Does anyone want to talk about MMORPG design?
Author
Good forum users,
Recently I posted an extremely lengthy paper on a topic I thought had been insufficiently covered: dealing with players who abuse massively multiplayer online RPGs through better game design. If you scroll down, I believe it is still visible at the time of this current post.
I got no feedback whatsoever. No praise, no flames, no counterarguments, nothing.
Has this topic just been rehashed so many times that people have become tired of telling new users to "refer to previous posts"? Or was my post just so long that nobody wanted to read the whole thing?
If you don't want to respond to that post, please respond to this one. Is anyone interested in this topic? Would multiple posts, each covering a different aspect, work better than one long paper? Should I shut my yap and go to the archives, to learn from my predecessors, or are my ideas so revolutionary they leave everyone speechless?
Honestly folks, I just want a little feedback. Thanks in advance.
You can't have "civilization" without "civil".
Edited by - SpittingTrashcan on November 16, 2001 1:41:38 AM
It was too long for me. Felt like you weren''t sure exactly what you wanted to discuss. Break it up and introduce the general topic, and successively deal with and refine each in order.
Yeah, maybe several threads would be better...
Yeah, maybe several threads would be better...
I read it, it was interesting. I didn''t have anything to say, because it pretty much seemed like you''d covered it all.
All your bases belong to us (I know. It''s irony.)
All your bases belong to us (I know. It''s irony.)
I read the post and found it interesting.
In one developing game I''m following - Adellion - there will be perma-death. Your character has two near misses but the thirds time he''s dead. In that sort of environment the DDI is unlikely to flourish.
In the game I''m helping to develop - www.star-fortress.com - we haven''t come to any conclusion but are unlikely to have perma death. Obviously we need to deal with DDIs but it''s very early days yet.
In one developing game I''m following - Adellion - there will be perma-death. Your character has two near misses but the thirds time he''s dead. In that sort of environment the DDI is unlikely to flourish.
In the game I''m helping to develop - www.star-fortress.com - we haven''t come to any conclusion but are unlikely to have perma death. Obviously we need to deal with DDIs but it''s very early days yet.
CRYDEE:
That''s my personal solution as well: Permanent Death.
I think a well instituted permanent death system is THE solution to grief player syndrome.
But... how to design a functional Permanent Death system is another dilemma.
That''s my personal solution as well: Permanent Death.
I think a well instituted permanent death system is THE solution to grief player syndrome.
But... how to design a functional Permanent Death system is another dilemma.
I agree with Oluseyi in that it was rather long but I read it throughly. I for one believed that you covered all that there was to be said about the general MMORPG and DDIs. Was a very good article I think.
hmmm... just a quick idea:
perhaps you could keep track of how much a character is used for annoying other players (whether it is based on complaints, number of bounties in lifetime, a general "karma" value that changes when the player either kills in a town or helps hunt down a bounty, etc), and the better this value, the less likely a death will be permanent.
it needs a lot of work for the details, but do you see what i mean? grief players would be more likely to perma-die on their third death, whereas players who obeyed society''s rules would get an extra chance or two.
--- krez (krezisback@aol.com)
perhaps you could keep track of how much a character is used for annoying other players (whether it is based on complaints, number of bounties in lifetime, a general "karma" value that changes when the player either kills in a town or helps hunt down a bounty, etc), and the better this value, the less likely a death will be permanent.
it needs a lot of work for the details, but do you see what i mean? grief players would be more likely to perma-die on their third death, whereas players who obeyed society''s rules would get an extra chance or two.
--- krez (krezisback@aol.com)
The perm death thing is a big iffy, let me explain my view. Most role playing games take months and months to build up your character. Usually one wont keep playing your game if their months of work on their character comes to a halt because of a perm death. While the ideas of EverQuest ( the higher the level you get the longer your corpse stays in the "world") are excellent. Yet that is their way they wish to handle death. I''m just trying to get to the point of saying a perm death in a MMORPG is a bit strong. Depending on how long it takes to build up. ( Took me 11 months to get my character on everquest from level one to fifty nine --- would hate it to die and have it be a perm death --- I would go nuts 
- )
- )
I agree with the Anonymous Post above about Everquest. I have to redevelop a character over wouldn''t be fun if it takes a long time to reach a certain level. Also, players wouldn''t take chances if they knew they would permanently die.
I say, only allow grief players die permanently. I''m not sure how you would determine who these players are though. If they cast any neutral or offensive spell on another character, flag them as a grief/pk player. If they get killed in the battle, make it a permanent death.
Also, I don''t like the Everquest system for items. If someone dies, they should have the risk of losing their stuff. I liked UO version of the death system.
One more thing, I think pks are an exciting part to any game. In UO, one of the interesting part of playing was the worry that someone might try to kill you. When you ran into a room with a bunch of people, you got a bit worried. I''m not talking about the lame pkers that trap a doorway or portal and you die instantly.
I say, only allow grief players die permanently. I''m not sure how you would determine who these players are though. If they cast any neutral or offensive spell on another character, flag them as a grief/pk player. If they get killed in the battle, make it a permanent death.
Also, I don''t like the Everquest system for items. If someone dies, they should have the risk of losing their stuff. I liked UO version of the death system.
One more thing, I think pks are an exciting part to any game. In UO, one of the interesting part of playing was the worry that someone might try to kill you. When you ran into a room with a bunch of people, you got a bit worried. I''m not talking about the lame pkers that trap a doorway or portal and you die instantly.
While you did bring up some good points in your earlier writing, you also wrote a paper. I found it hard to read, (especially hard to skim through, if I found a particular section boring) and so just wasn''t interested in delving deep enough to offer a decent reply.
I think the best solutions are the ones that fit the world. If the game consists of little fronteer cities, then yes, the strong can go running over people. If the game consists of large governments, then they can have a system of laws that the player must deal with.
And, then, at the root of the problem, no one has really come up with a good solution for human nature yet.
I think the best solutions are the ones that fit the world. If the game consists of little fronteer cities, then yes, the strong can go running over people. If the game consists of large governments, then they can have a system of laws that the player must deal with.
And, then, at the root of the problem, no one has really come up with a good solution for human nature yet.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement