Well I'd plan for crafting to be a whole game in itself really, but I'd go for a mini game that is a zoom in on a crafting bench or something similar as opposed to a complete scene change.

Also, players will be able to modify stock items without too much investment in the crafting skills so the more combat oriented types can tweak stock weapons or buy player crafted stuff if they want better weaponry etc.

I don't see why crafting has to be "more fun". As someone else said, it'd ruin the economy of a well-built game for everyone to WANT to craft.

Ultima Online's system was great because player-crafted items had the best bang for the buck. Not everyone could stand the work it took to make a quality craftsman, so there was a solid market for the items made by craftsmen. They got their little "made by -" tag on all their weapons, so everyone knows who made that weapon that just tore them a new one.

As most everyone should know, there are 4 types of MMO players: Explorers, Killers, Socializers, and Achievers. Crafting is one of the ultimate Achiever skills, and it had a tinge of Socializer to it for those that wished to camp a blacksmith and repair items for tips.

Quote:Original post by jesot
I don't see why crafting has to be "more fun".

Yeah, I mean, come on, who wants a game to be "more fun"? That'd be like having more money or a girlfriend that's more pretty.

I have to agree with Way Walker, you can never say making aspects of a game more fun that break the current model is a bad thing. You merely have to change the balance of your game, whether this is through decay of items that ultimately leads to their destruction, or other techniques.

The most important thing to consider is that an economy is self regulating. Looking at macro-economics as supply increases, the price falls, and the quantity demanded increases. However if you look at theory of the firm, you'll see that this price can only fall to a certain extent before it is no longer worthwhile for different producers to continue production, which will put them out of business, and the resources (be this investments or man-powered) will be transferred to other activities. Due to the highly competitive nature of many MMORPG economies, it is also highly self-regulating. Thus it becomes incredibly difficult to break the games economic balance, as it will ultimately find its own balance.

So while making crafting more fun could potentially 'break' the model of an already existing MMORPG (though it's very unlikely), you wouldn't have to make many changes in order restore balance. And I would argue that arguing against making the game more fun is possibly the worst decision a game designer could ever make, given that the sole purpose of a game is to entertain.

Quote:Original post by Way Walker

Yeah, I mean, come on, who wants a game to be "more fun"? That'd be like having more money or a girlfriend that's more pretty.

I would say your analogy is flawed. You're implying that having more money automatically equates to greater happiness, and this isn't necessarily true. And, if you're having problems because you feel your girlfriend isn't pretty enough, I have little doubt there's some other, deeper issue(s) with your relationship. If she wasn't pretty enough for you in the first place, how did she become your girlfriend?

Quote:Original post by firemonk3y
And I would argue that arguing against making the game more fun is possibly the worst decision a game designer could ever make, given that the sole purpose of a game is to entertain.

Then, why don't we simply have one game, the one that's the 'most fun'? Fun is subjective. Do you honestly believe designers add elements to a game in order to make it less fun? What one person may perceive as being fun, another is going to hate. If I'm playing a turn-based strategy game, and a portion of the game requires that I play a mini-game with FPS shooter elements, odds are, I'm not going to like it. Maybe I will, but I'll probably just try to get through it as quickly as possible. I'm sure there would be others that agree. On the other hand, people who like that type of game play may find it adds to the appeal of the game. So, did that element add fun to the game?

One of the main problems I feel is plaguing games is the fact that developers *are* trying to make games 'too' fun. That is, they try to make their games fun for as many people as possible, by throwing in as many things as they can. Sure, a few people will like the game in its entirety. But, by having as many opportunities for fun as possible, developers have a better chance of attracting people who like one or more of the included 'fun opportunities' enough that they are willing to slog through those they don't. Should I have to play through parts of a game that I don't enjoy in order to get to those I do? Of course I shouldn't, but as it stands now, I really don't have much of a choice. Well, I guess I don't have to buy any games, and to be honest, I rarely do anymore.

Quote:Original post by derickdong

Quote:Original post by Way Walker

Yeah, I mean, come on, who wants a game to be "more fun"? That'd be like having more money or a girlfriend that's more pretty.

I would say your analogy is flawed. You're implying that having more money automatically equates to greater happiness, and this isn't necessarily true. And, if you're having problems because you feel your girlfriend isn't pretty enough, I have little doubt there's some other, deeper issue(s) with your relationship. If she wasn't pretty enough for you in the first place, how did she become your girlfriend?

So, when you're offered a raise, you say, "I don't see why I need to make more money", and, when your girlfriend gets all prettied up to go out to dinner, you say, "I don't see why you have to be prettier"?

Quote:

Quote:Original post by firemonk3y
And I would argue that arguing against making the game more fun is possibly the worst decision a game designer could ever make, given that the sole purpose of a game is to entertain.

Then, why don't we simply have one game, the one that's the 'most fun'? Fun is subjective. Do you honestly believe designers add elements to a game in order to make it less fun? What one person may perceive as being fun, another is going to hate. If I'm playing a turn-based strategy game, and a portion of the game requires that I play a mini-game with FPS shooter elements, odds are, I'm not going to like it. Maybe I will, but I'll probably just try to get through it as quickly as possible. I'm sure there would be others that agree. On the other hand, people who like that type of game play may find it adds to the appeal of the game. So, did that element add fun to the game?

I would say your example is flawed. If you don't like crafting it's just a matter of "don't do it". Here, we're asking how to make crafting more fun for those who want to be crafters. It'd be like in your example, if the FPS mini-game was optional and we were asking how to make that mini-game more fun for those who like both FPS's and mini-games.

Quote:
One of the main problems I feel is plaguing games is the fact that developers *are* trying to make games 'too' fun. That is, they try to make their games fun for as many people as possible, by throwing in as many things as they can. Sure, a few people will like the game in its entirety. But, by having as many opportunities for fun as possible, developers have a better chance of attracting people who like one or more of the included 'fun opportunities' enough that they are willing to slog through those they don't. Should I have to play through parts of a game that I don't enjoy in order to get to those I do? Of course I shouldn't, but as it stands now, I really don't have much of a choice. Well, I guess I don't have to buy any games, and to be honest, I rarely do anymore.

Again, while this is perhaps good advice, it seems tangential to the actual thread. In part, the question being asked is, "People don't like slogging through crafting, so how can we make it more fun for people who otherwise enjoy our game?". I don't think anyone suggested making crafting more integral to the gameplay in the sense that everyone must do it whether they like it or not (i.e. that those who don't like crafting will have to slog through it).

Also, it was suggested that crafting shouldn't be fun so that people don't want to do it. It was essentially suggested that it should be intentionally boring to keep people from doing it. It was about including "boring opportunities" that few would be willing to slog through in order to get to the parts they enjoy.

When NP-complete problems aren't enough, you can move up to EXPTIME-complete problems. Is there some way to justify including Go as the minigame?