Wow, that's a lot to chew on, and I'm sure I'll miss some of your points in my response, but here goes. It sounds like you are associating 'fun' with addiction. Hence the initial logic that fun generates repetitive behavior. I have to disagree, or maybe I am just not understanding. If I play tic-tac-toe, and I enjoy the experience, then I agree that their is a neurological component to that. But the more I play it, the LESS likely I am to want to continue, because it stops being fun. The question is why?
Your argument sounds like you are saying that we have fun to reach addiction, not that having fun is itself addictive. And if the latter, which is my view, then we must still define what fun is. not merely how we experience it.
Taylors[/quote]
Ah, I clearly should have gone into more depth (believe it or not) as we seem to be on the same page (the feeling of 'fun' is the addiction itself). Addiction, fun, and dopamine are connected, and quite frankly we still don't know the intricacies involved in those connections and how they work exactly. Whether 'fun' is actually an addiction probably depends how you decide to define addiction in the first place.
While dopamine is known as a pleasure chemical, it also plays roles in motivation, motor function, and a few other roles. What's important to note there is motivation and how that relates to what I noted regarding task completion. Dopamine is released when you ALMOST succeed (a number of studies on chronic gamblers has been done around this effect). Theory suggests that dopamine is one of your body's methods of motivating you to complete tasks even after failure (by giving you pleasure when you get close to your goal but don't succeed (think that feeling of "Damn I was so close! Let's do it again since I'll get it for sure this time). Put simply, dopamine makes you feel good for accomplishing things, but also motivates you to keep at it when you fail (provided failure was within an acceptable range of the determined success factors for the game or process in which you are engaged). From that standpoint, 'fun' which I largely associate with dopamine response, probably could be defined as addiction. Essentially, 'fun' generates repetitive behavior, but that very repetition causes diminishing returns of the 'fun' feeling unless the behavior being repeated is changed.
The very reason that the more you win at something like Tic-Tac-Toe the less you enjoy it comes down to lowered dopamine responses each consecutive win. The more you play, the more you win, the more repetitive the experience, the less dopamine response is typically generated (this is where the factors outside of dopamine become extremely important as they differentiate most of us from compulsive gamblers). In part this is thought to do with your own perception of accomplishment for the task. If you win consistently, the task is perceived to be less difficult, and thus you will feel less accomplishment upon completion. This is actually one of the reasons that I stress the need for challenge and extreme difficulty in games. Ensuring significant difficulty and challenge results in larger expected sense of accomplishment from players for completing tasks in the game, which (provided you're not constantly suffering failure too far from perceived possible success) motivates players to chase content and stick with games longer.
As to your last point, I think a full definition would be extremely difficult to conceptualize, but part of it would likely include: accomplishing or nearly accomplishing a perceived goal or challenge, or perceiving to have made progress towards accomplishing a perceived goal or challenge, wherein the perceived goal or challenge is perceived as sufficiently difficult to warrant a feeling of accomplishment.
You'll notice the word 'perceived' used frequently - I don't mean to use it as a cop-out, but most of this equation seems to me to be fluid and based on your own experience and feelings towards the game at hand. For example, completing an endgame raid for the first time early on in a game's release has a strong sense of perceived accomplishment because it is perceived as difficult by the community and by yourself as you've never experienced or completed it before. The 100th time you complete the endgame raid there's less perceived sense of accomplishment because, regardless of whether the community still perceives it is difficult or not, it no longer FEELS challenging (even if the difficulty hasn't changed) to you after completing it 99 other times and it no longer feels like the accomplishment that it used to as a result.
This is some really good discussion guys. I just want to chime in and say that I absolutely agree that for the MMO genre to move forward, players need to have more power. Basically content needs to be more player driven. By that, I don't really mean being able to shape the world in the literal sense like Minecraft, just that the game should revolve around players and not scripted content. Coincidentally, this type of game is also cheaper to produce than a game with tons of authored content. However, it is far more challenging to design. I think a very big chunk of Ashes of Creation is supposed to be player driven, as the node systems etc are dynamic and are, at least in theory, designed to encourage player interaction, but we will have to see how it plays out.
Wow, that's a lot to chew on, and I'm sure I'll miss some of your points in my response, but here goes. It sounds like you are associating 'fun' with addiction. Hence the initial logic that fun generates repetitive behavior. I have to disagree, or maybe I am just not understanding. If I play tic-tac-toe, and I enjoy the experience, then I agree that their is a neurological component to that. But the more I play it, the LESS likely I am to want to continue, because it stops being fun. The question is why?
Your argument sounds like you are saying that we have fun to reach addiction, not that having fun is itself addictive. And if the latter, which is my view, then we must still define what fun is. not merely how we experience it.
Taylors
Ah, I clearly should have gone into more depth (believe it or not) as we seem to be on the same page (the feeling of 'fun' is the addiction itself). Addiction, fun, and dopamine are connected, and quite frankly we still don't know the intricacies involved in those connections and how they work exactly. Whether 'fun' is actually an addiction probably depends how you decide to define addiction in the first place.
While dopamine is known as a pleasure chemical, it also plays roles in motivation, motor function, and a few other roles. What's important to note there is motivation and how that relates to what I noted regarding task completion. Dopamine is released when you ALMOST succeed (a number of studies on chronic gamblers has been done around this effect). Theory suggests that dopamine is one of your body's methods of motivating you to complete tasks even after failure (by giving you pleasure when you get close to your goal but don't succeed (think that feeling of "Damn I was so close! Let's do it again since I'll get it for sure this time). Put simply, dopamine makes you feel good for accomplishing things, but also motivates you to keep at it when you fail (provided failure was within an acceptable range of the determined success factors for the game or process in which you are engaged). From that standpoint, 'fun' which I largely associate with dopamine response, probably could be defined as addiction. Essentially, 'fun' generates repetitive behavior, but that very repetition causes diminishing returns of the 'fun' feeling unless the behavior being repeated is changed.
The very reason that the more you win at something like Tic-Tac-Toe the less you enjoy it comes down to lowered dopamine responses each consecutive win. The more you play, the more you win, the more repetitive the experience, the less dopamine response is typically generated (this is where the factors outside of dopamine become extremely important as they differentiate most of us from compulsive gamblers). In part this is thought to do with your own perception of accomplishment for the task. If you win consistently, the task is perceived to be less difficult, and thus you will feel less accomplishment upon completion. This is actually one of the reasons that I stress the need for challenge and extreme difficulty in games. Ensuring significant difficulty and challenge results in larger expected sense of accomplishment from players for completing tasks in the game, which (provided you're not constantly suffering failure too far from perceived possible success) motivates players to chase content and stick with games longer.
As to your last point, I think a full definition would be extremely difficult to conceptualize, but part of it would likely include: accomplishing or nearly accomplishing a perceived goal or challenge, or perceiving to have made progress towards accomplishing a perceived goal or challenge, wherein the perceived goal or challenge is perceived as sufficiently difficult to warrant a feeling of accomplishment.
You'll notice the word 'perceived' used frequently - I don't mean to use it as a cop-out, but most of this equation seems to me to be fluid and based on your own experience and feelings towards the game at hand. For example, completing an endgame raid for the first time early on in a game's release has a strong sense of perceived accomplishment because it is perceived as difficult by the community and by yourself as you've never experienced or completed it before. The 100th time you complete the endgame raid there's less perceived sense of accomplishment because, regardless of whether the community still perceives it is difficult or not, it no longer FEELS challenging (even if the difficulty hasn't changed) to you after completing it 99 other times and it no longer feels like the accomplishment that it used to as a result.
[/quote]
I have no issue with any of these points, but how does it translate to design? If there is an equation for fun, how does your description of fun fit? Also, merely being a challenge does not make something fun. If I am asked to dig a giant hole, I may consider it challenging, but it likely would not be very fun. However, if I am asked to dig that same hole in competition with another person, with a reward tied to it, I might consider that fun. Why? Does the reward itself cause the physiological response? Once I have the reward, will I view it the same way I did prior to having it?
If I were to answer the question myself, I would say that CONTEXT is what made the hole digging (possibly) more fun than just digging a hole. It was work, in both cases, but there was a REASON behind doing it. In MMORPGs, we call that reason, 'content'.
I have no issue with any of these points, but how does it translate to design? If there is an equation for fun, how does your description of fun fit? Also, merely being a challenge does not make something fun. If I am asked to dig a giant hole, I may consider it challenging, but it likely would not be very fun. However, if I am asked to dig that same hole in competition with another person, with a reward tied to it, I might consider that fun. Why? Does the reward itself cause the physiological response? Once I have the reward, will I view it the same way I did prior to having it?
If I were to answer the question myself, I would say that CONTEXT is what made the hole digging (possibly) more fun than just digging a hole. It was work, in both cases, but there was a REASON behind doing it. In MMORPGs, we call that reason, 'content'.
Thoughts?
Taylors[/quote]
From a design perspective I think this gives insight into a number of levers that can be manipulated to increase 'fun'. Here's three off the top of my head (RPG focused for purposes of this discussion) and I'll probably follow-up with another post with a few more:
1. Repetitive combat should be tied to larger more significant goals that either an individual perceives as worthwhile, or the community does. For fighting your standard mobs (a typically repetitive activity), experience towards level progression is typically how this is done. Unfortunately, that means once max level has been reached, less enjoyment is realized for this task. This can be mitigated by ensuring that the repetitive combat also progresses other goals. For example, killing certain classes of mobs, like spiders, or undead, or orcs (keeping with the fantasy RPG theme here) contributes to an achievement. If that achievement is considered worthwhile to the player (perhaps by granting titles of "killer of mob x" at one level, "destroyer of mob x", "Terror of mob x" and so on) or considered worthwhile to the community (perhaps unlocking the achievement grants a small damage boon against that type of mob on a go forward), then the repetitive task contributes to something worthwhile and keeps its enjoyment for a far longer duration. The achievement can be broken up into varying levels to better pace player progression and provide little dopamine incentives for the micro achievements along the way. To summarize the above, if killing base mobs as you progress through the game also feels like its rewarding you by progressing you towards related achievements, the combat experience will retain some of its rewarding feeling even if its become fairly simple and thoughtless to you otherwise.
2. Combat experiences should be as diverse as possible and large skill gaps should be present. Since repetition is the biggest challenge to experiences continuing to be fun, mitigating the feeling that something is repetitive is another key factor. Combat rotations and enemies should be designed specifically to ensure that the same combat rotation won't work for every enemy - I'd go so far as to say that enemies should severely punish you for even trying. The way enemies attempt to combat you should be as diverse as possible, forcing the player to learn how to combat different enemy types. The greater diversity in enemy combat methods, the greater the variety of combat experiences when you start grouping those enemies together. In a perfect world I'd go so far as to say that the enemies should learn from you and improve how they combat you accordingly, but I honestly don't think that's economical to implement in games at the moment.
The skill gap should be significant. Players of far higher skill should be able to attempt content either above their level based on their knowledge of fight mechanics, dodging, etc. This is important because it plays into the perception of achievement. In PvE this allows players greater room to challenge themselves (and in turn feel more accomplished). Introductory players will improve and attempt to tackle progressively more difficult content above their level, while high-skilled players will still feel challenged. In PvP this ensures that the gap between the best players and other players exists as something to strive toward achieving and creates a perceived scale of improvement that players can rank themselves against.
3. Crafting, another extremely repetitive task should follow a similar path to the above. The more axes you make, the more leather armor you make, etc. etc. Titles might be one way of accomplishing this (Swordsmith, Legendary Swordsmith, etc.), or instead it might be a case that reaching certain achievement levels unlocks special recipes that cannot be unlocked any other way. For example even at max crafting level, you have to craft 5,000 superior tier axes to reach Legendary Axesmith which unlocks a special recipe. Provided those recipes are for gear that the community would find desirable, then even extremely repetitive crafting experiences would feel like progress towards a greater goal and accomplishment.
I agree, that the future of PvE focussed MMOs has to be in providing the tools to create content to the players. The developer create the components (skills, environment etc.) The community utilizes these to create content like dungeons, raids, quests and stories.
That's pretty much the only way a game can keep up with the demand of the playerbase, utilizes the creative ability of the playerbase and saves cost and production time in the process.
With that being said. I don't believe Ashes to be the game that could utilize this the way a game could, that is designed around that very concept. Going for something this late in development would just create a screwed up system and it wouldn't fit the game concept in the first place.
I have no issue with any of these points, but how does it translate to design? If there is an equation for fun, how does your description of fun fit? Also, merely being a challenge does not make something fun. If I am asked to dig a giant hole, I may consider it challenging, but it likely would not be very fun. However, if I am asked to dig that same hole in competition with another person, with a reward tied to it, I might consider that fun. Why? Does the reward itself cause the physiological response? Once I have the reward, will I view it the same way I did prior to having it?
If I were to answer the question myself, I would say that CONTEXT is what made the hole digging (possibly) more fun than just digging a hole. It was work, in both cases, but there was a REASON behind doing it. In MMORPGs, we call that reason, 'content'.
Thoughts?
Taylors
From a design perspective I think this gives insight into a number of levers that can be manipulated to increase 'fun'. Here's three off the top of my head (RPG focused for purposes of this discussion) and I'll probably follow-up with another post with a few more:
1. Repetitive combat should be tied to larger more significant goals that either an individual perceives as worthwhile, or the community does. For fighting your standard mobs (a typically repetitive activity), experience towards level progression is typically how this is done. Unfortunately, that means once max level has been reached, less enjoyment is realized for this task. This can be mitigated by ensuring that the repetitive combat also progresses other goals. For example, killing certain classes of mobs, like spiders, or undead, or orcs (keeping with the fantasy RPG theme here) contributes to an achievement. If that achievement is considered worthwhile to the player (perhaps by granting titles of "killer of mob x" at one level, "destroyer of mob x", "Terror of mob x" and so on) or considered worthwhile to the community (perhaps unlocking the achievement grants a small damage boon against that type of mob on a go forward), then the repetitive task contributes to something worthwhile and keeps its enjoyment for a far longer duration. The achievement can be broken up into varying levels to better pace player progression and provide little dopamine incentives for the micro achievements along the way. To summarize the above, if killing base mobs as you progress through the game also feels like its rewarding you by progressing you towards related achievements, the combat experience will retain some of its rewarding feeling even if its become fairly simple and thoughtless to you otherwise.
2. Combat experiences should be as diverse as possible and large skill gaps should be present. Since repetition is the biggest challenge to experiences continuing to be fun, mitigating the feeling that something is repetitive is another key factor. Combat rotations and enemies should be designed specifically to ensure that the same combat rotation won't work for every enemy - I'd go so far as to say that enemies should severely punish you for even trying. The way enemies attempt to combat you should be as diverse as possible, forcing the player to learn how to combat different enemy types. The greater diversity in enemy combat methods, the greater the variety of combat experiences when you start grouping those enemies together. In a perfect world I'd go so far as to say that the enemies should learn from you and improve how they combat you accordingly, but I honestly don't think that's economical to implement in games at the moment.
The skill gap should be significant. Players of far higher skill should be able to attempt content either above their level based on their knowledge of fight mechanics, dodging, etc. This is important because it plays into the perception of achievement. In PvE this allows players greater room to challenge themselves (and in turn feel more accomplished). Introductory players will improve and attempt to tackle progressively more difficult content above their level, while high-skilled players will still feel challenged. In PvP this ensures that the gap between the best players and other players exists as something to strive toward achieving and creates a perceived scale of improvement that players can rank themselves against.
3. Crafting, another extremely repetitive task should follow a similar path to the above. The more axes you make, the more leather armor you make, etc. etc. Titles might be one way of accomplishing this (Swordsmith, Legendary Swordsmith, etc.), or instead it might be a case that reaching certain achievement levels unlocks special recipes that cannot be unlocked any other way. For example even at max crafting level, you have to craft 5,000 superior tier axes to reach Legendary Axesmith which unlocks a special recipe. Provided those recipes are for gear that the community would find desirable, then even extremely repetitive crafting experiences would feel like progress towards a greater goal and accomplishment.
[/quote]
But don't you see, that means that if we get down to the finest level, to the core of what the game you describe actually is, it is a game where the dominant action you take to have 'fun', is fight. I could see the need for fighting, and its associated mechanics which, like your description above, CAN have fun in it, but the only real problem-solving taking place is in your battle strategy. And no matter how good the reward, the reason to fight quickly fades in these games. Why isn't fighting just one of the tools in your toolchest? If I need to get to the castle, for instance, I like the idea of getting past that which obstructs the way. But does it ALWAYS have to be creatures? My gosh, is it asking too much to put in a secret passage with a riddle in it that I need to solve? Or a pathway where my skills in lockpicking, stealth, etc, and just good judgement can get me in?
Why always fighting? They are all fighting games. Name one that is not. Probably one or two, but 99.9% all fighting games. Why is fighting the only vehicle to solve problems? Is it THAT hard to put other ways of accomplishing goals. It's like being forced to eat your favorite food every day, for the rest of your life. At first, it's great, it IS your favorite food after all, but eating it all the time, eventually it loses being special, loses the draw, and in some cases, burns you out on it for a long time. Now some don't seem to burn out, but I think a chunk of us are craving an alternative that balances martial combat with intellectual combat.
If you can prove to me that my basic hypothesis is wrong, then I will happily stand down. That hypothesis is that no matter how much time, energy, money, creativity, time and resources are devoted to an MMORPG, it's Achilles heel is that content cannot be developed faster than the player base can play it. And the only solution is to give, at least to a limited extent, content production ability to the players. It is not about ALLOWING the players to make content, it is about HARNESSING the players to make content. The first game to do this, no matter what its theme, will be the dominant MMORPG from that point on.
I think there are 3 aspects that you are missing either out of hopeful optimism or naiveté, maybe some misunderstanding of the genre's potentials, and perhaps a lack of information at this stage of your discovery of AOC.
- While players are creative, they are not game developers: this means that if you just give all the players (or else you're just another developer) the power to create content, someone will break the game. Either for themselves, other players, or entirely.
You think that perhaps you'll be able to create something that would be thrilling to play. Meanwhile someone else will hate that content, and will create something else that would potentially ruin your idea. And vice versa. Plus, good luck trying to balance anything from a player's pov, and not ruining the game's economy.
- There is an aspect of player created content and story that exists, but requires more social interaction and perhaps a modicum of roleplaying. In particular, in AOC, the vast majority of PvP is open world. There are no established factions to pledge allegiance to either. This means that any Node wars, guild wars, castle sieges, duels, etc are motivated by frictions between players.
This creates a ludonarrative that is 100% player made. And I would posit that these are stories and moments that stick with the players longer than other form of content. Just ask any EVE Online player about their wars.
- The idea of combat and loot and levels that are attached to an RPG of any kind, exists for the sole reason of the gratification from progress. You mentioned in one post, the idea of "why shouldn't we be able to equip higher level gear?" derives from a flawed concept what our experiences are.
I would then ask you in turn: would it be fun to be able to acquire the best gear without having earned it? Having all the skills because you are naturally predisposed to being good at this specific style of gameplay? This would create a great divide of natural born talent vs hard work. The progression is what keeps things interesting. And if it's somewhat equal for all, then your natural skill will just make it easier and faster, but without it becoming completely unfair.
In AOC you'll be free to not even participate in combat if that's something that feel trite and overly done. I ran a poll on Reddit about what people wanted to focus on. Many future players expressed their interest in setting up a business, be it a tavern or a stable for animal husbandry etc. and just as many others vied for more exploratory tasks.
So in conclusion, I would say that it feels like you want to develop your own game within someone else's structure; and AOC is likely the best candidate for what you're looking for.
If you still dismiss some of these ideas as you have in other responses, then I am afraid no other game will ever be a real Second Life Simulator (not even talking about that horrible actual Second Life game).
And combat will forever be part of the formula. Not because WoW did it, or because D&D did it. But because it is exactly something that we don't get to do in everyday life, whether we secretly want it or not. Said atypical experience frames a system of progression through skill and learning of actual ingame skills that your class earns. Thrown in a new world to explore and I think it is exactly what people want out of their game. If you dislike the idea of combat, as I wrote earlier, you have other activities in game, and otherwise you should perhaps look for a different type of game altogether.
Ah well may as well get burned at the stake, from what I've seen it looks like a modernised age of reckoning which aint to bad of a thing as that game was killed by the rush to get it out department..
AoC's underlying node system will drive far more variation than I think most people will at first grasp. As a community unless we coordinate and cooperation it is highly unlikely that we will successfully complete all the available quests and so inevitably conflict might be driven by the desire to unlock an area never before unlocked.
Also, consider how a single expansion would have the same compounded impact. Unlocking not just a single set of new quests, but a set of new quests that will cause us to have to recycle all the nodes again driving new conflicts and community interactions.
There is hop, and AoC is it.
Can't wait to get in there, even in its unfinished state, its amazing!
1
Options
krozairMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
The core philosophy that WoW and all its progeny cannot escape is that no matter how much time, financing, creativity, talent and will, developers possess, they cannot produce content faster than the user base can play it. All deviations from this basic premise end up creating experiences which struggle to make the player feel unique, and fail. This, coupled to an attachment to antiquated pen and paper metaphors such as stats, deny the true capabilities of the computers these MMORPGs run on.
Just my opinion, but a big Problems of MMOs this days is size (actual size of the map and perceived size of the map by the players). They give players many ways to get around faster, but this way their already small worlds become even smaller. That, imo, is the reason players can blaze through content so fast. On one hand, you need to have a rather compact world to have mobs spawn closer together so people can level, a bigger world would not be enticing if it was so densely packed like, lets say the zones from wow (imagine the barrens, three times the size but with the same amount of monsters or the same density on a much larger scale, getting from one point to the next would be hell). But you can't take mobs out because so many need to die for a single level. In a way the system of leveling and exp farming can be said to be a cage for MMOs.
Also, why feel special for beating the evil good when everyone does it? Why bother playing when the only Content that is focused on is raiding but you can't feel special for winning? Why explore the world when the rewards for doing so are crap compared to what you can get for beating a single raid/dungeon boss? Why go out when you know you have seen everything already and there is nothing hidden anyway? The problem is, games develop with a focus but want to retain the playerbase of the other aspects too so they try to trick the players into thinking that there is stuff to do in their game aspect but find out soon after that there is nothing new but only more grind with less innovation or care given then the part the game is focused on.
If you can prove to me that my basic hypothesis is wrong, then I will happily stand down. That hypothesis is that no matter how much time, energy, money, creativity, time and resources are devoted to an MMORPG, it's Achilles heel is that content cannot be developed faster than the player base can play it. And the only solution is to give, at least to a limited extent, content production ability to the players. It is not about ALLOWING the players to make content, it is about HARNESSING the players to make content. The first game to do this, no matter what its theme, will be the dominant MMORPG from that point on.
I think there are 3 aspects that you are missing either out of hopeful optimism or naiveté, maybe some misunderstanding of the genre's potentials, and perhaps a lack of information at this stage of your discovery of AOC.
- While players are creative, they are not game developers: this means that if you just give all the players (or else you're just another developer) the power to create content, someone will break the game. Either for themselves, other players, or entirely.
You think that perhaps you'll be able to create something that would be thrilling to play. Meanwhile someone else will hate that content, and will create something else that would potentially ruin your idea. And vice versa. Plus, good luck trying to balance anything from a player's pov, and not ruining the game's economy.
- There is an aspect of player created content and story that exists, but requires more social interaction and perhaps a modicum of roleplaying. In particular, in AOC, the vast majority of PvP is open world. There are no established factions to pledge allegiance to either. This means that any Node wars, guild wars, castle sieges, duels, etc are motivated by frictions between players.
This creates a ludonarrative that is 100% player made. And I would posit that these are stories and moments that stick with the players longer than other form of content. Just ask any EVE Online player about their wars.
- The idea of combat and loot and levels that are attached to an RPG of any kind, exists for the sole reason of the gratification from progress. You mentioned in one post, the idea of "why shouldn't we be able to equip higher level gear?" derives from a flawed concept what our experiences are.
I would then ask you in turn: would it be fun to be able to acquire the best gear without having earned it? Having all the skills because you are naturally predisposed to being good at this specific style of gameplay? This would create a great divide of natural born talent vs hard work. The progression is what keeps things interesting. And if it's somewhat equal for all, then your natural skill will just make it easier and faster, but without it becoming completely unfair.
In AOC you'll be free to not even participate in combat if that's something that feel trite and overly done. I ran a poll on Reddit about what people wanted to focus on. Many future players expressed their interest in setting up a business, be it a tavern or a stable for animal husbandry etc. and just as many others vied for more exploratory tasks.
So in conclusion, I would say that it feels like you want to develop your own game within someone else's structure; and AOC is likely the best candidate for what you're looking for.
If you still dismiss some of these ideas as you have in other responses, then I am afraid no other game will ever be a real Second Life Simulator (not even talking about that horrible actual Second Life game).
And combat will forever be part of the formula. Not because WoW did it, or because D&D did it. But because it is exactly something that we don't get to do in everyday life, whether we secretly want it or not. Said atypical experience frames a system of progression through skill and learning of actual ingame skills that your class earns. Thrown in a new world to explore and I think it is exactly what people want out of their game. If you dislike the idea of combat, as I wrote earlier, you have other activities in game, and otherwise you should perhaps look for a different type of game altogether.
I am fully cognizant that much, even most, of player made content will be bad. But that is not really an issue, because the player base will self regulate. The good stuff will be made known, the bad stuff will be left alone. I come from the days of Doom, where 99% of the wad files were pretty bad, but the ones that were good, everyone knew about and are still played (AliensDoom, anyone?). So it is not that I disagree with your argument personally, I've just likely been gaming longer than you, and know what the players can create. None of this is new.
And while PvP may seem like the facsimile of what I am describing, it's not. You are in a big closed boxing ring, and you have only one focus; to beat the other guy. The original Planetside was a wonderful experience in this regard, and I have yet to see it duplicated on that scale (and I am including PlanetSide 2). In the end though, you are stuck. You cannot get out of the ring, and everything you do in the ring is designed to get you to stay in the ring. For some, maybe you, that is enough, but if you've played as many of these games as I have, for 30 years, it gets old. When I see games like Fortnight, I laugh, because it is literally the same game we've been playing since Unreal Tournament or a host of others. And I've watched the new generation, having never experienced the older stuff, completely get sucked in, and then burn out. Why? Because the old model, while leveraging the computational capabilities of its day, is rather primitive when you consider what computers are now capable of. And I'm not talking graphics. Graphics NEVER make a game. I'm talking about AI, world interaction, deformability, database utilization, etc. Fighting games are like the Windows OS. We use it, we know it, but we also realize that while it is the logical evolution of the paper/file cabinet metaphor, in a hundred years, they will look at these 2D interfaces as quaint.
As to the question of why high end loot should not be accessible to a lower level player, I think you are taking that example in the wrong way. If I find a sword of unbelievable power, then heck yes, I should be able to use it. But what YOU are not understanding is that the sword should NOT be soul bound. Soul binding is an artificial mechanism to allow players to never worry about losing their gear. It is a fiction that ruins immersion. If you had that sword, but were very low level, I doubt you'd keep it for long. Consider the game play 'fun' in all those who try to own it. Nothing like that exists, which is ironic, because in that context, there clearly is a reason for players to pvp.
Weapons weren't soul bind for the most part in BDO. In 4 weeks I levelled 8 level 61s because I could transfer the high tier weapons to level 1s and 1 shot mobs all the way to level 50, then grind to 58 and side quest to 61. The process was smooth and the process was protected. I'm ambivalent about the whole concept though. I was duelled at level 31 but because of the high tiered weapons and armour I couldn't be dented and I killed the dueller multi times.
On the face of it, the duel was a problem because I was on my support toon (Shai) which is not know for PvP or 1vs1 Duels. Naturally, the dueller opposite me had strong words to say which I won't repeat. In terms of balance it was non-existent. However, economies and twinks can suffer if too many items are soul bound. It is more beneficial to trade your redundant weapons and armour rather than have them destroyed because they remain inventory space.
If you can prove to me that my basic hypothesis is wrong, then I will happily stand down. That hypothesis is that no matter how much time, energy, money, creativity, time and resources are devoted to an MMORPG, it's Achilles heel is that content cannot be developed faster than the player base can play it. And the only solution is to give, at least to a limited extent, content production ability to the players. It is not about ALLOWING the players to make content, it is about HARNESSING the players to make content. The first game to do this, no matter what its theme, will be the dominant MMORPG from that point on.
I think there are 3 aspects that you are missing either out of hopeful optimism or naiveté, maybe some misunderstanding of the genre's potentials, and perhaps a lack of information at this stage of your discovery of AOC.
- While players are creative, they are not game developers: this means that if you just give all the players (or else you're just another developer) the power to create content, someone will break the game. Either for themselves, other players, or entirely.
You think that perhaps you'll be able to create something that would be thrilling to play. Meanwhile someone else will hate that content, and will create something else that would potentially ruin your idea. And vice versa. Plus, good luck trying to balance anything from a player's pov, and not ruining the game's economy.
- There is an aspect of player created content and story that exists, but requires more social interaction and perhaps a modicum of roleplaying. In particular, in AOC, the vast majority of PvP is open world. There are no established factions to pledge allegiance to either. This means that any Node wars, guild wars, castle sieges, duels, etc are motivated by frictions between players.
This creates a ludonarrative that is 100% player made. And I would posit that these are stories and moments that stick with the players longer than other form of content. Just ask any EVE Online player about their wars.
- The idea of combat and loot and levels that are attached to an RPG of any kind, exists for the sole reason of the gratification from progress. You mentioned in one post, the idea of "why shouldn't we be able to equip higher level gear?" derives from a flawed concept what our experiences are.
I would then ask you in turn: would it be fun to be able to acquire the best gear without having earned it? Having all the skills because you are naturally predisposed to being good at this specific style of gameplay? This would create a great divide of natural born talent vs hard work. The progression is what keeps things interesting. And if it's somewhat equal for all, then your natural skill will just make it easier and faster, but without it becoming completely unfair.
In AOC you'll be free to not even participate in combat if that's something that feel trite and overly done. I ran a poll on Reddit about what people wanted to focus on. Many future players expressed their interest in setting up a business, be it a tavern or a stable for animal husbandry etc. and just as many others vied for more exploratory tasks.
So in conclusion, I would say that it feels like you want to develop your own game within someone else's structure; and AOC is likely the best candidate for what you're looking for.
If you still dismiss some of these ideas as you have in other responses, then I am afraid no other game will ever be a real Second Life Simulator (not even talking about that horrible actual Second Life game).
And combat will forever be part of the formula. Not because WoW did it, or because D&D did it. But because it is exactly something that we don't get to do in everyday life, whether we secretly want it or not. Said atypical experience frames a system of progression through skill and learning of actual ingame skills that your class earns. Thrown in a new world to explore and I think it is exactly what people want out of their game. If you dislike the idea of combat, as I wrote earlier, you have other activities in game, and otherwise you should perhaps look for a different type of game altogether.
I am fully cognizant that much, even most, of player made content will be bad. But that is not really an issue, because the player base will self regulate. The good stuff will be made known, the bad stuff will be left alone. I come from the days of Doom, where 99% of the wad files were pretty bad, but the ones that were good, everyone knew about and are still played (AliensDoom, anyone?). So it is not that I disagree with your argument personally, I've just likely been gaming longer than you, and know what the players can create. None of this is new.
And while PvP may seem like the facsimile of what I am describing, it's not. You are in a big closed boxing ring, and you have only one focus; to beat the other guy. The original Planetside was a wonderful experience in this regard, and I have yet to see it duplicated on that scale (and I am including PlanetSide 2). In the end though, you are stuck. You cannot get out of the ring, and everything you do in the ring is designed to get you to stay in the ring. For some, maybe you, that is enough, but if you've played as many of these games as I have, for 30 years, it gets old. When I see games like Fortnight, I laugh, because it is literally the same game we've been playing since Unreal Tournament or a host of others. And I've watched the new generation, having never experienced the older stuff, completely get sucked in, and then burn out. Why? Because the old model, while leveraging the computational capabilities of its day, is rather primitive when you consider what computers are now capable of. And I'm not talking graphics. Graphics NEVER make a game. I'm talking about AI, world interaction, deformability, database utilization, etc. Fighting games are like the Windows OS. We use it, we know it, but we also realize that while it is the logical evolution of the paper/file cabinet metaphor, in a hundred years, they will look at these 2D interfaces as quaint.
As to the question of why high end loot should not be accessible to a lower level player, I think you are taking that example in the wrong way. If I find a sword of unbelievable power, then heck yes, I should be able to use it. But what YOU are not understanding is that the sword should NOT be soul bound. Soul binding is an artificial mechanism to allow players to never worry about losing their gear. It is a fiction that ruins immersion. If you had that sword, but were very low level, I doubt you'd keep it for long. Consider the game play 'fun' in all those who try to own it. Nothing like that exists, which is ironic, because in that context, there clearly is a reason for players to pvp.
Taylors
I also believe that the player base would self regulate, but the real question is how long will it be between good and worthwhile player made content? It's unpredictable and you will at some point reach a point where you have no good and fun content left. So suddenly you are back at square one, no content.
mmorpg isn't all about the raw content, it's about world building and making the players interact with that world and other players. I feel like a mmorog based on player made content won't have that and will be "all over the place", no story, no red line, no real future.
That is why we let the developers create a story and build around that story that we then will spend hours and a world hours it, playing with friends, interacting with players and npc because we want to, not because there is hundred and hundreds of bad player made content left to do.
As to the question of why high end loot should not be accessible to a lower level player, I think you are taking that example in the wrong way. If I find a sword of unbelievable power, then heck yes, I should be able to use it. But what YOU are not understanding is that the sword should NOT be soul bound. Soul binding is an artificial mechanism to allow players to never worry about losing their gear. It is a fiction that ruins immersion. If you had that sword, but were very low level, I doubt you'd keep it for long. Consider the game play 'fun' in all those who try to own it. Nothing like that exists, which is ironic, because in that context, there clearly is a reason for players to pvp.
Taylors
I will only address this last point as I think we simply have different opinions on the first two, and that's absolutely OK.
Intrepid has confirmed there will be no soulbinding of any kind. All items and loots can be stolen, sold etc.
Add to it that if you accrue enough corruption, once you get killed you will drop some or all of your equipped items, and you will for sure have people fighting over that one sword like it's the One Ring in Lord of the Rings.
AoC's underlying node system will drive far more variation than I think most people will at first grasp. As a community unless we coordinate and cooperation it is highly unlikely that we will successfully complete all the available quests and so inevitably conflict might be driven by the desire to unlock an area never before unlocked.
Also, consider how a single expansion would have the same compounded impact. Unlocking not just a single set of new quests, but a set of new quests that will cause us to have to recycle all the nodes again driving new conflicts and community interactions.
There is hop, and AoC is it.
Can't wait to get in there, even in its unfinished state, its amazing!
In the end, still just a normal fighting game. Fight, then fight some more, then fight, and for dessert? Fight. I don't care how well the nodes are implemented, in the end, they are a delay tactic, creating five distinct 'worlds' of content within a bigger world. And worse, Once you unlock a new one, all the work you put into the old one is gone.
I would love the devs to discuss what their concept is around persistence, the idea that what is done on day one of the world has impact on day 100001. This concept does not exist in any MMORPG, and yet there is no technical reason for it not to. Item history alone could partially address this, but that would require a dedicated database and more network bandwidth, and let's face it, that eats at the bottom line. So why not just follow the same model that all the other MMORPGs use, and within that technical limitation, stretch the capabilities of how the MMORPG is implemented. The result? Nodes. I see nothing in them that requires more backend capabilities to implement. It is a permutation of an existing model, and I laud the devs for coming up with it, but in the end, it is still basically the same model we see in every other game.
And let me be clear. I KNOW I am that guy who is a 'hater' that we see, and are annoyed by, in every forum in every game for the last 20 years. But nothing is changing, and I am getting old. I thought by now the dev community would see the stagnation and do something about it, but remarkable to me, we are still in gen 1 (with WoW being the first of that series).
If I elicit a negative reaction from the community, and am seen as a non-believer in yet another, 'new and different' project, in my beloved hobby, that is acceptable to me IF the devs at least consider what I am describing. Bu
If you can prove to me that my basic hypothesis is wrong, then I will happily stand down. That hypothesis is that no matter how much time, energy, money, creativity, time and resources are devoted to an MMORPG, it's Achilles heel is that content cannot be developed faster than the player base can play it. And the only solution is to give, at least to a limited extent, content production ability to the players. It is not about ALLOWING the players to make content, it is about HARNESSING the players to make content. The first game to do this, no matter what its theme, will be the dominant MMORPG from that point on.
I think there are 3 aspects that you are missing either out of hopeful optimism or naiveté, maybe some misunderstanding of the genre's potentials, and perhaps a lack of information at this stage of your discovery of AOC.
- While players are creative, they are not game developers: this means that if you just give all the players (or else you're just another developer) the power to create content, someone will break the game. Either for themselves, other players, or entirely.
You think that perhaps you'll be able to create something that would be thrilling to play. Meanwhile someone else will hate that content, and will create something else that would potentially ruin your idea. And vice versa. Plus, good luck trying to balance anything from a player's pov, and not ruining the game's economy.
- There is an aspect of player created content and story that exists, but requires more social interaction and perhaps a modicum of roleplaying. In particular, in AOC, the vast majority of PvP is open world. There are no established factions to pledge allegiance to either. This means that any Node wars, guild wars, castle sieges, duels, etc are motivated by frictions between players.
This creates a ludonarrative that is 100% player made. And I would posit that these are stories and moments that stick with the players longer than other form of content. Just ask any EVE Online player about their wars.
- The idea of combat and loot and levels that are attached to an RPG of any kind, exists for the sole reason of the gratification from progress. You mentioned in one post, the idea of "why shouldn't we be able to equip higher level gear?" derives from a flawed concept what our experiences are.
I would then ask you in turn: would it be fun to be able to acquire the best gear without having earned it? Having all the skills because you are naturally predisposed to being good at this specific style of gameplay? This would create a great divide of natural born talent vs hard work. The progression is what keeps things interesting. And if it's somewhat equal for all, then your natural skill will just make it easier and faster, but without it becoming completely unfair.
In AOC you'll be free to not even participate in combat if that's something that feel trite and overly done. I ran a poll on Reddit about what people wanted to focus on. Many future players expressed their interest in setting up a business, be it a tavern or a stable for animal husbandry etc. and just as many others vied for more exploratory tasks.
So in conclusion, I would say that it feels like you want to develop your own game within someone else's structure; and AOC is likely the best candidate for what you're looking for.
If you still dismiss some of these ideas as you have in other responses, then I am afraid no other game will ever be a real Second Life Simulator (not even talking about that horrible actual Second Life game).
And combat will forever be part of the formula. Not because WoW did it, or because D&D did it. But because it is exactly something that we don't get to do in everyday life, whether we secretly want it or not. Said atypical experience frames a system of progression through skill and learning of actual ingame skills that your class earns. Thrown in a new world to explore and I think it is exactly what people want out of their game. If you dislike the idea of combat, as I wrote earlier, you have other activities in game, and otherwise you should perhaps look for a different type of game altogether.
I am fully cognizant that much, even most, of player made content will be bad. But that is not really an issue, because the player base will self regulate. The good stuff will be made known, the bad stuff will be left alone. I come from the days of Doom, where 99% of the wad files were pretty bad, but the ones that were good, everyone knew about and are still played (AliensDoom, anyone?). So it is not that I disagree with your argument personally, I've just likely been gaming longer than you, and know what the players can create. None of this is new.
And while PvP may seem like the facsimile of what I am describing, it's not. You are in a big closed boxing ring, and you have only one focus; to beat the other guy. The original Planetside was a wonderful experience in this regard, and I have yet to see it duplicated on that scale (and I am including PlanetSide 2). In the end though, you are stuck. You cannot get out of the ring, and everything you do in the ring is designed to get you to stay in the ring. For some, maybe you, that is enough, but if you've played as many of these games as I have, for 30 years, it gets old. When I see games like Fortnight, I laugh, because it is literally the same game we've been playing since Unreal Tournament or a host of others. And I've watched the new generation, having never experienced the older stuff, completely get sucked in, and then burn out. Why? Because the old model, while leveraging the computational capabilities of its day, is rather primitive when you consider what computers are now capable of. And I'm not talking graphics. Graphics NEVER make a game. I'm talking about AI, world interaction, deformability, database utilization, etc. Fighting games are like the Windows OS. We use it, we know it, but we also realize that while it is the logical evolution of the paper/file cabinet metaphor, in a hundred years, they will look at these 2D interfaces as quaint.
As to the question of why high end loot should not be accessible to a lower level player, I think you are taking that example in the wrong way. If I find a sword of unbelievable power, then heck yes, I should be able to use it. But what YOU are not understanding is that the sword should NOT be soul bound. Soul binding is an artificial mechanism to allow players to never worry about losing their gear. It is a fiction that ruins immersion. If you had that sword, but were very low level, I doubt you'd keep it for long. Consider the game play 'fun' in all those who try to own it. Nothing like that exists, which is ironic, because in that context, there clearly is a reason for players to pvp.
Taylors
I also believe that the player base would self regulate, but the real question is how long will it be between good and worthwhile player made content? It's unpredictable and you will at some point reach a point where you have no good and fun content left. So suddenly you are back at square one, no content.
mmorpg isn't all about the raw content, it's about world building and making the players interact with that world and other players. I feel like a mmorog based on player made content won't have that and will be "all over the place", no story, no red line, no real future.
That is why we let the developers create a story and build around that story that we then will spend hours and a world hours it, playing with friends, interacting with players and npc because we want to, not because there is hundred and hundreds of bad player made content left to do.
I actually agree with you about player made content not being the exclusive means of development. In fact, I think the game devs not only should have a role, but the most important one. They control the longer-term top tier content, the direction of the world itself, game updates, mechanic changes, and on and on. This is not about one or the other, this is about a partnership, a coexistence.
You seem to be really resistant to playing ashes, and thats okay. Just try it for one month (which is only 15$) and then move on if you dont like it. If you like it, then great! Just accept that the perfect MMO probably will never exist again, at least for how you feel about them.
The node system looks interesting, and definitely novel, but alone, I don't think that it differentiates this game from WoW. In the end, after months of play, it looks like it will still be rinse and repeat. I think for a true WoW successor to exist, at least part of the development needs to be given to the players. Until the player community can create content, we are dependent on the developers, and as good as they are, they do not have the resources or time to make content faster than we can consume it.
The other issue I have is uniqueness purely through loot. Why not uniqueness through skill? Or Knowledge? How will Ashes make it so going to a wiki does not provide me all the secrets to finding things, solving things, etc. This is another trope of WoW that limits the player's ability to discover and distinguish themselves.
Taylors[/quote]
After reading through a lot of your posts I am finding your comments strike at the core of my issue with MMO's in recent times. Especially in regards to your comments in your original post about WoW and how AoC compares to WoW in that sense. My disappointment with MMO's has made me turn to survival games such as Rust and Escape from Tarkov. I am hoping that from having a creative developer who has played a host of other MMO's can create something special here and I believe that involves creating a place to be versus creating a game like you mentioned in your original post.
Question to you though...what way or tool would you give players to create their own content? As I saw you mentioning this I was trying to rack my brain on how you could implement this into a MMO. As with games such as Minecraft or even Halo 2 (I think), when it had the ability to go into Forge mode to create maps, they affected much smaller populations with the different content. With an MMO implementing sweeping changes or vastly different content I would imagine you would need overwhelming support for content to be implemented. Otherwise players will simply leave and go to a different server. One false move could prove fatal to a server. In terms of ways to implement - 1) Along the lines of SWG with in game quest making and/or community driven content (contests, tournaments, etc). 2) Like Halo 2 with Forge, give player's a theme park to design with a set number of variables. 3) Modding like in Minecraft, where there is no limit except to your creativity. 4) Other - give examples please.
@Taylors Expansion
You keep saying that you hate fighting games, but don't really provide an alternative focus. Your mention of dungeons would also point at fighting-based content, which you say you're tired of. So what, exactly, do you want out of a game apart from "create-a-dungeon" options for players to use, or the Mob/item learning you've also mentioned before? In a way, your descriptions reflect several GameLit genres in both novels and in anime. The first one that came to mind when I read your explanation about dungeons was the Overlord anime series which does implement the former idea as a backdrop for the story-line.
On the other hand, the Freeholds that are being implemented in AoC do address player customization of homes and storefronts. Are you hoping for more in-depth options, like with Minecraft (although with better graphics and interactive function)? I'm planning at becoming a crafter myself, so being able to create a space that serves as both a home AND a storefront would be pretty awesome, in my opinion. Outside of that, I'm not sure how player-created instances could really work if you subtract the "fighter" focus you're so bored with. Perhaps a massively detailed guild hall or rec-center, but again, these are spaces that AoC is already setting itself up for.
I'm also unsure how "hashing" would provide anything relevant to a player's game experience. To me, it sounds much like a collectible title that has no other function than a talking point with other players in-game. So what if an Orc shouts some phrase at me - how does that change anything about my game-play? If a player-made weapon was used to kill a world boss or something, then having that info be part of its history would be pretty cool, but other than that I don't see much need for it. The only other use for item history would be the "crafted by" label which already appears in multiple MMOs as of now - including WoW. If a player could add in their own flavor text for an item they crafted, or maybe even one they're having repaired, then that could be another viable option, I guess.
For me, something I'd love to eventually see in an MMO would be where the AI is strong enough for NPCs to be able to react to players as if they were actual people themselves. For example, they're giving you exposition for your quest, and maybe you throw in a snide comment or roll your eyes (as you do when the info feels like a common trope). The NPC riffs off of that and the interaction between player and NPC changes based on that interaction. In addition, the information you glean from that conversation also changes, making the experience more organic. So if you run into that NPC again, they remember your interaction and react accordingly (much like in D&D setups with a great DM, those were always fun). If your character wound up on the wrong side of the law, NPCs may be reacting to or following a bounty (or wanted notice, whichever's thematically better), which may entice players to assist in the search, too (quest-lines, perhaps?). I know that this is something that is still a ways off, in a technological sense - but I feel that this alone would greatly change the player experience in a dynamic way. No two people would experience a game the same.
I'd be fairly interested to hear what your alternatives to a dungeon/fighting focused game would look like, although I feel that the fantasy genre is fairly heavily reliant on this as it's a staple of the usual story-telling formula. Games are supposed to provide a means of escapism which, as others have already mentioned, would involve epic quests and battles, monsters and mythical creatures within AoC's chosen genre. Sci-Fi wouldn't be much different, replacing that with alien creatures and civilizations instead. For me, there's not as much appeal in a game that too-closely parallels real life, because: where's the fun in that? You can simply log off and do all of that outside of the game instead.
I know that this is long - much longer than I initially anticipated, but this conversation certainly gives food-for-thought. Just the fact that AoC plans to set up for probabilities to provide player-driven server-narratives is something I've been waiting for for a long time. It breathes some much-needed fresh air into the game genre and will open it up to further options for players in the future. It might not give you everything you want right now, but isn't it a good thing that we're shifting in this direction? At the very least, this system will make it hard for Blizzard to implement and give AoC an edge over the other MMOs that have come out trying to compete with WoW and Final Fantasy since they launched. This keeps me optimistic for the future of gaming becoming a truly unique and narrative experience.
You seem to be really resistant to playing ashes, and thats okay. Just try it for one month (which is only 15$) and then move on if you dont like it. If you like it, then great! Just accept that the perfect MMO probably will never exist again, at least for how you feel about them.
That is where you are mistaken. I fully intend to play ashes, even knowing the long-term result of its model. I absolutely appreciate the attempt at moving the genre forward, and I would love to be proven wrong about my hypothesis.
@Taylors Expansion
You keep saying that you hate fighting games, but don't really provide an alternative focus. Your mention of dungeons would also point at fighting-based content, which you say you're tired of. So what, exactly, do you want out of a game apart from "create-a-dungeon" options for players to use, or the Mob/item learning you've also mentioned before? In a way, your descriptions reflect several GameLit genres in both novels and in anime. The first one that came to mind when I read your explanation about dungeons was the Overlord anime series which does implement the former idea as a backdrop for the story-line.
On the other hand, the Freeholds that are being implemented in AoC do address player customization of homes and storefronts. Are you hoping for more in-depth options, like with Minecraft (although with better graphics and interactive function)? I'm planning at becoming a crafter myself, so being able to create a space that serves as both a home AND a storefront would be pretty awesome, in my opinion. Outside of that, I'm not sure how player-created instances could really work if you subtract the "fighter" focus you're so bored with. Perhaps a massively detailed guild hall or rec-center, but again, these are spaces that AoC is already setting itself up for.
I'm also unsure how "hashing" would provide anything relevant to a player's game experience. To me, it sounds much like a collectible title that has no other function than a talking point with other players in-game. So what if an Orc shouts some phrase at me - how does that change anything about my game-play? If a player-made weapon was used to kill a world boss or something, then having that info be part of its history would be pretty cool, but other than that I don't see much need for it. The only other use for item history would be the "crafted by" label which already appears in multiple MMOs as of now - including WoW. If a player could add in their own flavor text for an item they crafted, or maybe even one they're having repaired, then that could be another viable option, I guess.
For me, something I'd love to eventually see in an MMO would be where the AI is strong enough for NPCs to be able to react to players as if they were actual people themselves. For example, they're giving you exposition for your quest, and maybe you throw in a snide comment or roll your eyes (as you do when the info feels like a common trope). The NPC riffs off of that and the interaction between player and NPC changes based on that interaction. In addition, the information you glean from that conversation also changes, making the experience more organic. So if you run into that NPC again, they remember your interaction and react accordingly (much like in D&D setups with a great DM, those were always fun). If your character wound up on the wrong side of the law, NPCs may be reacting to or following a bounty (or wanted notice, whichever's thematically better), which may entice players to assist in the search, too (quest-lines, perhaps?). I know that this is something that is still a ways off, in a technological sense - but I feel that this alone would greatly change the player experience in a dynamic way. No two people would experience a game the same.
I'd be fairly interested to hear what your alternatives to a dungeon/fighting focused game would look like, although I feel that the fantasy genre is fairly heavily reliant on this as it's a staple of the usual story-telling formula. Games are supposed to provide a means of escapism which, as others have already mentioned, would involve epic quests and battles, monsters and mythical creatures within AoC's chosen genre. Sci-Fi wouldn't be much different, replacing that with alien creatures and civilizations instead. For me, there's not as much appeal in a game that too-closely parallels real life, because: where's the fun in that? You can simply log off and do all of that outside of the game instead.
I know that this is long - much longer than I initially anticipated, but this conversation certainly gives food-for-thought. Just the fact that AoC plans to set up for probabilities to provide player-driven server-narratives is something I've been waiting for for a long time. It breathes some much-needed fresh air into the game genre and will open it up to further options for players in the future. It might not give you everything you want right now, but isn't it a good thing that we're shifting in this direction? At the very least, this system will make it hard for Blizzard to implement and give AoC an edge over the other MMOs that have come out trying to compete with WoW and Final Fantasy since they launched. This keeps me optimistic for the future of gaming becoming a truly unique and narrative experience.
Is it good we are heading in this direction? I've asked that question for every game that came out over the last 20 years, and sadly, the answer is no. The community sees itself in the third or fourth generation of these MMOs, when we never left the first generation.
Do I think that the modification of mechanics in a game has made them better? The data suggests the answer is no. If the intent of the these games is to keep the community playing for as long as possible, then besides WoW, they have basically all failed. And WoW, had it come out after another similar game had succeeded, would likely have not done as well as it did.
If AoC's goal is to last for 4-5 years, then their model is fine, and I am sure they will succeed. If the intent is to keep the community for 5+ years, then no, mechanics like nodes simply will not do it. The reason is that AoC, and all of the other titles, are games, not places. If they strove to be a place, they would dominate the market.
I always hope for these games to move the genre, but they do not. It's kind of like Mexican food. It may taste good, but every dish uses the same ingredients, just permutated differently. Tacos, burritos, enchiladas, taco salads, and on and on are all basically the same ingredients. That is where we are right now in MMOs, and while I love Mexican food, there are hundreds of other cuisines out there worth trying.
Taylors
edit: I actually had another idea the other night, which I think would be intriguing. Instead of the ideal GAME that I am looking for, I think the next step in the genre should be the next generation of LAUNCHER. Usually, launchers are just little apps that update and then run the main game experience. If a more general purpose, 3D-based launcher were developed, with APIs so that game developers like AoC could connect to them, we would be MUCH closer to the 'place' I am advocating. Part of the that API could be the transfer of hard-to-come-by items from the different worlds into the launcher world. Player housing would have a meaning, because you could keep in it these mementos of games, some of which may have ceased to exist.
I think this alone would meaningfully move the genre forward, because not only could well funded game like AoC connect to it, but also player made content.
The node system looks interesting, and definitely novel, but alone, I don't think that it differentiates this game from WoW. In the end, after months of play, it looks like it will still be rinse and repeat. I think for a true WoW successor to exist, at least part of the development needs to be given to the players. Until the player community can create content, we are dependent on the developers, and as good as they are, they do not have the resources or time to make content faster than we can consume it.
The other issue I have is uniqueness purely through loot. Why not uniqueness through skill? Or Knowledge? How will Ashes make it so going to a wiki does not provide me all the secrets to finding things, solving things, etc. This is another trope of WoW that limits the player's ability to discover and distinguish themselves.
Taylors[/quote]
After reading through a lot of your posts I am finding your comments strike at the core of my issue with MMO's in recent times. Especially in regards to your comments in your original post about WoW and how AoC compares to WoW in that sense. My disappointment with MMO's has made me turn to survival games such as Rust and Escape from Tarkov. I am hoping that from having a creative developer who has played a host of other MMO's can create something special here and I believe that involves creating a place to be versus creating a game like you mentioned in your original post.
Question to you though...what way or tool would you give players to create their own content? As I saw you mentioning this I was trying to rack my brain on how you could implement this into a MMO. As with games such as Minecraft or even Halo 2 (I think), when it had the ability to go into Forge mode to create maps, they affected much smaller populations with the different content. With an MMO implementing sweeping changes or vastly different content I would imagine you would need overwhelming support for content to be implemented. Otherwise players will simply leave and go to a different server. One false move could prove fatal to a server. In terms of ways to implement - 1) Along the lines of SWG with in game quest making and/or community driven content (contests, tournaments, etc) Overall much lighter approach. 2) Like Halo 2 with Forge, give player's a theme park to design with a set number of variables. 3) Modding like in Minecraft, where there is no limit except to your creativity. 4) Make a playground/sandbox akin to Cyberpunk, GTA or Mercenaries where you provide the tools and means for random events to occur. 5) Other - give examples please.
Thanks[/quote]
I will repost my post to see if i can a response from OP.
The node system looks interesting, and definitely novel, but alone, I don't think that it differentiates this game from WoW. In the end, after months of play, it looks like it will still be rinse and repeat. I think for a true WoW successor to exist, at least part of the development needs to be given to the players. Until the player community can create content, we are dependent on the developers, and as good as they are, they do not have the resources or time to make content faster than we can consume it.
The other issue I have is uniqueness purely through loot. Why not uniqueness through skill? Or Knowledge? How will Ashes make it so going to a wiki does not provide me all the secrets to finding things, solving things, etc. This is another trope of WoW that limits the player's ability to discover and distinguish themselves.
Taylors
After reading through a lot of your posts I am finding your comments strike at the core of my issue with MMO's in recent times. Especially in regards to your comments in your original post about WoW and how AoC compares to WoW in that sense. My disappointment with MMO's has made me turn to survival games such as Rust and Escape from Tarkov. I am hoping that from having a creative developer who has played a host of other MMO's can create something special here and I believe that involves creating a place to be versus creating a game like you mentioned in your original post.
Question to you though...what way or tool would you give players to create their own content? As I saw you mentioning this I was trying to rack my brain on how you could implement this into a MMO. As with games such as Minecraft or even Halo 2 (I think), when it had the ability to go into Forge mode to create maps, they affected much smaller populations with the different content. With an MMO implementing sweeping changes or vastly different content I would imagine you would need overwhelming support for content to be implemented. Otherwise players will simply leave and go to a different server. One false move could prove fatal to a server. In terms of ways to implement - 1) Along the lines of SWG with in game quest making and/or community driven content (contests, tournaments, etc) Overall much lighter approach. 2) Like Halo 2 with Forge, give player's a theme park to design with a set number of variables. 3) Modding like in Minecraft, where there is no limit except to your creativity. 4) Make a playground/sandbox akin to Cyberpunk, GTA or Mercenaries where you provide the tools and means for random events to occur. 5) Other - give examples please.
Thanks[/quote]
I will repost my post to see if i can a response from OP.
Thanks, [/quote]
The technical challenge of allowing player-made content is daunting, and on day one, anything like Minecraft or GTA would be ridiculous to expect. What I have learned in watching modders make content since Doom, back in the early 90s, is that it does not take much development headroom for the modders to make some amazing stuff.
If it were me, and given the technical limitations, I would start small and isolated. By small, let's take item creation. Within AoC, I would make basic art tools available to the players who have achieved a certain level of craft skill. Whatever art for a weapon they make should be associated with that player, such that when one of their swords (for instance) is actually made, some credit goes back to them (either in in-game currency, or recognition). Remember that the goal is not to take development AWAY from the devs, but for the devs to HARNESS the creativity of the community by making the dev tools available for use. This is AND, not OR.
Each iteration of giving game content creation to the players should be small and thoroughly tested. This is uncharted territory, so imho, it should be taken slow. How to prevent inappropriate content? How to reward players? How to advertise within the game? How to prevent abuse? I am sure on day one, these are going to be difficult challenges, because nothing like this has really been done before. But over time, it will settle itself out, and at that point, another iteration of game creation can be given to the players.
In terms of world building, I would tie creation of content to player housing, which for me is a general term meaning a section of the world that the player has complete control over. I find current player housing meaningless. If I wanted to play with a doll house, I would be into Barbie, but I'm not. I could see a 'house' being anything from a cave in the wilderness to a building in a town. If cave, I could see the player building a maze-like dungeon to protect their stuff, or for a story they create. 'Housing' is a metaphor to me. And what makes it appealing, is that it is isolated, and likely instanced (and btw, I am NOT a fan of instancing, but here it might make sense). So from a technical perspective, that seems easier to implement. Maybe as more people go through these player-made instances, the creator gains more 'points'. which can be used to 'buy' cooler items/creatures that they can incorporate into their future creations. Just an idea I thought of right now, and I am definitely NOT one of the creative types that will make content, so please do not judge the idea based on the example I provided.
Taking a different approach to player generated content will avoid most of the problems, and be ... relatively simple (I've been an application developer, I know better than to say it will be simple). How you do it is by allowing players/guilds to buy an entry point, hire workers to dig one of the preset caves, build the preset buildings, etc. place "unique" items (nameable special items) and hire guardians. Make levels of the base items progressively unlockable by achievement, and limited to the zones they can attach to. So let's say my guild's purpose for existence is to protect the valuable magical artifacts of the dead from unworthy looters. We might purchase a tomb, place a sarcophagus with a skeleton and a keen longsword +1, which we name "Squire Kingsly's Sharp Sword', and then contract with a necromancer to place undead guardians in the tomb. Maybe the ability to create a single page journal/lore item (for lore about the guild or dungeon). some limited placeable themes of furniture/decoration for an area. A thieves' guild might actually use a straight corridor - with lots of traps and a chest, and maybe some rodent guardians, for entry skills' test.
Comments
Your argument sounds like you are saying that we have fun to reach addiction, not that having fun is itself addictive. And if the latter, which is my view, then we must still define what fun is. not merely how we experience it.
Taylors[/quote]
Ah, I clearly should have gone into more depth (believe it or not) as we seem to be on the same page (the feeling of 'fun' is the addiction itself). Addiction, fun, and dopamine are connected, and quite frankly we still don't know the intricacies involved in those connections and how they work exactly. Whether 'fun' is actually an addiction probably depends how you decide to define addiction in the first place.
While dopamine is known as a pleasure chemical, it also plays roles in motivation, motor function, and a few other roles. What's important to note there is motivation and how that relates to what I noted regarding task completion. Dopamine is released when you ALMOST succeed (a number of studies on chronic gamblers has been done around this effect). Theory suggests that dopamine is one of your body's methods of motivating you to complete tasks even after failure (by giving you pleasure when you get close to your goal but don't succeed (think that feeling of "Damn I was so close! Let's do it again since I'll get it for sure this time). Put simply, dopamine makes you feel good for accomplishing things, but also motivates you to keep at it when you fail (provided failure was within an acceptable range of the determined success factors for the game or process in which you are engaged). From that standpoint, 'fun' which I largely associate with dopamine response, probably could be defined as addiction. Essentially, 'fun' generates repetitive behavior, but that very repetition causes diminishing returns of the 'fun' feeling unless the behavior being repeated is changed.
The very reason that the more you win at something like Tic-Tac-Toe the less you enjoy it comes down to lowered dopamine responses each consecutive win. The more you play, the more you win, the more repetitive the experience, the less dopamine response is typically generated (this is where the factors outside of dopamine become extremely important as they differentiate most of us from compulsive gamblers). In part this is thought to do with your own perception of accomplishment for the task. If you win consistently, the task is perceived to be less difficult, and thus you will feel less accomplishment upon completion. This is actually one of the reasons that I stress the need for challenge and extreme difficulty in games. Ensuring significant difficulty and challenge results in larger expected sense of accomplishment from players for completing tasks in the game, which (provided you're not constantly suffering failure too far from perceived possible success) motivates players to chase content and stick with games longer.
As to your last point, I think a full definition would be extremely difficult to conceptualize, but part of it would likely include: accomplishing or nearly accomplishing a perceived goal or challenge, or perceiving to have made progress towards accomplishing a perceived goal or challenge, wherein the perceived goal or challenge is perceived as sufficiently difficult to warrant a feeling of accomplishment.
You'll notice the word 'perceived' used frequently - I don't mean to use it as a cop-out, but most of this equation seems to me to be fluid and based on your own experience and feelings towards the game at hand. For example, completing an endgame raid for the first time early on in a game's release has a strong sense of perceived accomplishment because it is perceived as difficult by the community and by yourself as you've never experienced or completed it before. The 100th time you complete the endgame raid there's less perceived sense of accomplishment because, regardless of whether the community still perceives it is difficult or not, it no longer FEELS challenging (even if the difficulty hasn't changed) to you after completing it 99 other times and it no longer feels like the accomplishment that it used to as a result.
Ah, I clearly should have gone into more depth (believe it or not) as we seem to be on the same page (the feeling of 'fun' is the addiction itself). Addiction, fun, and dopamine are connected, and quite frankly we still don't know the intricacies involved in those connections and how they work exactly. Whether 'fun' is actually an addiction probably depends how you decide to define addiction in the first place.
While dopamine is known as a pleasure chemical, it also plays roles in motivation, motor function, and a few other roles. What's important to note there is motivation and how that relates to what I noted regarding task completion. Dopamine is released when you ALMOST succeed (a number of studies on chronic gamblers has been done around this effect). Theory suggests that dopamine is one of your body's methods of motivating you to complete tasks even after failure (by giving you pleasure when you get close to your goal but don't succeed (think that feeling of "Damn I was so close! Let's do it again since I'll get it for sure this time). Put simply, dopamine makes you feel good for accomplishing things, but also motivates you to keep at it when you fail (provided failure was within an acceptable range of the determined success factors for the game or process in which you are engaged). From that standpoint, 'fun' which I largely associate with dopamine response, probably could be defined as addiction. Essentially, 'fun' generates repetitive behavior, but that very repetition causes diminishing returns of the 'fun' feeling unless the behavior being repeated is changed.
The very reason that the more you win at something like Tic-Tac-Toe the less you enjoy it comes down to lowered dopamine responses each consecutive win. The more you play, the more you win, the more repetitive the experience, the less dopamine response is typically generated (this is where the factors outside of dopamine become extremely important as they differentiate most of us from compulsive gamblers). In part this is thought to do with your own perception of accomplishment for the task. If you win consistently, the task is perceived to be less difficult, and thus you will feel less accomplishment upon completion. This is actually one of the reasons that I stress the need for challenge and extreme difficulty in games. Ensuring significant difficulty and challenge results in larger expected sense of accomplishment from players for completing tasks in the game, which (provided you're not constantly suffering failure too far from perceived possible success) motivates players to chase content and stick with games longer.
As to your last point, I think a full definition would be extremely difficult to conceptualize, but part of it would likely include: accomplishing or nearly accomplishing a perceived goal or challenge, or perceiving to have made progress towards accomplishing a perceived goal or challenge, wherein the perceived goal or challenge is perceived as sufficiently difficult to warrant a feeling of accomplishment.
You'll notice the word 'perceived' used frequently - I don't mean to use it as a cop-out, but most of this equation seems to me to be fluid and based on your own experience and feelings towards the game at hand. For example, completing an endgame raid for the first time early on in a game's release has a strong sense of perceived accomplishment because it is perceived as difficult by the community and by yourself as you've never experienced or completed it before. The 100th time you complete the endgame raid there's less perceived sense of accomplishment because, regardless of whether the community still perceives it is difficult or not, it no longer FEELS challenging (even if the difficulty hasn't changed) to you after completing it 99 other times and it no longer feels like the accomplishment that it used to as a result.
[/quote]
I have no issue with any of these points, but how does it translate to design? If there is an equation for fun, how does your description of fun fit? Also, merely being a challenge does not make something fun. If I am asked to dig a giant hole, I may consider it challenging, but it likely would not be very fun. However, if I am asked to dig that same hole in competition with another person, with a reward tied to it, I might consider that fun. Why? Does the reward itself cause the physiological response? Once I have the reward, will I view it the same way I did prior to having it?
If I were to answer the question myself, I would say that CONTEXT is what made the hole digging (possibly) more fun than just digging a hole. It was work, in both cases, but there was a REASON behind doing it. In MMORPGs, we call that reason, 'content'.
Thoughts?
Taylors
If I were to answer the question myself, I would say that CONTEXT is what made the hole digging (possibly) more fun than just digging a hole. It was work, in both cases, but there was a REASON behind doing it. In MMORPGs, we call that reason, 'content'.
Thoughts?
Taylors[/quote]
From a design perspective I think this gives insight into a number of levers that can be manipulated to increase 'fun'. Here's three off the top of my head (RPG focused for purposes of this discussion) and I'll probably follow-up with another post with a few more:
1. Repetitive combat should be tied to larger more significant goals that either an individual perceives as worthwhile, or the community does. For fighting your standard mobs (a typically repetitive activity), experience towards level progression is typically how this is done. Unfortunately, that means once max level has been reached, less enjoyment is realized for this task. This can be mitigated by ensuring that the repetitive combat also progresses other goals. For example, killing certain classes of mobs, like spiders, or undead, or orcs (keeping with the fantasy RPG theme here) contributes to an achievement. If that achievement is considered worthwhile to the player (perhaps by granting titles of "killer of mob x" at one level, "destroyer of mob x", "Terror of mob x" and so on) or considered worthwhile to the community (perhaps unlocking the achievement grants a small damage boon against that type of mob on a go forward), then the repetitive task contributes to something worthwhile and keeps its enjoyment for a far longer duration. The achievement can be broken up into varying levels to better pace player progression and provide little dopamine incentives for the micro achievements along the way. To summarize the above, if killing base mobs as you progress through the game also feels like its rewarding you by progressing you towards related achievements, the combat experience will retain some of its rewarding feeling even if its become fairly simple and thoughtless to you otherwise.
2. Combat experiences should be as diverse as possible and large skill gaps should be present. Since repetition is the biggest challenge to experiences continuing to be fun, mitigating the feeling that something is repetitive is another key factor. Combat rotations and enemies should be designed specifically to ensure that the same combat rotation won't work for every enemy - I'd go so far as to say that enemies should severely punish you for even trying. The way enemies attempt to combat you should be as diverse as possible, forcing the player to learn how to combat different enemy types. The greater diversity in enemy combat methods, the greater the variety of combat experiences when you start grouping those enemies together. In a perfect world I'd go so far as to say that the enemies should learn from you and improve how they combat you accordingly, but I honestly don't think that's economical to implement in games at the moment.
The skill gap should be significant. Players of far higher skill should be able to attempt content either above their level based on their knowledge of fight mechanics, dodging, etc. This is important because it plays into the perception of achievement. In PvE this allows players greater room to challenge themselves (and in turn feel more accomplished). Introductory players will improve and attempt to tackle progressively more difficult content above their level, while high-skilled players will still feel challenged. In PvP this ensures that the gap between the best players and other players exists as something to strive toward achieving and creates a perceived scale of improvement that players can rank themselves against.
3. Crafting, another extremely repetitive task should follow a similar path to the above. The more axes you make, the more leather armor you make, etc. etc. Titles might be one way of accomplishing this (Swordsmith, Legendary Swordsmith, etc.), or instead it might be a case that reaching certain achievement levels unlocks special recipes that cannot be unlocked any other way. For example even at max crafting level, you have to craft 5,000 superior tier axes to reach Legendary Axesmith which unlocks a special recipe. Provided those recipes are for gear that the community would find desirable, then even extremely repetitive crafting experiences would feel like progress towards a greater goal and accomplishment.
I agree, that the future of PvE focussed MMOs has to be in providing the tools to create content to the players. The developer create the components (skills, environment etc.) The community utilizes these to create content like dungeons, raids, quests and stories.
That's pretty much the only way a game can keep up with the demand of the playerbase, utilizes the creative ability of the playerbase and saves cost and production time in the process.
With that being said. I don't believe Ashes to be the game that could utilize this the way a game could, that is designed around that very concept. Going for something this late in development would just create a screwed up system and it wouldn't fit the game concept in the first place.
From a design perspective I think this gives insight into a number of levers that can be manipulated to increase 'fun'. Here's three off the top of my head (RPG focused for purposes of this discussion) and I'll probably follow-up with another post with a few more:
1. Repetitive combat should be tied to larger more significant goals that either an individual perceives as worthwhile, or the community does. For fighting your standard mobs (a typically repetitive activity), experience towards level progression is typically how this is done. Unfortunately, that means once max level has been reached, less enjoyment is realized for this task. This can be mitigated by ensuring that the repetitive combat also progresses other goals. For example, killing certain classes of mobs, like spiders, or undead, or orcs (keeping with the fantasy RPG theme here) contributes to an achievement. If that achievement is considered worthwhile to the player (perhaps by granting titles of "killer of mob x" at one level, "destroyer of mob x", "Terror of mob x" and so on) or considered worthwhile to the community (perhaps unlocking the achievement grants a small damage boon against that type of mob on a go forward), then the repetitive task contributes to something worthwhile and keeps its enjoyment for a far longer duration. The achievement can be broken up into varying levels to better pace player progression and provide little dopamine incentives for the micro achievements along the way. To summarize the above, if killing base mobs as you progress through the game also feels like its rewarding you by progressing you towards related achievements, the combat experience will retain some of its rewarding feeling even if its become fairly simple and thoughtless to you otherwise.
2. Combat experiences should be as diverse as possible and large skill gaps should be present. Since repetition is the biggest challenge to experiences continuing to be fun, mitigating the feeling that something is repetitive is another key factor. Combat rotations and enemies should be designed specifically to ensure that the same combat rotation won't work for every enemy - I'd go so far as to say that enemies should severely punish you for even trying. The way enemies attempt to combat you should be as diverse as possible, forcing the player to learn how to combat different enemy types. The greater diversity in enemy combat methods, the greater the variety of combat experiences when you start grouping those enemies together. In a perfect world I'd go so far as to say that the enemies should learn from you and improve how they combat you accordingly, but I honestly don't think that's economical to implement in games at the moment.
The skill gap should be significant. Players of far higher skill should be able to attempt content either above their level based on their knowledge of fight mechanics, dodging, etc. This is important because it plays into the perception of achievement. In PvE this allows players greater room to challenge themselves (and in turn feel more accomplished). Introductory players will improve and attempt to tackle progressively more difficult content above their level, while high-skilled players will still feel challenged. In PvP this ensures that the gap between the best players and other players exists as something to strive toward achieving and creates a perceived scale of improvement that players can rank themselves against.
3. Crafting, another extremely repetitive task should follow a similar path to the above. The more axes you make, the more leather armor you make, etc. etc. Titles might be one way of accomplishing this (Swordsmith, Legendary Swordsmith, etc.), or instead it might be a case that reaching certain achievement levels unlocks special recipes that cannot be unlocked any other way. For example even at max crafting level, you have to craft 5,000 superior tier axes to reach Legendary Axesmith which unlocks a special recipe. Provided those recipes are for gear that the community would find desirable, then even extremely repetitive crafting experiences would feel like progress towards a greater goal and accomplishment.
[/quote]
But don't you see, that means that if we get down to the finest level, to the core of what the game you describe actually is, it is a game where the dominant action you take to have 'fun', is fight. I could see the need for fighting, and its associated mechanics which, like your description above, CAN have fun in it, but the only real problem-solving taking place is in your battle strategy. And no matter how good the reward, the reason to fight quickly fades in these games. Why isn't fighting just one of the tools in your toolchest? If I need to get to the castle, for instance, I like the idea of getting past that which obstructs the way. But does it ALWAYS have to be creatures? My gosh, is it asking too much to put in a secret passage with a riddle in it that I need to solve? Or a pathway where my skills in lockpicking, stealth, etc, and just good judgement can get me in?
Why always fighting? They are all fighting games. Name one that is not. Probably one or two, but 99.9% all fighting games. Why is fighting the only vehicle to solve problems? Is it THAT hard to put other ways of accomplishing goals. It's like being forced to eat your favorite food every day, for the rest of your life. At first, it's great, it IS your favorite food after all, but eating it all the time, eventually it loses being special, loses the draw, and in some cases, burns you out on it for a long time. Now some don't seem to burn out, but I think a chunk of us are craving an alternative that balances martial combat with intellectual combat.
Thoughts?
Taylors
@Taylors Expansion
I think there are 3 aspects that you are missing either out of hopeful optimism or naiveté, maybe some misunderstanding of the genre's potentials, and perhaps a lack of information at this stage of your discovery of AOC.
- While players are creative, they are not game developers: this means that if you just give all the players (or else you're just another developer) the power to create content, someone will break the game. Either for themselves, other players, or entirely.
You think that perhaps you'll be able to create something that would be thrilling to play. Meanwhile someone else will hate that content, and will create something else that would potentially ruin your idea. And vice versa. Plus, good luck trying to balance anything from a player's pov, and not ruining the game's economy.
- There is an aspect of player created content and story that exists, but requires more social interaction and perhaps a modicum of roleplaying. In particular, in AOC, the vast majority of PvP is open world. There are no established factions to pledge allegiance to either. This means that any Node wars, guild wars, castle sieges, duels, etc are motivated by frictions between players.
This creates a ludonarrative that is 100% player made. And I would posit that these are stories and moments that stick with the players longer than other form of content. Just ask any EVE Online player about their wars.
- The idea of combat and loot and levels that are attached to an RPG of any kind, exists for the sole reason of the gratification from progress. You mentioned in one post, the idea of "why shouldn't we be able to equip higher level gear?" derives from a flawed concept what our experiences are.
I would then ask you in turn: would it be fun to be able to acquire the best gear without having earned it? Having all the skills because you are naturally predisposed to being good at this specific style of gameplay? This would create a great divide of natural born talent vs hard work. The progression is what keeps things interesting. And if it's somewhat equal for all, then your natural skill will just make it easier and faster, but without it becoming completely unfair.
In AOC you'll be free to not even participate in combat if that's something that feel trite and overly done. I ran a poll on Reddit about what people wanted to focus on. Many future players expressed their interest in setting up a business, be it a tavern or a stable for animal husbandry etc. and just as many others vied for more exploratory tasks.
So in conclusion, I would say that it feels like you want to develop your own game within someone else's structure; and AOC is likely the best candidate for what you're looking for.
If you still dismiss some of these ideas as you have in other responses, then I am afraid no other game will ever be a real Second Life Simulator (not even talking about that horrible actual Second Life game).
And combat will forever be part of the formula. Not because WoW did it, or because D&D did it. But because it is exactly something that we don't get to do in everyday life, whether we secretly want it or not. Said atypical experience frames a system of progression through skill and learning of actual ingame skills that your class earns. Thrown in a new world to explore and I think it is exactly what people want out of their game. If you dislike the idea of combat, as I wrote earlier, you have other activities in game, and otherwise you should perhaps look for a different type of game altogether.
Decision making
Also, consider how a single expansion would have the same compounded impact. Unlocking not just a single set of new quests, but a set of new quests that will cause us to have to recycle all the nodes again driving new conflicts and community interactions.
There is hop, and AoC is it.
Can't wait to get in there, even in its unfinished state, its amazing!
Just my opinion, but a big Problems of MMOs this days is size (actual size of the map and perceived size of the map by the players). They give players many ways to get around faster, but this way their already small worlds become even smaller. That, imo, is the reason players can blaze through content so fast. On one hand, you need to have a rather compact world to have mobs spawn closer together so people can level, a bigger world would not be enticing if it was so densely packed like, lets say the zones from wow (imagine the barrens, three times the size but with the same amount of monsters or the same density on a much larger scale, getting from one point to the next would be hell). But you can't take mobs out because so many need to die for a single level. In a way the system of leveling and exp farming can be said to be a cage for MMOs.
Also, why feel special for beating the evil good when everyone does it? Why bother playing when the only Content that is focused on is raiding but you can't feel special for winning? Why explore the world when the rewards for doing so are crap compared to what you can get for beating a single raid/dungeon boss? Why go out when you know you have seen everything already and there is nothing hidden anyway? The problem is, games develop with a focus but want to retain the playerbase of the other aspects too so they try to trick the players into thinking that there is stuff to do in their game aspect but find out soon after that there is nothing new but only more grind with less innovation or care given then the part the game is focused on.
I am fully cognizant that much, even most, of player made content will be bad. But that is not really an issue, because the player base will self regulate. The good stuff will be made known, the bad stuff will be left alone. I come from the days of Doom, where 99% of the wad files were pretty bad, but the ones that were good, everyone knew about and are still played (AliensDoom, anyone?). So it is not that I disagree with your argument personally, I've just likely been gaming longer than you, and know what the players can create. None of this is new.
And while PvP may seem like the facsimile of what I am describing, it's not. You are in a big closed boxing ring, and you have only one focus; to beat the other guy. The original Planetside was a wonderful experience in this regard, and I have yet to see it duplicated on that scale (and I am including PlanetSide 2). In the end though, you are stuck. You cannot get out of the ring, and everything you do in the ring is designed to get you to stay in the ring. For some, maybe you, that is enough, but if you've played as many of these games as I have, for 30 years, it gets old. When I see games like Fortnight, I laugh, because it is literally the same game we've been playing since Unreal Tournament or a host of others. And I've watched the new generation, having never experienced the older stuff, completely get sucked in, and then burn out. Why? Because the old model, while leveraging the computational capabilities of its day, is rather primitive when you consider what computers are now capable of. And I'm not talking graphics. Graphics NEVER make a game. I'm talking about AI, world interaction, deformability, database utilization, etc. Fighting games are like the Windows OS. We use it, we know it, but we also realize that while it is the logical evolution of the paper/file cabinet metaphor, in a hundred years, they will look at these 2D interfaces as quaint.
As to the question of why high end loot should not be accessible to a lower level player, I think you are taking that example in the wrong way. If I find a sword of unbelievable power, then heck yes, I should be able to use it. But what YOU are not understanding is that the sword should NOT be soul bound. Soul binding is an artificial mechanism to allow players to never worry about losing their gear. It is a fiction that ruins immersion. If you had that sword, but were very low level, I doubt you'd keep it for long. Consider the game play 'fun' in all those who try to own it. Nothing like that exists, which is ironic, because in that context, there clearly is a reason for players to pvp.
Taylors
On the face of it, the duel was a problem because I was on my support toon (Shai) which is not know for PvP or 1vs1 Duels. Naturally, the dueller opposite me had strong words to say which I won't repeat. In terms of balance it was non-existent. However, economies and twinks can suffer if too many items are soul bound. It is more beneficial to trade your redundant weapons and armour rather than have them destroyed because they remain inventory space.
Edit: spelling mistakes.
I also believe that the player base would self regulate, but the real question is how long will it be between good and worthwhile player made content? It's unpredictable and you will at some point reach a point where you have no good and fun content left. So suddenly you are back at square one, no content.
mmorpg isn't all about the raw content, it's about world building and making the players interact with that world and other players. I feel like a mmorog based on player made content won't have that and will be "all over the place", no story, no red line, no real future.
That is why we let the developers create a story and build around that story that we then will spend hours and a world hours it, playing with friends, interacting with players and npc because we want to, not because there is hundred and hundreds of bad player made content left to do.
I will only address this last point as I think we simply have different opinions on the first two, and that's absolutely OK.
Intrepid has confirmed there will be no soulbinding of any kind. All items and loots can be stolen, sold etc.
Add to it that if you accrue enough corruption, once you get killed you will drop some or all of your equipped items, and you will for sure have people fighting over that one sword like it's the One Ring in Lord of the Rings.
In the end, still just a normal fighting game. Fight, then fight some more, then fight, and for dessert? Fight. I don't care how well the nodes are implemented, in the end, they are a delay tactic, creating five distinct 'worlds' of content within a bigger world. And worse, Once you unlock a new one, all the work you put into the old one is gone.
I would love the devs to discuss what their concept is around persistence, the idea that what is done on day one of the world has impact on day 100001. This concept does not exist in any MMORPG, and yet there is no technical reason for it not to. Item history alone could partially address this, but that would require a dedicated database and more network bandwidth, and let's face it, that eats at the bottom line. So why not just follow the same model that all the other MMORPGs use, and within that technical limitation, stretch the capabilities of how the MMORPG is implemented. The result? Nodes. I see nothing in them that requires more backend capabilities to implement. It is a permutation of an existing model, and I laud the devs for coming up with it, but in the end, it is still basically the same model we see in every other game.
And let me be clear. I KNOW I am that guy who is a 'hater' that we see, and are annoyed by, in every forum in every game for the last 20 years. But nothing is changing, and I am getting old. I thought by now the dev community would see the stagnation and do something about it, but remarkable to me, we are still in gen 1 (with WoW being the first of that series).
If I elicit a negative reaction from the community, and am seen as a non-believer in yet another, 'new and different' project, in my beloved hobby, that is acceptable to me IF the devs at least consider what I am describing. Bu
Taylors
I actually agree with you about player made content not being the exclusive means of development. In fact, I think the game devs not only should have a role, but the most important one. They control the longer-term top tier content, the direction of the world itself, game updates, mechanic changes, and on and on. This is not about one or the other, this is about a partnership, a coexistence.
Taylors
https://knightsofember.com/forums/members/winner909098.54
[/quote]
The node system looks interesting, and definitely novel, but alone, I don't think that it differentiates this game from WoW. In the end, after months of play, it looks like it will still be rinse and repeat. I think for a true WoW successor to exist, at least part of the development needs to be given to the players. Until the player community can create content, we are dependent on the developers, and as good as they are, they do not have the resources or time to make content faster than we can consume it.
The other issue I have is uniqueness purely through loot. Why not uniqueness through skill? Or Knowledge? How will Ashes make it so going to a wiki does not provide me all the secrets to finding things, solving things, etc. This is another trope of WoW that limits the player's ability to discover and distinguish themselves.
Taylors[/quote]
After reading through a lot of your posts I am finding your comments strike at the core of my issue with MMO's in recent times. Especially in regards to your comments in your original post about WoW and how AoC compares to WoW in that sense. My disappointment with MMO's has made me turn to survival games such as Rust and Escape from Tarkov. I am hoping that from having a creative developer who has played a host of other MMO's can create something special here and I believe that involves creating a place to be versus creating a game like you mentioned in your original post.
Question to you though...what way or tool would you give players to create their own content? As I saw you mentioning this I was trying to rack my brain on how you could implement this into a MMO. As with games such as Minecraft or even Halo 2 (I think), when it had the ability to go into Forge mode to create maps, they affected much smaller populations with the different content. With an MMO implementing sweeping changes or vastly different content I would imagine you would need overwhelming support for content to be implemented. Otherwise players will simply leave and go to a different server. One false move could prove fatal to a server. In terms of ways to implement - 1) Along the lines of SWG with in game quest making and/or community driven content (contests, tournaments, etc). 2) Like Halo 2 with Forge, give player's a theme park to design with a set number of variables. 3) Modding like in Minecraft, where there is no limit except to your creativity. 4) Other - give examples please.
Thanks
You keep saying that you hate fighting games, but don't really provide an alternative focus. Your mention of dungeons would also point at fighting-based content, which you say you're tired of. So what, exactly, do you want out of a game apart from "create-a-dungeon" options for players to use, or the Mob/item learning you've also mentioned before? In a way, your descriptions reflect several GameLit genres in both novels and in anime. The first one that came to mind when I read your explanation about dungeons was the Overlord anime series which does implement the former idea as a backdrop for the story-line.
On the other hand, the Freeholds that are being implemented in AoC do address player customization of homes and storefronts. Are you hoping for more in-depth options, like with Minecraft (although with better graphics and interactive function)? I'm planning at becoming a crafter myself, so being able to create a space that serves as both a home AND a storefront would be pretty awesome, in my opinion. Outside of that, I'm not sure how player-created instances could really work if you subtract the "fighter" focus you're so bored with. Perhaps a massively detailed guild hall or rec-center, but again, these are spaces that AoC is already setting itself up for.
I'm also unsure how "hashing" would provide anything relevant to a player's game experience. To me, it sounds much like a collectible title that has no other function than a talking point with other players in-game. So what if an Orc shouts some phrase at me - how does that change anything about my game-play? If a player-made weapon was used to kill a world boss or something, then having that info be part of its history would be pretty cool, but other than that I don't see much need for it. The only other use for item history would be the "crafted by" label which already appears in multiple MMOs as of now - including WoW. If a player could add in their own flavor text for an item they crafted, or maybe even one they're having repaired, then that could be another viable option, I guess.
For me, something I'd love to eventually see in an MMO would be where the AI is strong enough for NPCs to be able to react to players as if they were actual people themselves. For example, they're giving you exposition for your quest, and maybe you throw in a snide comment or roll your eyes (as you do when the info feels like a common trope). The NPC riffs off of that and the interaction between player and NPC changes based on that interaction. In addition, the information you glean from that conversation also changes, making the experience more organic. So if you run into that NPC again, they remember your interaction and react accordingly (much like in D&D setups with a great DM, those were always fun). If your character wound up on the wrong side of the law, NPCs may be reacting to or following a bounty (or wanted notice, whichever's thematically better), which may entice players to assist in the search, too (quest-lines, perhaps?). I know that this is something that is still a ways off, in a technological sense - but I feel that this alone would greatly change the player experience in a dynamic way. No two people would experience a game the same.
I'd be fairly interested to hear what your alternatives to a dungeon/fighting focused game would look like, although I feel that the fantasy genre is fairly heavily reliant on this as it's a staple of the usual story-telling formula. Games are supposed to provide a means of escapism which, as others have already mentioned, would involve epic quests and battles, monsters and mythical creatures within AoC's chosen genre. Sci-Fi wouldn't be much different, replacing that with alien creatures and civilizations instead. For me, there's not as much appeal in a game that too-closely parallels real life, because: where's the fun in that? You can simply log off and do all of that outside of the game instead.
I know that this is long - much longer than I initially anticipated, but this conversation certainly gives food-for-thought. Just the fact that AoC plans to set up for probabilities to provide player-driven server-narratives is something I've been waiting for for a long time. It breathes some much-needed fresh air into the game genre and will open it up to further options for players in the future. It might not give you everything you want right now, but isn't it a good thing that we're shifting in this direction? At the very least, this system will make it hard for Blizzard to implement and give AoC an edge over the other MMOs that have come out trying to compete with WoW and Final Fantasy since they launched. This keeps me optimistic for the future of gaming becoming a truly unique and narrative experience.
That is where you are mistaken. I fully intend to play ashes, even knowing the long-term result of its model. I absolutely appreciate the attempt at moving the genre forward, and I would love to be proven wrong about my hypothesis.
Taylors
Is it good we are heading in this direction? I've asked that question for every game that came out over the last 20 years, and sadly, the answer is no. The community sees itself in the third or fourth generation of these MMOs, when we never left the first generation.
Do I think that the modification of mechanics in a game has made them better? The data suggests the answer is no. If the intent of the these games is to keep the community playing for as long as possible, then besides WoW, they have basically all failed. And WoW, had it come out after another similar game had succeeded, would likely have not done as well as it did.
If AoC's goal is to last for 4-5 years, then their model is fine, and I am sure they will succeed. If the intent is to keep the community for 5+ years, then no, mechanics like nodes simply will not do it. The reason is that AoC, and all of the other titles, are games, not places. If they strove to be a place, they would dominate the market.
I always hope for these games to move the genre, but they do not. It's kind of like Mexican food. It may taste good, but every dish uses the same ingredients, just permutated differently. Tacos, burritos, enchiladas, taco salads, and on and on are all basically the same ingredients. That is where we are right now in MMOs, and while I love Mexican food, there are hundreds of other cuisines out there worth trying.
Taylors
edit: I actually had another idea the other night, which I think would be intriguing. Instead of the ideal GAME that I am looking for, I think the next step in the genre should be the next generation of LAUNCHER. Usually, launchers are just little apps that update and then run the main game experience. If a more general purpose, 3D-based launcher were developed, with APIs so that game developers like AoC could connect to them, we would be MUCH closer to the 'place' I am advocating. Part of the that API could be the transfer of hard-to-come-by items from the different worlds into the launcher world. Player housing would have a meaning, because you could keep in it these mementos of games, some of which may have ceased to exist.
I think this alone would meaningfully move the genre forward, because not only could well funded game like AoC connect to it, but also player made content.
Thoughts?
Taylors
The node system looks interesting, and definitely novel, but alone, I don't think that it differentiates this game from WoW. In the end, after months of play, it looks like it will still be rinse and repeat. I think for a true WoW successor to exist, at least part of the development needs to be given to the players. Until the player community can create content, we are dependent on the developers, and as good as they are, they do not have the resources or time to make content faster than we can consume it.
The other issue I have is uniqueness purely through loot. Why not uniqueness through skill? Or Knowledge? How will Ashes make it so going to a wiki does not provide me all the secrets to finding things, solving things, etc. This is another trope of WoW that limits the player's ability to discover and distinguish themselves.
Taylors[/quote]
After reading through a lot of your posts I am finding your comments strike at the core of my issue with MMO's in recent times. Especially in regards to your comments in your original post about WoW and how AoC compares to WoW in that sense. My disappointment with MMO's has made me turn to survival games such as Rust and Escape from Tarkov. I am hoping that from having a creative developer who has played a host of other MMO's can create something special here and I believe that involves creating a place to be versus creating a game like you mentioned in your original post.
Question to you though...what way or tool would you give players to create their own content? As I saw you mentioning this I was trying to rack my brain on how you could implement this into a MMO. As with games such as Minecraft or even Halo 2 (I think), when it had the ability to go into Forge mode to create maps, they affected much smaller populations with the different content. With an MMO implementing sweeping changes or vastly different content I would imagine you would need overwhelming support for content to be implemented. Otherwise players will simply leave and go to a different server. One false move could prove fatal to a server. In terms of ways to implement - 1) Along the lines of SWG with in game quest making and/or community driven content (contests, tournaments, etc) Overall much lighter approach. 2) Like Halo 2 with Forge, give player's a theme park to design with a set number of variables. 3) Modding like in Minecraft, where there is no limit except to your creativity. 4) Make a playground/sandbox akin to Cyberpunk, GTA or Mercenaries where you provide the tools and means for random events to occur. 5) Other - give examples please.
Thanks[/quote]
I will repost my post to see if i can a response from OP.
Thanks,
After reading through a lot of your posts I am finding your comments strike at the core of my issue with MMO's in recent times. Especially in regards to your comments in your original post about WoW and how AoC compares to WoW in that sense. My disappointment with MMO's has made me turn to survival games such as Rust and Escape from Tarkov. I am hoping that from having a creative developer who has played a host of other MMO's can create something special here and I believe that involves creating a place to be versus creating a game like you mentioned in your original post.
Question to you though...what way or tool would you give players to create their own content? As I saw you mentioning this I was trying to rack my brain on how you could implement this into a MMO. As with games such as Minecraft or even Halo 2 (I think), when it had the ability to go into Forge mode to create maps, they affected much smaller populations with the different content. With an MMO implementing sweeping changes or vastly different content I would imagine you would need overwhelming support for content to be implemented. Otherwise players will simply leave and go to a different server. One false move could prove fatal to a server. In terms of ways to implement - 1) Along the lines of SWG with in game quest making and/or community driven content (contests, tournaments, etc) Overall much lighter approach. 2) Like Halo 2 with Forge, give player's a theme park to design with a set number of variables. 3) Modding like in Minecraft, where there is no limit except to your creativity. 4) Make a playground/sandbox akin to Cyberpunk, GTA or Mercenaries where you provide the tools and means for random events to occur. 5) Other - give examples please.
Thanks[/quote]
I will repost my post to see if i can a response from OP.
Thanks, [/quote]
The technical challenge of allowing player-made content is daunting, and on day one, anything like Minecraft or GTA would be ridiculous to expect. What I have learned in watching modders make content since Doom, back in the early 90s, is that it does not take much development headroom for the modders to make some amazing stuff.
If it were me, and given the technical limitations, I would start small and isolated. By small, let's take item creation. Within AoC, I would make basic art tools available to the players who have achieved a certain level of craft skill. Whatever art for a weapon they make should be associated with that player, such that when one of their swords (for instance) is actually made, some credit goes back to them (either in in-game currency, or recognition). Remember that the goal is not to take development AWAY from the devs, but for the devs to HARNESS the creativity of the community by making the dev tools available for use. This is AND, not OR.
Each iteration of giving game content creation to the players should be small and thoroughly tested. This is uncharted territory, so imho, it should be taken slow. How to prevent inappropriate content? How to reward players? How to advertise within the game? How to prevent abuse? I am sure on day one, these are going to be difficult challenges, because nothing like this has really been done before. But over time, it will settle itself out, and at that point, another iteration of game creation can be given to the players.
In terms of world building, I would tie creation of content to player housing, which for me is a general term meaning a section of the world that the player has complete control over. I find current player housing meaningless. If I wanted to play with a doll house, I would be into Barbie, but I'm not. I could see a 'house' being anything from a cave in the wilderness to a building in a town. If cave, I could see the player building a maze-like dungeon to protect their stuff, or for a story they create. 'Housing' is a metaphor to me. And what makes it appealing, is that it is isolated, and likely instanced (and btw, I am NOT a fan of instancing, but here it might make sense). So from a technical perspective, that seems easier to implement. Maybe as more people go through these player-made instances, the creator gains more 'points'. which can be used to 'buy' cooler items/creatures that they can incorporate into their future creations. Just an idea I thought of right now, and I am definitely NOT one of the creative types that will make content, so please do not judge the idea based on the example I provided.
Taylors