I was hoping that having a plot generator first would help. I want to revisit the rat theory later, but let me give this example first:
In most MMOs, when a group of goblin raiders has a camp in the Blasted Hils, it simply is there, and will always be there, and the goblins will just repop at a steady rate.
I was hoping that in order to create a goblin raider camp, the Plot generator would spawn a leader, perhaps, that actually moves in to the area with it's army. You might be in the spot when the raiders actually arrive and set up camp. They also stay there for a while to stockpile resources and plan the raid on a nearby town. If they are not discovered, they will eventually pack up camp and attack the town. The plot generator would create a motive (perhaps to steal a magic gem). If their plan is not foiled, they will take the gem and return it to some dark wizard who hired them in the first place... and so on.
The plot can keep getting thicker and thicker, and players may interact and change the route of it at any point. It' much more interactive then simply killing the goblin camp leader X and return to point Y for reward.
Yes, it is beyond our reach right now, but I think it can be done with enough effort.
Tearing Down the MMO Boundaries
There are things like that in games already. Take Eve-online for example, they have the same aspects. Even now, Warhammer is doing similar things calling them "community quests".
The problem with such things is that they are random and you have to be on when things like this happen being they are diverse. Players do not want things like this being they can miss it were as before they know it's always going to spawn at X, X location.
Also to add, live events are also similar to this. That is where you have a group of people controlling the NPC's in a sort of live event that can happen all the time. Kind of makes you wonder if the future of online gaming will include "actors" ;)
The problem with such things is that they are random and you have to be on when things like this happen being they are diverse. Players do not want things like this being they can miss it were as before they know it's always going to spawn at X, X location.
Also to add, live events are also similar to this. That is where you have a group of people controlling the NPC's in a sort of live event that can happen all the time. Kind of makes you wonder if the future of online gaming will include "actors" ;)
Quote:Original post by Humble Hobo
I was hoping that having a plot generator first would help. I want to revisit the rat theory later, but let me give this example first:
In most MMOs, when a group of goblin raiders has a camp in the Blasted Hils, it simply is there, and will always be there, and the goblins will just repop at a steady rate.
I was hoping that in order to create a goblin raider camp, the Plot generator would spawn a leader, perhaps, that actually moves in to the area with it's army. You might be in the spot when the raiders actually arrive and set up camp. They also stay there for a while to stockpile resources and plan the raid on a nearby town. If they are not discovered, they will eventually pack up camp and attack the town. The plot generator would create a motive (perhaps to steal a magic gem). If their plan is not foiled, they will take the gem and return it to some dark wizard who hired them in the first place... and so on.
The plot can keep getting thicker and thicker, and players may interact and change the route of it at any point. It' much more interactive then simply killing the goblin camp leader X and return to point Y for reward.
Yes, it is beyond our reach right now, but I think it can be done with enough effort.
But here you will run into the same problem that Oblivion ran into with its "Radiant AI". You, as a developer looking at server trace logs, might be able to tell that the goblins were generated by the plot engine in order to steal a gem and bring it to an evil wizard, and you might think that's pretty interesting, but you probably haven't thought of a way to communicate this information to the player (just as Oblivion didn't). To an average player, they will walk in at some point in the middle and just see a group of goblins, who probably come charging at them and then are promptly killed. The only way that whole getting the gem and bringing it to the evil wizard will ever succeed is if no players stumble upon the goblins. But if the only person who knows that the goblins brought a ring to a wizard is some admin looking at the server logs, then what was the point?
I've been following this thread, but haven't had the time to reply just yet. There is a lot of good stuff in here. Deleter pointed out the most important flaw in a system like that. Content is consumable. When you do not want things to be repeated, you then get to deal with the consequence that there needs to be a LOT MORE content than the standard game that does repeat content.
Now, H4L has said exactly what I would have. Its not a new idea, it just hasn't been done yet. That is, procedural quest ideas. I've had a system doing just that designed for a couple years now, as I am sure there are plenty of others who have as well. Its not an original idea. Procedural anything has been gaining momentum for quite some time. Just look at the demo scene. There is certainly much to be learned from them.
I think this is valid when using a WoW-style game as the measuring stick. I, however, do not like the idea of comparing things to WoW. It is not the end-all-be-all. Sure, it is the most successful MMO, but we are here talking of ideas it doesn't use because we think it could be done better. I both love and hate WoW. I only ever played Beta, but I watched enough people play to know all of its intricacies. Right now, there is no MMO that I would play, but thats just because I have no time to spare on playing games. WoW has taught everyone to focus on level and loot. Because of this, most people expect level accomplishments and loot to be what gives people their psychological fulfillment. This does not have to be the case. A game can use any mechanic to provide this psychological fix, as long as it is done properly. The trick is first breaking them of their preconceived notion (which WoW had given them).
Regarding the multi-person quest problem: The fix for this is simple. Allow the player to invite someone to a quest. Much like partying, this would allow the invitee to be envolved in the quest and partake in it. This also allows for many more types of quest than are currently seen in today's MMO's. For example, a quest could be given requiring the player to share the quest with others, thus encouraging community and social interaction. This could also be a way of psychologically convincing players that the quest is more important or harder to achieve, thus providing them with a larger sense of accomplishment once the quest has been completed.
As a side note, I would like to point out that ideas are a dime a dozen. Nothing here is new. Yes, I'm talking to you Zouflain :P. I see those who do not ever want to share their ideas "cause someone else might steal them," but this is just funny. Don't take offense, I am just using you as an example. I am not talking about just you. Its fine to not share them, but what is not okay is to think that noone else has ever thought of the same idea. The game I am working on has already approached many of these ideas, if not all of them. I am not saying that because I think we thought of them first, cause we didn't. Im just pointing out that many of these ideas (and I think we can all agree with this) will start to show up in the next crop of MMO's. They are the next step in MMO evolution. Now, whether or not the ideas here are groundbreaking remains to be seen. This is because no current mainstream MMO's are using them. We don't yet have proof.
@spikes of christ: You are not contributing to the thread. Saying "your ideas are bad" and "it doesn't seem possible" without proposing fixes does nothing to help. How about you wait to post until you actually have something useful to add?
Okay, so I am only responding to the first 2/3rds of this thread up to this point cause I feel my post is long enough. I will be back though :P.
<-edit->
Okay, so I finished reading it. I agree that procedural questing is not the holy grail. I think it will help, but it will not fix the problem. I think Luctus touched on the true fix. He called it Player-player interaction, but I think there is more to it than that. Emergent gameplay is what needs to be available (possibly by means of a player-made quest creation interface). That is, new gameplay (in this case quests), that emerges because the system allows for it, but not specifically designed in. Allowing a world to be so dynamic that a player needs to make quests for other players to get everything he/she needs will help a lot here. If players can quest each other in such a way that they can't rip each other off (for instance, if you promise an item as the loot reward, that item in your inventory is then locked and cannot be sold or moved until the quest is abandoned or completed, thus ensuring you can't rip off the player who accepted your quest), then I think we are making serious headway here. Anyways, I think that this is just the tip of the iceburg. I am excited to see what else you guys come up with.
Now, H4L has said exactly what I would have. Its not a new idea, it just hasn't been done yet. That is, procedural quest ideas. I've had a system doing just that designed for a couple years now, as I am sure there are plenty of others who have as well. Its not an original idea. Procedural anything has been gaining momentum for quite some time. Just look at the demo scene. There is certainly much to be learned from them.
Quote:Original post by Iron Chef CarnageI am also a believer in the truly dynamic world being a needed step for MMO's. I think consequences are absolutely needed to ensure the future of MMO's. Without them, the spoiled brat mentality is only going to get worse and then ruin all online play for other players. Iron Chef Carnage has brought up a valid point regarding what seems like a weakness of this idea. A large percentage of current MMO players would take advantage of these types of worlds and use them to grief and cause havoc. I think the question that truly needs answering is: How do you make a world that only attracts the type of player that you want to play? I do not think there is an answer to this yet, but I do worry about it. How do we make worlds that do not attract farmers and griefers? I for one would love to only have players who would play my game properly. Reality is not so kind, however, and it is not going to be good enough to design with only them in mind. Griefers, etc. are going to have to have a place in the game. The design needs to account for the riff-raff.
An MMO game with consequences to actions would be a griefer's paradise.
Quote:Original post by sonandshadow
Have you considered the psychological problem that the player would always feel totally lost? If I don't have some goal 5 levels away that I'm working toward, how do I know how to develop my character or what gear to buy? If my friend is also playing, how can we play together if I get a random quest to kill 5 thingamajiggies but he gets a random quest to mine 100 iron? Totally aside from the problem that random quests are stupid and IMO quests are only tolerable in the context of a story which makes them meaningful. What little virtual-world feel mmos currently manage to accomplish is a result of players as a community dealing with the same problems, communicating strategies to each other, and competing over the same opportunities.
I think this is valid when using a WoW-style game as the measuring stick. I, however, do not like the idea of comparing things to WoW. It is not the end-all-be-all. Sure, it is the most successful MMO, but we are here talking of ideas it doesn't use because we think it could be done better. I both love and hate WoW. I only ever played Beta, but I watched enough people play to know all of its intricacies. Right now, there is no MMO that I would play, but thats just because I have no time to spare on playing games. WoW has taught everyone to focus on level and loot. Because of this, most people expect level accomplishments and loot to be what gives people their psychological fulfillment. This does not have to be the case. A game can use any mechanic to provide this psychological fix, as long as it is done properly. The trick is first breaking them of their preconceived notion (which WoW had given them).
Regarding the multi-person quest problem: The fix for this is simple. Allow the player to invite someone to a quest. Much like partying, this would allow the invitee to be envolved in the quest and partake in it. This also allows for many more types of quest than are currently seen in today's MMO's. For example, a quest could be given requiring the player to share the quest with others, thus encouraging community and social interaction. This could also be a way of psychologically convincing players that the quest is more important or harder to achieve, thus providing them with a larger sense of accomplishment once the quest has been completed.
As a side note, I would like to point out that ideas are a dime a dozen. Nothing here is new. Yes, I'm talking to you Zouflain :P. I see those who do not ever want to share their ideas "cause someone else might steal them," but this is just funny. Don't take offense, I am just using you as an example. I am not talking about just you. Its fine to not share them, but what is not okay is to think that noone else has ever thought of the same idea. The game I am working on has already approached many of these ideas, if not all of them. I am not saying that because I think we thought of them first, cause we didn't. Im just pointing out that many of these ideas (and I think we can all agree with this) will start to show up in the next crop of MMO's. They are the next step in MMO evolution. Now, whether or not the ideas here are groundbreaking remains to be seen. This is because no current mainstream MMO's are using them. We don't yet have proof.
@spikes of christ: You are not contributing to the thread. Saying "your ideas are bad" and "it doesn't seem possible" without proposing fixes does nothing to help. How about you wait to post until you actually have something useful to add?
Okay, so I am only responding to the first 2/3rds of this thread up to this point cause I feel my post is long enough. I will be back though :P.
<-edit->
Okay, so I finished reading it. I agree that procedural questing is not the holy grail. I think it will help, but it will not fix the problem. I think Luctus touched on the true fix. He called it Player-player interaction, but I think there is more to it than that. Emergent gameplay is what needs to be available (possibly by means of a player-made quest creation interface). That is, new gameplay (in this case quests), that emerges because the system allows for it, but not specifically designed in. Allowing a world to be so dynamic that a player needs to make quests for other players to get everything he/she needs will help a lot here. If players can quest each other in such a way that they can't rip each other off (for instance, if you promise an item as the loot reward, that item in your inventory is then locked and cannot be sold or moved until the quest is abandoned or completed, thus ensuring you can't rip off the player who accepted your quest), then I think we are making serious headway here. Anyways, I think that this is just the tip of the iceburg. I am excited to see what else you guys come up with.
I've also been interested in this problem, which is really just how do you make unique "things" without shutting out everyone else? Beyond just quests and experiences, this also applies to items, gear, events, etc.
Some background on the idea I had, so you have some context - I wanted the players who did something first to have some real accomplishment, because after all, they succeeded where no one else has yet. But at the same time, I can't just "turn off" that quest/monster/item, because it's a game - I shouldn't have to be up all hours or play constantly just to have a chance at something cool. Also, I've always really liked crafted items in games - I think it adds so much more than just finding a Super Sword off a monster.
So, the problem is off/on is too extreme. I'll explain my idea with an example, so it makes more sense: There is a temple taken over by Evil. There is an object corrupting it, and to destroy it, you need to kill the boss guarding it. The first time a player/group goes in there and actually kills him, his sword shatters and they each get a Greater Metal Shard (a piece of the sword), which has certain properties, and is used in crafting. Now afterwards, there is still Evil overrunning the place, but you can only kill a Mini-boss for a Small Metal Shard.
The Shards would have the same properties, but a Greater could be used to make a whole sword or shield or something, while a Smaller could only be used to say temper, gild, etc, a sword or shield.
I thought this might be a good approach, since then those who really do accomplish things first get something special - but those who come after still get nice things, and feel like they're doing something.
Some background on the idea I had, so you have some context - I wanted the players who did something first to have some real accomplishment, because after all, they succeeded where no one else has yet. But at the same time, I can't just "turn off" that quest/monster/item, because it's a game - I shouldn't have to be up all hours or play constantly just to have a chance at something cool. Also, I've always really liked crafted items in games - I think it adds so much more than just finding a Super Sword off a monster.
So, the problem is off/on is too extreme. I'll explain my idea with an example, so it makes more sense: There is a temple taken over by Evil. There is an object corrupting it, and to destroy it, you need to kill the boss guarding it. The first time a player/group goes in there and actually kills him, his sword shatters and they each get a Greater Metal Shard (a piece of the sword), which has certain properties, and is used in crafting. Now afterwards, there is still Evil overrunning the place, but you can only kill a Mini-boss for a Small Metal Shard.
The Shards would have the same properties, but a Greater could be used to make a whole sword or shield or something, while a Smaller could only be used to say temper, gild, etc, a sword or shield.
I thought this might be a good approach, since then those who really do accomplish things first get something special - but those who come after still get nice things, and feel like they're doing something.
Quote:Original post by parahelios
There is a temple taken over by Evil. There is an object corrupting it, and to destroy it, you need to kill the boss guarding it. The first time a player/group goes in there and actually kills him, his sword shatters and they each get a Greater Metal Shard (a piece of the sword), which has certain properties, and is used in crafting. Now afterwards, there is still Evil overrunning the place, but you can only kill a Mini-boss for a Small Metal Shard.
The Shards would have the same properties, but a Greater could be used to make a whole sword or shield or something, while a Smaller could only be used to say temper, gild, etc, a sword or shield.
I thought this might be a good approach, since then those who really do accomplish things first get something special - but those who come after still get nice things, and feel like they're doing something.
I think this could only work if the later players could get the greater shards by some other method (such as if five smaller shards combined to create a greater shard), otherwise you'll have a set of items that are only ever available to people who played the game on release. I don't think you should ever lock content for newer players. One of the most compelling things for a newer player is seeing an older player who totally out classes him and then thinking "one day that'll be me". In a sense, everbody playing an MMO simply wants to be better than all others, and so in order to make everybody happy, you need to do your best to ensure that it never happens!
I think uniqueness can be implemented in very subtle ways, but any more than that and it becomes detrimental to anybody who doesn't have that unique quality.
Quote:Original post by H4LQuote:Original post by parahelios. . .
I think this could only work if the later players could get the greater shards by some other method (such as if five smaller shards combined to create a greater shard), otherwise you'll have a set of items that are only ever available to people who played the game on release. I don't think you should ever lock content for newer players. One of the most compelling things for a newer player is seeing an older player who totally out classes him and then thinking "one day that'll be me". In a sense, everbody playing an MMO simply wants to be better than all others, and so in order to make everybody happy, you need to do your best to ensure that it never happens!
I think uniqueness can be implemented in very subtle ways, but any more than that and it becomes detrimental to anybody who doesn't have that unique quality.
The key is that the properties or effects are almost exactly the same - the difference is where/how it is used. Extending my example, it may be that the only difference between creating a new sword from the Greater Shard and gilding a new sword with the smelted Smaller Shard is that sword made from the Greater has better "durability". And maybe has a cooler glow :)
New players aren't hindered by the fact they can't make the blade from the metal, but those who did it first would get the feeling of having something unique and special.
And I agree completely that it needs to be subtle, which is why I wanted to use a specific example.
First post, go easy on me :)
Killing things off...
At first I liked the concept, but you'll run out of things to kill and the solution would probably be to build some random MOB generator that would create not exactly the same but kind of the same MOB so that others could kill it too. I don't think that would work very well, but now I'm thinking of WHY you want to do that ... ie to have an effect on the world.
What about a longer respawn time to simulate this, in days instead of in minutes? So you can have an effect, but it won't last forever. Just like days in MMOs go much quicker than in real life the beasties would repopulate much faster.
I still see a problem though, I believe it's still called griefing. There will be people who make a game out of killing all the mobs so the new players walk into an empty zone. Not good, so you'll need to mitigate that problem with some sort of system that makes sure they have things to do. I think this goes back to some kind of random population generator.
Now how about the unique rewards?
How unique can rewards really be? Are we talking unique weapons and armor? How many different models do you have? How many different stats are possible? Can you really continuously make unique items and does their uniqueness really matter? +2 STR vs +5 STR? A sword of intelligence! Is it a random amount of cash and prizes? So Fred gets 120 gold, but Barney only gets 100. Barney is not going to be a happy camper.
Killing things off...
At first I liked the concept, but you'll run out of things to kill and the solution would probably be to build some random MOB generator that would create not exactly the same but kind of the same MOB so that others could kill it too. I don't think that would work very well, but now I'm thinking of WHY you want to do that ... ie to have an effect on the world.
What about a longer respawn time to simulate this, in days instead of in minutes? So you can have an effect, but it won't last forever. Just like days in MMOs go much quicker than in real life the beasties would repopulate much faster.
I still see a problem though, I believe it's still called griefing. There will be people who make a game out of killing all the mobs so the new players walk into an empty zone. Not good, so you'll need to mitigate that problem with some sort of system that makes sure they have things to do. I think this goes back to some kind of random population generator.
Now how about the unique rewards?
How unique can rewards really be? Are we talking unique weapons and armor? How many different models do you have? How many different stats are possible? Can you really continuously make unique items and does their uniqueness really matter? +2 STR vs +5 STR? A sword of intelligence! Is it a random amount of cash and prizes? So Fred gets 120 gold, but Barney only gets 100. Barney is not going to be a happy camper.
Extinction isn't actually so much of a problem, so long as spawns are tied to player numbers (in total, not in the particular zone).
Imagine a system where the number of spawns for any given creature is determined by the number of living creatures + 1 (ie, it never completely goes extinct, which is as simple as saying that it's impossible to find every rabbit in a massive field). If a creature spawns in ZoneA (one of five (A-E) spawn zones), and all the creatures are driven to "extinction" in ZoneA, players will migrate to ZoneB assuming that the creature also spawns there. Players will always go where it is more lucrative to be, and if the spawns are very low in a zone they will go to others and exhaust that resource. This is a good thing, it makes the game much more dynamic, because the "newby field," or "level 15 paladin field" is always changing without you having to lift a finger. Just make sure that spawns appear in multiple fields.
To prevent players from running back in fourth, perhaps spawn rates should not be directly correlated to presently living creatures, but average amounts over longer periods of time. A level 2937573 who charges in and slaughters the creatures should not cause an immediate "extinction," but certainly that should have at least a little impact on future spawns.
This also allows a bit of griefing, but only "dedicated" griefing. To injure any single group, a griefer would have to camp all the spawn zones for an extended amount of time (perhaps a few days in each zone, and if the zones are far apart, then there's no way a lone griefer can curve the average). I personally tolerate griefing in games I design, so long as it's within mechanics and can serve a role-playing function ("I hates dem wabbits and Imma gunna shoot every last one!"), because I value player freedom to such a high degree. You might not want to, and might even have a system where one player cannot effect the average (their kills are counted as still living after a certain number of kills for a certain amount of time).
Imagine a system where the number of spawns for any given creature is determined by the number of living creatures + 1 (ie, it never completely goes extinct, which is as simple as saying that it's impossible to find every rabbit in a massive field). If a creature spawns in ZoneA (one of five (A-E) spawn zones), and all the creatures are driven to "extinction" in ZoneA, players will migrate to ZoneB assuming that the creature also spawns there. Players will always go where it is more lucrative to be, and if the spawns are very low in a zone they will go to others and exhaust that resource. This is a good thing, it makes the game much more dynamic, because the "newby field," or "level 15 paladin field" is always changing without you having to lift a finger. Just make sure that spawns appear in multiple fields.
To prevent players from running back in fourth, perhaps spawn rates should not be directly correlated to presently living creatures, but average amounts over longer periods of time. A level 2937573 who charges in and slaughters the creatures should not cause an immediate "extinction," but certainly that should have at least a little impact on future spawns.
This also allows a bit of griefing, but only "dedicated" griefing. To injure any single group, a griefer would have to camp all the spawn zones for an extended amount of time (perhaps a few days in each zone, and if the zones are far apart, then there's no way a lone griefer can curve the average). I personally tolerate griefing in games I design, so long as it's within mechanics and can serve a role-playing function ("I hates dem wabbits and Imma gunna shoot every last one!"), because I value player freedom to such a high degree. You might not want to, and might even have a system where one player cannot effect the average (their kills are counted as still living after a certain number of kills for a certain amount of time).
@tolakram:Well, first off, I think you are correct. That is not really a fix, since it doesn't fix the problem.
We have been toying with an idea that would create MOB AI, to help the extinction problem. If you allow MOBs to have their own levels (or skills), and allow them to level up (or attain higher skills), they adjust themselves to the threats posed. If it were to work perfectly, the players trying to exterminate them would eventually meet their match, since the mobs would eventually become more powerful. This is just a very small overview of the idea we are playing with, but you get the idea. Now, obviously, this introduces many new problems, which I won't address at this time, but you get the gist.
I think another problem is spawn points in general. This is a very exploitable design decision that, frankly, is outdated and needs to have a new technique. New games still using spawn points aren't delving deep enough, imo. I think spawn zones (large areas with randomized "spawns") can work better, but it is still not enough. I think with mob AI, we should also have things like mob dens (like some RTS's have (think Kohan)) could work. Moreover, if things are truly dynamic, mobs could certainly learn how to reproduce in such a way as to create higher leveled (skilled) offspring, also decreasing the chance of extinction.
One of the main problems with trying to create random everything is that the "specialness" can leave, if done improperly. Its something to think about as we design, because we do not want to try and solve one problem and replace it with a new one, which could be worse than the first. If all mobs were unique (even down to the way they were named), recognition across the world (and consequently fame) could be decreased. This is something that players like to have. Even an in-game newspaper telling of great deeds would not help here.
Now, about unique loot. I think that this has been proven to work in games like Diablo, Diablo 2, and more recently Sacred. If drops are classified, but randomized using templates, assuming the number of variables was high enough, there could truly be a large number of unique items, very large. People do seem to like to have unique items. Yes, current MMO's databases aren't designed to be able to handle this, but since we are designing from the ground up, I don't see why we couldn't employ this same idea to MMO's.
<-edit - I was writing when Zouflain did, so didn't notice his response ->
@Zouflain: I think for some of us who are considering truly dynamic worlds, extinction certainly can be an option, and possibly even a good one. It is true though, as you have pointed out, that there are problems with this. IMO, changing spawns to account for population isn't enough. It would be very cool to kill something off and gain fame, but a major problem still remains. If, as I have mentioned briefly, mobs are categorized, we could allow for extinction in certain areas, without wasting content. (The unmentioned problem is thwrowing away content that has been created, which is not a good thing to do). The ways around this are to either do what some games do already, which is to rename your mobs with a new name, maybe tweak the texture and put it in a new location. I think area-based extinction (not the same as world-based) is a better solution. A group of players could be known for finally driving a certain type of creature out of a certain area for good. What would need to happen then is that another creature (possible comparable, possible more powerful) fills in to take its place. That is what an natural ecosystem would do, so why not do the same thing?
[Edited by - Jerky on August 6, 2007 4:09:08 PM]
We have been toying with an idea that would create MOB AI, to help the extinction problem. If you allow MOBs to have their own levels (or skills), and allow them to level up (or attain higher skills), they adjust themselves to the threats posed. If it were to work perfectly, the players trying to exterminate them would eventually meet their match, since the mobs would eventually become more powerful. This is just a very small overview of the idea we are playing with, but you get the idea. Now, obviously, this introduces many new problems, which I won't address at this time, but you get the gist.
I think another problem is spawn points in general. This is a very exploitable design decision that, frankly, is outdated and needs to have a new technique. New games still using spawn points aren't delving deep enough, imo. I think spawn zones (large areas with randomized "spawns") can work better, but it is still not enough. I think with mob AI, we should also have things like mob dens (like some RTS's have (think Kohan)) could work. Moreover, if things are truly dynamic, mobs could certainly learn how to reproduce in such a way as to create higher leveled (skilled) offspring, also decreasing the chance of extinction.
One of the main problems with trying to create random everything is that the "specialness" can leave, if done improperly. Its something to think about as we design, because we do not want to try and solve one problem and replace it with a new one, which could be worse than the first. If all mobs were unique (even down to the way they were named), recognition across the world (and consequently fame) could be decreased. This is something that players like to have. Even an in-game newspaper telling of great deeds would not help here.
Now, about unique loot. I think that this has been proven to work in games like Diablo, Diablo 2, and more recently Sacred. If drops are classified, but randomized using templates, assuming the number of variables was high enough, there could truly be a large number of unique items, very large. People do seem to like to have unique items. Yes, current MMO's databases aren't designed to be able to handle this, but since we are designing from the ground up, I don't see why we couldn't employ this same idea to MMO's.
<-edit - I was writing when Zouflain did, so didn't notice his response ->
@Zouflain: I think for some of us who are considering truly dynamic worlds, extinction certainly can be an option, and possibly even a good one. It is true though, as you have pointed out, that there are problems with this. IMO, changing spawns to account for population isn't enough. It would be very cool to kill something off and gain fame, but a major problem still remains. If, as I have mentioned briefly, mobs are categorized, we could allow for extinction in certain areas, without wasting content. (The unmentioned problem is thwrowing away content that has been created, which is not a good thing to do). The ways around this are to either do what some games do already, which is to rename your mobs with a new name, maybe tweak the texture and put it in a new location. I think area-based extinction (not the same as world-based) is a better solution. A group of players could be known for finally driving a certain type of creature out of a certain area for good. What would need to happen then is that another creature (possible comparable, possible more powerful) fills in to take its place. That is what an natural ecosystem would do, so why not do the same thing?
[Edited by - Jerky on August 6, 2007 4:09:08 PM]
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement