Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!
Options
[OPED]: The backfire of compulsive efficiency in MMOs - diminishing returns
ekadzati
Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
It seems ironic to me that today's MMO creators are stuck seeking ways to slow content exhaustion; the designs prefer the Skinner box to sop revenue, but the long-term effect OF those designs on player preference and expectation have been, well, detrimental to the MMO genre's health, to say the least.
"Infinite progress toward an unwinnable goal." <-- MMO foundation pattern (Red Queen hypothesis parallel)
Of course players are going to fall into the attractor of compulsive efficiency. That's ok though, it's what they designed the game to do... entice you to exhaust content and then, buy access to more (or vanity items, or short-term accelerators, or 'd, all of the above').
But when that becomes the norm, you're sunk. Which is exactly what's happening to the MMO genre... https://www.pcgamer.com/for-mmo-diehards-theres-only-one-conversation-is-the-genre-dead-or-dying/
Why? Well, when your entire model requires infinite progress against an unwinnable goal, it's difficult to convince players there is value in anything not on the critical path. And it just so happens that infinite progress toward an unwinnable goal is, itself, an exhaustion pattern (i.e., population collapse, degradation of cohesion factors over time, etc).
Unfortunately, the industry, faced with this outcome, decided to double down on the Skinner box; recursion into complexity to eek out a little more mileage from the ol' mule before selling it as glue-source to some investment group for what you can get out of it. (Looking at you, SOE/"Daybreak".)
This offering, from all I can compile, is no different in this regard. That, unfortunately, is not a good thing.
The backfire of compulsive efficiency as a market driver is that attrition soaks what exhaustion doesn't and the margins just aren't big enough to let these games survive it. Even the kingdom wars 'get old' with time.
Solutions? Well, lateral complexity is an obvious first. Depth of social contracting would be a close second. Reputation systems that value arbitration over attack, protection over prevention, and community recourse over customer support with appropriate tooling for self-management would be a huge innovation space.
I'm going to be very interested in seeing what Koster and Playable Worlds unveils. If there's going to be a new gorilla to displace the elephant in this room, I suspect it will be found there.
My hope for THIS offering is that it finds a strong enough niche presence to keep its lights on without going free to play. It's a hefty bet on a market that has largely abandoned for MOBA and Royales, but we'll see.
We really cannot afford more collapse in the genre.
edit for typos.
"Infinite progress toward an unwinnable goal." <-- MMO foundation pattern (Red Queen hypothesis parallel)
Of course players are going to fall into the attractor of compulsive efficiency. That's ok though, it's what they designed the game to do... entice you to exhaust content and then, buy access to more (or vanity items, or short-term accelerators, or 'd, all of the above').
But when that becomes the norm, you're sunk. Which is exactly what's happening to the MMO genre... https://www.pcgamer.com/for-mmo-diehards-theres-only-one-conversation-is-the-genre-dead-or-dying/
Why? Well, when your entire model requires infinite progress against an unwinnable goal, it's difficult to convince players there is value in anything not on the critical path. And it just so happens that infinite progress toward an unwinnable goal is, itself, an exhaustion pattern (i.e., population collapse, degradation of cohesion factors over time, etc).
Unfortunately, the industry, faced with this outcome, decided to double down on the Skinner box; recursion into complexity to eek out a little more mileage from the ol' mule before selling it as glue-source to some investment group for what you can get out of it. (Looking at you, SOE/"Daybreak".)
This offering, from all I can compile, is no different in this regard. That, unfortunately, is not a good thing.
The backfire of compulsive efficiency as a market driver is that attrition soaks what exhaustion doesn't and the margins just aren't big enough to let these games survive it. Even the kingdom wars 'get old' with time.
Solutions? Well, lateral complexity is an obvious first. Depth of social contracting would be a close second. Reputation systems that value arbitration over attack, protection over prevention, and community recourse over customer support with appropriate tooling for self-management would be a huge innovation space.
I'm going to be very interested in seeing what Koster and Playable Worlds unveils. If there's going to be a new gorilla to displace the elephant in this room, I suspect it will be found there.
My hope for THIS offering is that it finds a strong enough niche presence to keep its lights on without going free to play. It's a hefty bet on a market that has largely abandoned for MOBA and Royales, but we'll see.
We really cannot afford more collapse in the genre.
edit for typos.
Speak as a friend, find a friend. Speak as a foe? To hell you can go. (Is it Alpha 2 yet?)
0
Comments
This is a problem that literally every mmorpg faces and developers are terrified of losing their players during the content drought that will inevitably happen. Creating skinner boxes are a cheap and easy way to fix the short-term problem, even though, as you say, it can cause problems later on down the line.
Social interactions do help bridge the gap but even with that, players still need a goal, something to strive for. Without a goal, most of them will just leave and go play something else. This is actually something we talked about in the latest Pathfinders podcast last Sunday. With Ashes you have the constant building and destroying of nodes to keep players going in between content patches. The question is, will that be enough to keep the players invested? Or will the node progression systems get boring after the novelty wears off?
Hopefully during this period, our content creators will already have a healthy game plan with additional content waiting in the wings and will start working once launch is happening.
Another downfall of this is the leveling process is way to quick in today's market place. I'm an average gamer and I played bro on the xbox and got to lol 50 in 4 days. To me that is WAY to soon to reach the sft level cap of the game. Thus, Ashes being more in akin to Vanilla WOW the leveling the end game burnout is a ways off.
Plus you have to throw into the mix of people agreeing on how to grow the node. If you look at the dps meter thread and see the turmoil, imagine that same turmoil going into building a node to the level 5 stage.
This game is my last great hope for the genre, and I hope they succeed!
In theory you're right, however that assumes the node system will work as intended. Right now we have no idea as no other mmorpg (to my knowledge anyway) has taken player-driven world building to this extent. A big part of the node system is in the constant building and destroying of various nodes. However, this will only work if players have a reason to change the world. It's entirely possible that once the 5 metropolis are completed on a server, the players will decide that they don't want to change anything, in which case the world becomes static like any other mmorpg.
In short, Ashes of Creation will live and die by the node system. If it works as intended it should provide players with tons of content even without regular content patches. If not, the game will likely fall apart and die.
I think you're 100% right. The nodes have been the main selling point, and mechanical point driving everything else in Ashes. I'm not worried about it being toooo static, since node sieges are declared on an individual level, and there's never a shortage of people that want a fight. And coming from alot of time played in survival world building games where your things can be broken/ stolen/ destroyed, i'm sure there will be, as silly as it sounds, plenty of beef between guilds, and nodes that'll fuel alliances and vengeance, and the whole messy fun time. Plus as i've said in other posts, i'm betting node sieges aren't going to be a bum rush to the metro, at least in most cases. I see it being much easier to pick at a nodes vassals and try to overtax it's exp systems. Which will lead to a bunch of angry villagers looking for some payback.
Just my thoughts.
Err....Yes we do. If a developer doesn't make back the money it sinks into a game, they will cut their losses and stop development of it, which in the case of an mmorpg usually means shutting down the servers and ceasing all support for it. Whether you like it or not, a games studio is a business, and if a business runs at a deficit for too long, it will collapse.
Now, do I think that some games companies go too far when it comes to making money? Absolutely! But the simple fact remains that if an mmorpg doesn't make money it gets shut down and dies. End of story. So yes, the developer's perspective does indeed matter.
Again, I see where you're coming from with this and personally I would be fine with such a system. However, I know a lot of other people who wouldn't be fine with it. There are some people who don't want to be bothered with the "grander" scheme of things and instead just want to enjoy the game in their own tiny space. In this case it's just like real life, where a lot of people don't concern themselves with things that happen outside of their home town.
You can argue all you like that these sorts of people SHOULD care about the wider world, but the fact still remains that they don't care, and if they don't care about what happens in real life, they are unlikely to care what happens in a fictional game world. Some people would argue that even a game like Ashes is taking the concept of world consequences too far, but we'll have to see how it plays out.
While I agree that a reasonable amount of lateral complexity is something all games should strive for, it isn't what will attract players to a game.
To me, and to all MMO gamers that I know, what attracts us to a game is a good combat system with good content to use it on. If a game looks to have this, it will start it's life off with millions of users.
Where I agree though, is that while this is a way to get people in to a game, it isn't enough by itself to keep them there.
I think the perfect way to build an MMO is to start the game with a heavy focus on PvE combat and content, at the solo, group and raid level - and make sure there is a team dedicated to continuing that onwards and upwards for the entire life of the game.
However, there should also be lateral roots that spread out from that base - other types of content that the developer attempts. New types of game play, new systems, new things to do. When the developer hits upon one of these things that resonates with players, that should then be given resources similar to the combat team so that this new aspect of the game can shoot up to become it's own thing as well. Then the developers keep working with other ideas around the roots, trying to find more and more things to shoot up.
Perhaps another way of putting it is that I see lateral gameplay as being something that should exist in conjunction with a heavy amount of things to kill and reasons to kill them.
I'm also not specifically arguing for any specific thing that I think should be attempted at that root level. Rather, I think these are things that the team of developers working on them should brainstorm out, and then work on what excites them the most - not what excites us the most.