 months. NCNC can point to all the people that are on that sort of thing and say "See... we have a SOLID subscribership. You cancel us and you are going to have to refund BIG bucks..." or some such.
Like the OP said. MMOs are about critical mass. The more people playing, the more your game is bringing in for the mothership and the more you can justify your continued existance and the continued development costs, etc.
$15 a month seems to be the pricepoint currently for subscription based MMOs. You charge more than that, you need to be offering more to the consumer. (SOE has a neat gimmick in 'Station Access'. $24.95 (or it may have gone up by now) and you get access to a wide range of games. EQ, EQ2, Vanguard, SWG, Matrix Online (Is that still running?) and others all for that one monthly price.)
And then there are the microtransaction MMOs... usually they are 'free to play' for the most part... until you want some special thing. That special thing is going to cost you 50 FAKECOINS. And FAKECOINS only come in amounts of 75, 200, and 500 and cost $10, $20 and $50 respectively. So the person that buys things at CostCo in bundles is going to look at that and spend $50. After all, it's the best value for the money and there are other things to spend FAKECOINS on. And all the costs of things in the game are in multiples of FAKECOINS that are going to make it so at some point you will have 25 FAKECOINS left and want to buy something that costs 50. So the cycle starts again.
And then there are the sort of middle ground MMOs. The are 'free to play' and have micro-transactions, but they also have a 'subscription' choice. For this monthly price you get access to twice the storage space, twice the inventory, weapons and equipment that are limited to 'elite' players only. And comes with some sort of daily/weekly bonus rewards that normally cost the smallest amount of FAKECOINS in the game. These subscriptions are usually in the $5 to $10 a month area.
Of course, many of these free-to-play MMOs do have ways to get the things FAKECOINS are used to buy, without having to buy FAKECOINS. Usually it is through seriously complex collection quests that take you all over the map, to places that you can't 'quicktravel' right to, and inside locations that take groups of people to cooperate in in order to just survive. Many of these are the limited 'instanced dungeons' of the game. So if you go in solo it is full of 'elite' monsters that take at least 3 or 4 people working together to defeat. And because it is instanced, it adjusts to your level, so even if you wait until 25 levels past when others would go there, it's STILL going to take 4 people of YOUR level to defeat those mobs. It can NOT be solo'd. Period. So, if you recruit 3 friends to the game, and play it, all four of you CAN get those things, through many, many hours of game play, through the quests of the game, rather than spending 50 FAKECOINS for it... so... pay $10 to get 100 FAKECOINS and get it now, instantly. (Assuming you are the right level to use it.) Or play 40 hours with 3 friends... GRINDING for the right rare drops.
Sorry, I'll take the $15 a month, thank you.
Likely what we are going to see happen is the hybrid model. Most MMOs are going to be either 'free-to-play' or very low ($5 mo) subscription cost... and have Micro-Transactions. Many are going to be $10 a month and not free-to-play at all. And still have some micro-transactions. And fewer are going to remain $15 a month (or higher as it takes more $ to buy less) and STILL have micro-transactions. Just the more it costs for the subscription, the less 'neccessary' the items bought in micro-transactions.
For example, City of Heroes has started offering 'Booster Packs'. There's only a few right now. The 'Wedding pack' contains some additional emotes related to proposing and other 'lovey dovey' things. And a set of wedding garb costume pieces. The Cyborg pack contains a bunch of costume pieces, a set of new robotic emotes, and a self-destruct power. The Jet pack booster contains a 30-day flight power for $5. Others have the 'special' powers that came with the Collector's Edition of the game, or the 'Good vs Evil' edition. Or the latest will be the special powers that come with the mac edition of the game and the Valkyre costume pieces.
None of the items contained in these micro-transaction items are NEEDED to play the game. The costume pieces ad more choices to the already robust costume designer. And the little 'special' powers are often convience powers that do not effect the balance of the game. Even that 'self-distruct' power has downsides including a long recharge and limited recovery options, so you rarely see people using it unless it's in a situation where the downsides have no meaning.
The other powers are usually travel powers with long recharges. The more useful the power, the longer the recharge.
9) Listen to, and engage with, players
This is the old two-edged sword. And it really, really, really depends on the overall business plan of the game as a whole that determines to what degree this needs to be done. There's been a few games that they always intended to be 3-5 years in existance. For those, if the design is good, the code tight, and the plan properly enacted, you may be able to get away with a limited amount of engagement.
But if you are going to be doing an MMO that is intended to HOLD the audience and keep them playing for as long as the technology can survive, then you NEED, NEED, NEED to get involved with the player base, listen to them, and take what they say into consideration. (Note I didn't say 'do everything they suggest'... I said take it into consideration!)
But at the same time, listening to the few hundred that are going to interact on the game's forums and ONLY listening to them... well, I'm not sure that's going to work well. You need to seek out every way to reach the players possible. On forums, on fansites, on podcasts, at conventions, in community gatherings, in your home where you can overhear your kids or the neighbors talking about the game (or your husband/wife and their gaming buddies seated around/in front of the table/television playing that roleplaying/console game on the weekends.
This is the BIG effort. This is where the BIG expense in keeping the game fresh and keeping it running comes in. Yes, there's all the programming, designing, debugging, playtesting going on. All the server maintenance, network flushing, technical support going on. But it's in the Community outreach and communication with those that play the game and learning what they like, what they don't, what they find fun, and what makes them crazy that is going to make or break a game. This is the part of the costs of doing a successful long-running MMO that has been the downfall of some.
Those that make a niche game are going to have it a little easier here. They don't have to range quite as far afield to get this to work. In general their folk will come to them. It still takes a huge effort.
Also, when something works, and you get that SOLID core of devoted players. Don't let marketting come in and demand you change EVERYTHING because marketting wants to get the game out to the mainstream and out of it's niche. That sort of move usually kills the game from growing long term. Marketting isn't god, even if they are often the holders of the pursestrings.
10) Launch when it's finished
HA! A MMO is never truely finished. Those that have tried to be 'finished' before they launched have often NOT launched at all.
That being said, a MMO -needs- to have at least the CORE of the game solid as it can be gotten and still get the game out the door. You need a beginning, a middle, and an end. You can't launch and not have at least SOME end game content in place. Don't launch just the beginning 20 levels because NO ONE is going to get to level 20 before you will have the Middle 20 levels ready at the end of launch week. Because if you do that more than half your player base is going to be level 20 by wednesday and saying the game is boring and leaving in droves before you publish the update on Friday.
So, yes, you need to have the basic framework, with content at all stages, when you launch. Yes, there can be lots more left to go into the game. There will ALWAYS be more to go into the game. A MMO is a living game. If it is not, then it's going to never get critical mass. You can't keep 11.5 million players happy if there isn't still more to do. But you also can't expect to have 11.5 million in the first week/month/year. But you ARE going to get players of differing skill, and those that always finish things in a fraction of time of all the others are the ones that are going to be talking the most about the game. The more you can have out there at launch for those people to talk about, the better.
Okay... I've written too much. Thanks for reading my response and making me think about these things.
Just a quickie comment on server fluidity / transfer...
Guild Wars was instanced outside of cities, but in cities the 'server' was simply a pulldown menu at the top of the screen. You zone in, get assigned the lowest resource hogging 'copy' of the city, and can pull down from the menu to switch to wherever your friends are.
Something along those lines could be viable on a larger non-instanced world.
- Move people to low resource servers anytime they zone.
- Let them change with a simple menu selection.
- Spawn or despawn more or less servers as system demand goes up or down.
With such a fluid system, you can also get away with much smaller server sizes. Guild Wars cities cap at 100 players.
The problem with it is that work, you need to make excuses to have people zoning often - so you can keep it dynamic and not have someone on the same server-number all night long. It works better in worlds like EQII where moving more than 3 yards results in zoning (...) rather than WoW where you only zone on continent changes.
After reading this, it seems that most of your issues stem from playing MMORPGs. If you want something like the lobby scenario and waiting for matches being the entire experience, go join steam. Leveling and classes are at the heart of any classic roleplaying game! Part of the fun is leveling and working out a strategy to defeat mobs, not lining your mouse up with the head pixel and killing in one shot. That's for FPS games. Please go play that instead. Stop trying to make RPGs in to FPSs. A game like that ends up being less fun for lovers of both genres.
@Jyotai
Guild Wars is an interesting case study, not only in server architecture - which is a great alternative model - but pricing as well. Goes to show the WoW model needn't always be the path to success.
@tagashi
Thanks for your comment. If you read my post again you'll find I'm suggesting a range of possible improvements to MMOs, not "trying to make RPGs into FPSs". And I'll thank you for not telling me, or anyone else, what to play. Doing so doesn't strengthen your argument, it just makes you sound like a boob.
Very interesting, thanks for such a thoughtful writeup. However, I have to say that an MMO designed along these proposed lines probably would not interest me as a player.
I'm a 30-something mother of a toddler, married, both of us work full time (plus), and so I don't have lots of time to play or energy to invest. I play WoW and enjoy it for what it is. I've never played, nor been interested in playing another MMO. I play only one computer game at a time (and did so even before I had kids).
I like chatting with my guild and have friends and family in it, allowing me to refresh "real life" relationships as well as in-game ones (Real Life = people I associate with outside of game).
- I group only when necessary because I don't want to worry about team dynamics -- I work in and manage a team all day long, every day, and I don't want the stress of working with other people when I'm in game. So I play a druid and have soloed almost the entire way to 80. I also go randomly afk for random amounts of time to take care of kid, house, stir a pot on the stove, answer the phone, etc. Another thing that makes my play style unfit for grouping.
- I very rarely instance. It takes too much time, it requires group dynamics, and I don't like the adrenaline rush. I don't play for adrenaline. Life has enough, thank you.
- I absolutely refuse to PvP. I don't fight with people in real life, why should I fight with them in game? And people are smart, which leads me to my next point...
- I like dumb mobs. I don't WANT to think, twitch, or have to work hard for my kills. Sure, one-shotting everything is boring, but questing above my level is just stressful. My favorite fight is one where I take 20% or less damage when things go well; 50% or less when I get an unlucky string of misses/blocks/parries, or get an add. It's a happy-combat day when I have to heal after a dozen mobs. And yes, I realize that this makes me a liability in groups, which feeds back into my dislike of grouping.
- Quality of Life: Travel (a controversy all on its own). I often find travel to be soothing and in fact stealthed my way through levels 70-77 until I got my wings back, even when traveling to and from a quest giver. Did I find not being able to fly an annoyance? Not really. The zones where I had to walk, I actually know and remember much better. Sholazar Basin and Zul'Drak are only arial maps and isolated mobs to me. I almost wish I hadn't bought back my flight -- I've lost intimate knowledge of my world and I'm too lazy to walk if I can fly. This makes me sad.
However, I agree with some of the other points you make.
- I'm sure I would enjoy a more engaging world.
- I'm a gamer since AD&D, so I'm comfortable with classes and levels, but also like skill-point-based White Wolf games and would probably enjoy something similar in an MMO.
- I hate grinding (questing is not grinding) and won't do it.
- Quality of Life? Meh. Some of what you list would be nice (movable windows without a mod would be great), but a highly-customizable interface is good only if it doesn't reset to the default when the game upgrades. I guess if it's done without an addon then it would stick.
- Lower subscription fees. I don't know, $15 is reasonable in my book. I only play one game, and $15/mo is the same price as a NetFlix subscription (my husband's monthly entertainment). Much above $25 and it would be too expensive, but much below $10 and I'd question how sustainable it would be.
- Listen to players. Yeah, that's nice, but only if you listen to ME and not to the idiot posting OMG OP NERF!!1! on the forums (as if I understood game balance any better than him -- I've DM'd games, those were hard to balance, I can't imagine balancing for thousands of players on a server).
- Release a game when it's done. Yes please. However, at some point the market realities hit. Sometimes it's "release a game when people will pay for it". I work in QA and we live with the reality that there will ALWAYS be bugs or you'll NEVER release until it's too late. Pare back too many features and people won't stick with it long enough to fund the next upgrade with all the features the market says you should have had in the first place.
So, excellent article, excellent comments. I'm probably an anomalous player type, but most of my guild has families and the average age is about 45. We instance, we're starting to raid soon, but we're happy where we are and I suspect there are more like us. WoW works for me. Sure, it can be improved and sure, it's archetypal for its genre, for good or ill. But it works and I'll continue playing for the forseeable future.
wow.. someone that played Action Quake =]
-Mm2000
Post a Comment