Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[itisnotlogical]

Inspired to watch the series again by Doug Walker's vlogs about it, I'm beginning to think about how kickass a well-balanced Avatar: The Last Airbender MMORPG or MMOBA would be. With only four classes to pick from, the balance could remain tight as hell while still having plenty of variety. Players would be heavily optimized to work together in groups of 2 to 6, each one filling a specific role: Earthbenders have massive offense but have low speed, firebenders can do AoE like a mother and roll around at the speed of sound, airbenders stun/support and waterbenders heal and defend.

With almost no shoehorning, they could even have some really cool endgame abilities. I won't spoil what those might be though. I don't care how old those spoilers are, it's worth it to be surprised. Fellow fans can vouch that they're just that awesome.

Spoiler: Actual spoiler about the series (click to show/hide)

It would be hard to do metalbending justice without making it OP as hell, though. Maybe make it so that metal suits can cook the user alive if threatened by a firebender?

[SalmonGod]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Less combat intensive roles would still have to be as interesting as combat ones.

The problem with intelligence is that it can be farmed out to the internet. Twitchy-ness in games is immediate and in the moment and you can't replace it. Well aimbots but those are cheating.

Now look at any game and point to me where the immediate in the moment decisions are for people using their minds. Mapmaking? Done for you cause combat players whine. Economics? Auction house because combat players hate local economies. And if you didn't do that then players would just make map and quest wikis because they don't want to use their minds.

Anything that will engage the minds of non twitch players gets in the way of twitch players only doing twitch type things. Its a zero sum game.

If you read MMORPG.com you can see the legions of combat focused players whining incessantly about crafting or exploring or w/e. They won't stand for it.

All the games I enjoy playing have a LONG time between cause and effect. The "battle" is decided long before combat commences. You plan ahead imagining what could go wrong and trying to counter it.

You constantly hear the twitchers whining about how RPGS have battles that are basically decided by your character development rather than in fight decisions. This is actually how real battles are decided.

Yeah, I'm aware.  Most of the longest-standing game design issues are a matter of publishers forcing appeal to the lowest common denominator.  Doesn't matter how good the game design is.  If the majority player base's first reaction is to whine, it has to go.

[MoLAoS]

My main issue is that since games are supposed to improve on real life people only want to interact with the elements that interest them. This poses a problem to any game that wants to simulate a world since that requires at least some of the things that makes real life suck. I have long argued on mmorpg.com, in between numerous bans, that the tedium is necessary for some of the most interesting aspects of civilization and warfare, like the spread or not of knowledge and the various fun economic systems but I am drowned out by people that really should have been playing MOBAs all along instead of shoving action combat into MMOs.

I think in some cases we do have real obstacles. For instance in real life many systems are dependent on mind numbing drudgery. I haven't worked out how to handle that without NPCs or abstraction and then you have to avoid the investment problem where any investment tends to pay itself off quickly in an MMO unless you make investments as mind numbing as the drudgery NPCs are meant to avoid.

But we never even have the chance to tackle these design problems since future MOBA fans are destroying what makes MMOs unique. Not that MOBAs are bad but not every single game needs to be one.

[Tsuchigumo550]

MOBAs are a fad, like mobile gaming. They're taking market share but not killing it.

[Kaje]

I've been playing a LOT of the Caveman2Cosmos mod for Civ IV lately (thanks CognitiveDissonance!), as well as watching crap TV like 'Ancient Aliens' and I was thinking there should be a game like Civ where there's a small chance of an event happening - such as a UFO crashing nearby - where if you get to it first, or it crashes in your borders, you are able to try and reverse engineer the technology. Leaping you (or whoever gets it!) ahead dramatically.

Not really a 'game' as such, more a feature idea.

[MoLAoS]

MOBAs are a fad, like mobile gaming. They're taking market share but not killing it.

Its clear from the arenaization of games like WoW and the multiplayer of GW and GW2 that people desire MOBA like gameplay. And its better that it comes from MOBAs rather than poisoning MMOs. They aren't a fad per say. More like new MOBAs are not going to do anything but split up the existing playerbase. Like what happened with WoW in MMOs. Its not a fad after 8 years but its no longer a growth market.

[hemmingjay]

A faithful PC version of the Netrunner card game.

This!

[Sergius]

Talking about MMOs: I think a big part of what makes them boring or non-immersive is because the staticness that has been inherited from MUDs. You have a monster, in a location, and it dies, and it respawns. It's the same monster (in some cases with slightly randomized equipment), it just goes away for a nap. The world never changes.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Then we have the other end of the spectrum, with dynamic worlds. The problem is, nearly always they're entirely player-made. Full PvP, world is empty unless there is a thousand people playing. No NPCs worth talking about, no shops, it generally ends up being a complete grindfest... grindfest+permadeath IMO is not a good combination.

This is my opinion: if you're going the permadeath path, life must truly be cheap. You current Avatar can't represent 100s of hours of work, it has to be expendable. As for the world, I'd rather have some middle ground: have established "NPC cities", have monsters in certain areas drop because they're getting killed, but have them invade less traveled areas. Make them actually spawn from somewhere it makes sense: nests, villages, which are destructible, but also spread. Essentially, there's a tactical/strategic layer running on the background that the players don't even need to know about (unless they're doing some sort of Commander task).

With nest spawning I don't really mean an actual stream of monsters coming from a point. These spawning points could merely alter the density of enemies in the areas. Since the number of players is limited, and time is an issue, they can't cleanse the entire world, they can only try to have as large a "civilized" zone as possible.

About NPC towns... well, not really sure how to handle that. They could be fixed (like the towns in UO), with the caveat that they can be overrun by hostile forces, turning them into enemy bases, and they have to be liberated. If the hostile presence in the area ever climbs high enough, we can lose them again. Some sort of mechanism would prevent the entire world being inhabitable, an automated NPC army, or an indestructible capitol, or even just Administration intervention.

If I had my way, a MMORPG would have 2 layers: a Kohan-style RTS (but really slow ) where cities can be built and destroyed, played by some sort of Commanders (of high enough rank? Pay2Play?), and a 3rd person RPG where players can use the buildings made by the first one, and quests can be requests by these Commanders, for example to bring materials to a construction site or attack/scout a flag. Majesty-style.

Town sites could be fixed to Strategic Points, like in Kohan 2 or the first Battle for Middle Earth.

Yet the world would be static enough that players don't feel like the whole thing is collapsing all around them.

EDIT: Oh yeah, to make PCs expendable, I'd use some sort of meta-experience mechanic, where the Player (not the Character) accumulates some sort of character development points. Maybe the longer you survive, the better points you get over time, but once you die, you keep them and use them to roll a new character. I've drafted several variations on paper, I would probably use specific kinds of points like Fable... maybe for every 2 points in-play you get 1 meta-point, so your character still gets more powerful than a newborn one... I'm sure the concept can be polished a lot more to reach a happy middle point where people won't be just suiciding all the time but also don't feel they've lost a great deal when dying. Plus, dying means being able to specialize in something else, some balance mechanic would prevent you from growing too much out of your current specialization? It's all just ideas on paper really.

[MoLAoS]

Talking about MMOs: I think a big part of what makes them boring or non-immersive is because the staticness that has been inherited from MUDs. You have a monster, in a location, and it dies, and it respawns. It's the same monster (in some cases with slightly randomized equipment), it just goes away for a nap. The world never changes.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Then we have the other end of the spectrum, with dynamic worlds. The problem is, nearly always they're entirely player-made. Full PvP, world is empty unless there is a thousand people playing. No NPCs worth talking about, no shops, it generally ends up being a complete grindfest... grindfest+permadeath IMO is not a good combination.

This is my opinion: if you're going the permadeath path, life must truly be cheap. You current Avatar can't represent 100s of hours of work, it has to be expendable. As for the world, I'd rather have some middle ground: have established "NPC cities", have monsters in certain areas drop because they're getting killed, but have them invade less traveled areas. Make them actually spawn from somewhere it makes sense: nests, villages, which are destructible, but also spread. Essentially, there's a tactical/strategic layer running on the background that the players don't even need to know about (unless they're doing some sort of Commander task).

With nest spawning I don't really mean an actual stream of monsters coming from a point. These spawning points could merely alter the density of enemies in the areas. Since the number of players is limited, and time is an issue, they can't cleanse the entire world, they can only try to have as large a "civilized" zone as possible.

About NPC towns... well, not really sure how to handle that. They could be fixed (like the towns in UO), with the caveat that they can be overrun by hostile forces, turning them into enemy bases, and they have to be liberated. If the hostile presence in the area ever climbs high enough, we can lose them again. Some sort of mechanism would prevent the entire world being inhabitable, an automated NPC army, or an indestructible capitol, or even just Administration intervention.

If I had my way, a MMORPG would have 2 layers: a Kohan-style RTS (but really slow ) where cities can be built and destroyed, played by some sort of Commanders (of high enough rank? Pay2Play?), and a 3rd person RPG where players can use the buildings made by the first one, and quests can be requests by these Commanders, for example to bring materials to a construction site or attack/scout a flag. Majesty-style.

Town sites could be fixed to Strategic Points, like in Kohan 2 or the first Battle for Middle Earth.

Yet the world would be static enough that players don't feel like the whole thing is collapsing all around them.

I spent a long time working on a dynamic world with no NPCs and monster populations expanding and spreading and forming hierarchies. It got pretty detailed but due to the necessity of restricting access to vetted players to prevent griefing its not commercially viable. In fact I don't think compelling worlds will ever be commercially viable. You certainly can't run them on a free to play model.

[Sergius]

Talking about MMOs: I think a big part of what makes them boring or non-immersive is because the staticness that has been inherited from MUDs. You have a monster, in a location, and it dies, and it respawns. It's the same monster (in some cases with slightly randomized equipment), it just goes away for a nap. The world never changes.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Then we have the other end of the spectrum, with dynamic worlds. The problem is, nearly always they're entirely player-made. Full PvP, world is empty unless there is a thousand people playing. No NPCs worth talking about, no shops, it generally ends up being a complete grindfest... grindfest+permadeath IMO is not a good combination.

This is my opinion: if you're going the permadeath path, life must truly be cheap. You current Avatar can't represent 100s of hours of work, it has to be expendable. As for the world, I'd rather have some middle ground: have established "NPC cities", have monsters in certain areas drop because they're getting killed, but have them invade less traveled areas. Make them actually spawn from somewhere it makes sense: nests, villages, which are destructible, but also spread. Essentially, there's a tactical/strategic layer running on the background that the players don't even need to know about (unless they're doing some sort of Commander task).

With nest spawning I don't really mean an actual stream of monsters coming from a point. These spawning points could merely alter the density of enemies in the areas. Since the number of players is limited, and time is an issue, they can't cleanse the entire world, they can only try to have as large a "civilized" zone as possible.

About NPC towns... well, not really sure how to handle that. They could be fixed (like the towns in UO), with the caveat that they can be overrun by hostile forces, turning them into enemy bases, and they have to be liberated. If the hostile presence in the area ever climbs high enough, we can lose them again. Some sort of mechanism would prevent the entire world being inhabitable, an automated NPC army, or an indestructible capitol, or even just Administration intervention.

If I had my way, a MMORPG would have 2 layers: a Kohan-style RTS (but really slow ) where cities can be built and destroyed, played by some sort of Commanders (of high enough rank? Pay2Play?), and a 3rd person RPG where players can use the buildings made by the first one, and quests can be requests by these Commanders, for example to bring materials to a construction site or attack/scout a flag. Majesty-style.

Town sites could be fixed to Strategic Points, like in Kohan 2 or the first Battle for Middle Earth.

Yet the world would be static enough that players don't feel like the whole thing is collapsing all around them.

I spent a long time working on a dynamic world with no NPCs and monster populations expanding and spreading and forming hierarchies. It got pretty detailed but due to the necessity of restricting access to vetted players to prevent griefing its not commercially viable. In fact I don't think compelling worlds will ever be commercially viable. You certainly can't run them on a free to play model.

Well my point was not to make it 100% dynamic and dependent on players, exactly for those same reasons. Anyone in the position to truly change the world (big scale war, town building) would be vetted somehow. And independent players clearing an area would be a general thing (the more mobs you kill, the more peaceful it becomes, and vice versa). Not a lot of griefing that can be made in my model, I would think, and you can always visit less explored areas if you want more mobs. Also, no fixed mob respawns.

I think I already posted in the thread a while ago that I would make it basically Majesty, except the player characters are the heroes... and they get money from "questing" to whatever flag the "sovereign" placed (including contributing to building structures). Except instead of a single King we could have an entire class of politicians in a city (these would be paying customers, or employees, or whatever). And even if griefing is a problem for this, limit the town customization more.

[MoLAoS]

If you have never seen the griefing in UO and EQ and even the dissolution of UOs natural environment you don't want to say you can't grief. Players are your enemies.

[SalmonGod]

Talking about MMOs: I think a big part of what makes them boring or non-immersive is because the staticness that has been inherited from MUDs. You have a monster, in a location, and it dies, and it respawns. It's the same monster (in some cases with slightly randomized equipment), it just goes away for a nap. The world never changes.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Then we have the other end of the spectrum, with dynamic worlds. The problem is, nearly always they're entirely player-made. Full PvP, world is empty unless there is a thousand people playing. No NPCs worth talking about, no shops, it generally ends up being a complete grindfest... grindfest+permadeath IMO is not a good combination.

This is my opinion: if you're going the permadeath path, life must truly be cheap. You current Avatar can't represent 100s of hours of work, it has to be expendable. As for the world, I'd rather have some middle ground: have established "NPC cities", have monsters in certain areas drop because they're getting killed, but have them invade less traveled areas. Make them actually spawn from somewhere it makes sense: nests, villages, which are destructible, but also spread. Essentially, there's a tactical/strategic layer running on the background that the players don't even need to know about (unless they're doing some sort of Commander task).

With nest spawning I don't really mean an actual stream of monsters coming from a point. These spawning points could merely alter the density of enemies in the areas. Since the number of players is limited, and time is an issue, they can't cleanse the entire world, they can only try to have as large a "civilized" zone as possible.

About NPC towns... well, not really sure how to handle that. They could be fixed (like the towns in UO), with the caveat that they can be overrun by hostile forces, turning them into enemy bases, and they have to be liberated. If the hostile presence in the area ever climbs high enough, we can lose them again. Some sort of mechanism would prevent the entire world being inhabitable, an automated NPC army, or an indestructible capitol, or even just Administration intervention.

If I had my way, a MMORPG would have 2 layers: a Kohan-style RTS (but really slow ) where cities can be built and destroyed, played by some sort of Commanders (of high enough rank? Pay2Play?), and a 3rd person RPG where players can use the buildings made by the first one, and quests can be requests by these Commanders, for example to bring materials to a construction site or attack/scout a flag. Majesty-style.

Town sites could be fixed to Strategic Points, like in Kohan 2 or the first Battle for Middle Earth.

Yet the world would be static enough that players don't feel like the whole thing is collapsing all around them.

EDIT: Oh yeah, to make PCs expendable, I'd use some sort of meta-experience mechanic, where the Player (not the Character) accumulates some sort of character development points. Maybe the longer you survive, the better points you get over time, but once you die, you keep them and use them to roll a new character. I've drafted several variations on paper, I would probably use specific kinds of points like Fable... maybe for every 2 points in-play you get 1 meta-point, so your character still gets more powerful than a newborn one... I'm sure the concept can be polished a lot more to reach a happy middle point where people won't be just suiciding all the time but also don't feel they've lost a great deal when dying. Plus, dying means being able to specialize in something else, some balance mechanic would prevent you from growing too much out of your current specialization? It's all just ideas on paper really.

I think my old iterative Zombie City MMO idea covers all your concerns about permadeath and non-linear character progression and stuff pretty well, but in different ways.  Having the game play out in iterations of a sort, instead of a permanent world would alleviate a lot of issues.

[Sergius]

I once read an article (blog post?) by someone who wrote something like that. A game about zombies, and some kind of card "perk" system, maybe it was you? It was a few years ago.

It was one of the sources I used, I was specifically looking for systems that "reward" permadeath but enough that people still want to avoid it. I thought even that normal play would allow you to unlock new skills (or traits) or even new classes, and the only way to use those was to reroll a character.

I wouldn't make the game competitive tho. I'd prefer it to be mainly PvE, and make the PvP have its own influence in the world but not to the point that there's a winning and losing "side", as it can devolve quickly into the winners getting bored that there's little to do, and losers bored that they can't get anything done anymore.

Re: the player/ruler interaction, this was inspired by some fakes that were posted once online before World of Warcraft. They were basically screenshots of Warcraft 3 with some MMO gui superimposed... it gave me the idea, what if the Player-Run City concept was exactly like a Age of Mythology/Warcraft RTS, except people would walk around these buildings in a 3rd person over-the-shoulder kinda way. The Minimap would pretty much look like Warcraft

[Fniff]

I had an idea for an MMO that I think would avoid the problem of staticness while not ending up completely bare. It's based off the Secret World, but with a little APB thrown in.

Basically, it takes place in an urban fantasy universe. Magic exists, people generally don't know about it, etc etc. Instead of the usual "YOU ARE THE CHOSEN ONE WHO MUST DEFEAT LORD EVILVILE", it'd play like PCs are the power-players of the supernatural world and the NPCs are just people who are involved such as mercenaries, police, or civilians. It would take place in a large, detailed city that has several large sections like the City Narrows, the Commericial District, or the Waterfront. Each of these places would have their own subsections like the steel mills, the posh suburbs, or the red light district. The game itself would have a well-simulated economy: everything you buy from guns to your magical ingredients has a place where it came from (The dockyards or the factories) and places where it's sold. The part that makes it unique is that the players can take over the economic process.

The thing is, players can gain control of shops and divert the money they get from selling their wares over to them. From there, you could alter the prices, change the wares, etc. You wouldn't be actively involved in selling it (An NPC would be there instead), but you'd get some of the profit. Then, if you control the factories that bring them in, you could control how much the shops have to pay to buy your wares. Control enough of the system, you have a monopoly. The problem is that the other players want the money too.

Of course, if you don't want to play the whole "get all the money", you could fight monsters and their nests who would pop up in places and make the subsection dangerous to be in, which would be actively annoying for players who have shops in the subsection. There could be a system where players could contribute to a "bounty" to take out the monster nest which adds up as more players chip in so that any prospective monster hunter can go kill the nest and get the pot of money.

I think this has a nice way of giving a players a direction, a reason for why a world wouldn't be stripped bare, and letting players do their own thing if they don't feel like having to be stuck in a constant gang war to get the most money.

[Gruntdonttoot]

An updated/remade Covert Action.