MMOs Need More Bastards
- Thread starter Mike Kayatta
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It's a balance. The stuff that happens on EVE is exciting but with it being very hard to put reliable consequences in the way it can be really hard to balance good and evil. There aren't social or tangible benefits to playing straight and if you do your only going to lose out to those who play evil. Play evil to win is just a more subtle form of lack of choice. The market needs more shades, more in the middle games so that people can find the area that they're happy in
I'm inclined to agree, to an extent... the fact is, having too many bastards in a given game makes it an exercise in frustration, especially if the GUI is prone to being exploited.
Moderation in all things, and all that.
As for Ultima Online, I played a Trinsic fisherman.
That's it. Just a fisherman. Not "and something else". I would sit there on the docks and lazily fish all day, most often selling my catch to the local fisher's guild but also from time to time standing around and shouting "Fish for sale!".
From time to time, a player would walk up and buy something, too. "Dost thou want a fish?" Apparently I acted the part well enough that some folks would type out the shorthand for interacting with an NPC vendor in response.
It wasn't that I had a huge mania on for catching pixellated pisceans, either --- it was mostly because UO was something I could run in a separate window, so I could be surfing the Internet.
And fishing. Hanging out on MUDs. And fishing. Sending an email. And fishing. And so on.
I've always loved the Ultima series, so much so that I didn't feel a huge desire to become one of ten thousand would-be Avatars. Even just being part of the background of that universe was a pleasure in itself.
Moderation in all things, and all that.
As for Ultima Online, I played a Trinsic fisherman.
That's it. Just a fisherman. Not "and something else". I would sit there on the docks and lazily fish all day, most often selling my catch to the local fisher's guild but also from time to time standing around and shouting "Fish for sale!".
From time to time, a player would walk up and buy something, too. "Dost thou want a fish?" Apparently I acted the part well enough that some folks would type out the shorthand for interacting with an NPC vendor in response.
It wasn't that I had a huge mania on for catching pixellated pisceans, either --- it was mostly because UO was something I could run in a separate window, so I could be surfing the Internet.
And fishing. Hanging out on MUDs. And fishing. Sending an email. And fishing. And so on.
I've always loved the Ultima series, so much so that I didn't feel a huge desire to become one of ten thousand would-be Avatars. Even just being part of the background of that universe was a pleasure in itself.
This is the reason I haven't been playing mmos. all the ones I've seen look like wow clones. but I've seen alot of people mention EVE. might be good to check it out.
I think it's a niche market. And I believe that's what the article is talking about, WoW is fine and all, but we need some stuff like this.krellen said:
Anyway, if you combined this and a combat system that didn't suck, I might finally get into MMOS. It's not an MMO, but this was my favorite part of the RDR online, you'd see someone riding towards you at top speed, and you had to decide whether to just shoot them or wait and see if they what their intentions were.
First off, I think you are mistaken with what faction represents the minority and what faction represents the majority. From what I understand, UO was experiencing a downward subscription spiral that continued up until the released Trammel.Mike Kayatta said:
Secondly, your secondary idea is sorta backwards from a business perspective. The vets are a much more secure player base given how much they've invested in the game. The newbies that are getting nowhere in the game are the most likely to leave. Easing their entry into the game is the most important thing the developers can do to foster a larger playerbase. The concept of "love it or leave it" is going to get most of the new players opting for the latter.
The real trouble is, when you make the jerks completely free to do whatever they want whenever they want, you've *destroyed* the freedom of the nice people. So it isn't "people should be free to be jerks and to be nice", but the case is: "when the jerks are free, the nice people AREN'T free."
Ideally, what you'd want to do would be to make functional griefer-avoidance that the player had to actively engage in. Want to search the woods for herbs? Learn the stealth skill. Buy spells that make other players appear highlighted on the mini-map. Avoid the roads. Use the buddy system. The trouble is that instead of putting in this sort of thing, that the player could actively use (and occasionally fail to use), the functionality just got locked out.
I'd like to design an MMO like this some day--a game in which there are *absolutely no NPC's*. However, there would be a small contingent of *paid players* whose job would be to generate conflict. They'd do things like run in-game organizations, hand out quests, start wars with each other. Their purpose would really be to act as the spur and encouragement for other people to do the same.
Ideally, what you'd want to do would be to make functional griefer-avoidance that the player had to actively engage in. Want to search the woods for herbs? Learn the stealth skill. Buy spells that make other players appear highlighted on the mini-map. Avoid the roads. Use the buddy system. The trouble is that instead of putting in this sort of thing, that the player could actively use (and occasionally fail to use), the functionality just got locked out.
I'd like to design an MMO like this some day--a game in which there are *absolutely no NPC's*. However, there would be a small contingent of *paid players* whose job would be to generate conflict. They'd do things like run in-game organizations, hand out quests, start wars with each other. Their purpose would really be to act as the spur and encouragement for other people to do the same.
I partially agree with the article, not with the title, but I think that MMO's need more player interaction, being able to rob or set up bandit camps is a great RP feature (but annoying/cruel as anything), The most player interaction I've heard of is in TOR with the fact that it has story and choices, which is great.
My game was neither UO nor EQ - it was Asheron's Call. It had a hardcore, lawless PvP server. The tales of those who lived on it were truly epic [http://www.schattenkind.com/past-present/history.html]. But - and this is important - the number of players on the PvP server was always very small compared to the populations on any of the eight PvE servers (the balance has changed somewhat in recent years, since the PvP hardcore have stuck with the game while more casual players left). People voted with their wallets. They didn't want to live in a world full of bastards.
I think others have said this well enough that I don't need to belabor it further. I'll just add this; many like to say they want more "freedom" in their MMG, but fewer stick it out when other players with freedom hand them the crap end of the stick.
I'd like to add that UO faced an unenviable choice that I don't believe the article addresses. UO appealed to two very different types of gamer. Under normal circumstances, the two would have never come in contact with one another, but UO was literally the only game in town.
On one hand there were the "bastards" and simulationists who enjoyed the PvP and criminal games. On the other hand were the casuals, socializers, and MUDders who wanted to play The Sims Online before The Sims was a twinkle in Will Wright's eye. They wanted to roleplay, craft, and decorate their houses. They treated the game as a digital Renaissance Faire. Few had much interest in serious fighting, or in having to deal with pickpockets, murderers, and burglars.
In other words, they were sheep. The "bastard" wolves slaughtered them. The sheep started to quit the game, and Origin was left with a fairly clear-cut choice - bet on the wolves and leave things as they were, or bet on the sheep and build a fence to keep the wolves out.
They bet that the sheep would be more reliable and less troublesome customers. Purely from a revenue/numbers perspective, I find it difficult to dispute that judgment. The wolves were fenced off. They could still prey on each other if they wished.
Though the hardcore continue to bemoan Trammel, I submit that it kept UO relevant and profitable for many more years than it would have if Renaissance had never been released.
I think others have said this well enough that I don't need to belabor it further. I'll just add this; many like to say they want more "freedom" in their MMG, but fewer stick it out when other players with freedom hand them the crap end of the stick.
I'd like to add that UO faced an unenviable choice that I don't believe the article addresses. UO appealed to two very different types of gamer. Under normal circumstances, the two would have never come in contact with one another, but UO was literally the only game in town.
On one hand there were the "bastards" and simulationists who enjoyed the PvP and criminal games. On the other hand were the casuals, socializers, and MUDders who wanted to play The Sims Online before The Sims was a twinkle in Will Wright's eye. They wanted to roleplay, craft, and decorate their houses. They treated the game as a digital Renaissance Faire. Few had much interest in serious fighting, or in having to deal with pickpockets, murderers, and burglars.
In other words, they were sheep. The "bastard" wolves slaughtered them. The sheep started to quit the game, and Origin was left with a fairly clear-cut choice - bet on the wolves and leave things as they were, or bet on the sheep and build a fence to keep the wolves out.
They bet that the sheep would be more reliable and less troublesome customers. Purely from a revenue/numbers perspective, I find it difficult to dispute that judgment. The wolves were fenced off. They could still prey on each other if they wished.
Though the hardcore continue to bemoan Trammel, I submit that it kept UO relevant and profitable for many more years than it would have if Renaissance had never been released.
Look man, every game is "love it or leave it." When a dev makes something like Call of Duty, some players complain, some don't, but in the end it is what it is. MMOs have the weird quality of being malleable once already released. Because of that, they change too often. Do your design and philosophy on the front end, not after the whiner brigade beats down your door. Just my opinion anyway...kodra said:
I do agree that I miss the sense of conflict that could be inflicted onto me. However I kind of wish that it didn't have the be the player base threatening itself for excitement, but instead the AI of the world looking to mess the player's day up. This is one of the major reasons I am looking forward to Guild Wars 2. One of the game's major draws is that most settlements in the game can be attacked by whatever form of bandits or monsters infesting the area and unless the player base intervenes, the said settlements will fall and then players will need to work on reclaiming it. This isn't as good as it could be of course, but it's still a step in a direction of working back to MMO's more representing a human world, rather than one while not missing its teeth and claws, is muzzled and filed down.
eh not sure if i'd like that i mean.. i allready get annoyed how much griefing and general dickery goes in in a regulated enviroment.. and then in a less regulated one.... yuck..
but the thieving bit would be interesting
but the thieving bit would be interesting
I don't understand the realism argument here. The "being a jerk" things people want to be able to do in games, but are prevented from doing, are generally offenses that would result in incarceration or some form of corporal punishment once proven guilty, depending on the time period and culture from which you harvest the laws.