×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

ArenaNet's MMO Design Manifesto

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the not-the-crazy-person-kind dept.

Role Playing (Games) 178

An anonymous reader writes "ArenaNet studio head Mike O'Brien has posted his vision for a new type of MMORPG, which they used in developing Guild Wars 2. Quoting: 'MMOs are social games. So why do they sometimes seem to work so hard to punish you for playing with other players? If I'm out hunting and another player walks by, shouldn't I welcome his help, rather than worrying that he's going to steal my kills or consume all the mobs I wanted to kill? ... [In Guild Wars 2], when someone kills a monster, not just that player's party but everyone who was seriously involved in the fight gets 100% of the XP and loot for the kill. When an event is happening in the world – when the bandits are terrorizing a village – everyone in the area has the same motivation, and when the event ends, everyone gets rewarded.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

178 comments

Yeah, but.... (2, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 3 years ago | (#32011054)

Yeah, but he doesn't realize how fun it is to kill someone. Take out that possibility and you take away some fun. I can see adding consequences to killing someone (or even taking it out of some games), but to say it should NEVER happen in any game is silly.

Re:Yeah, but.... (4, Insightful)

Wildclaw (15718) | more than 3 years ago | (#32011216)

Yeah, but he doesn't realize how fun it is to kill someone. Take out that possibility and you take away some fun.

Only a small minority thinks it is fun to kill people in uncontrolled world PvP. And game developers generally don't care about that minority, as they cause other customers (the ones gang banged) to stop playing their game.

PvP is much better done as optional addon in controlled environments where all sides are fighting on even and clear terms. The idea of free world PvP is an antique that only ever satisfied griefers and the occasional masochist.

Re:Yeah, but.... (4, Interesting)

Barny (103770) | more than 3 years ago | (#32011290)

The idea of free world PvP is an antique that only ever satisfied griefers and the occasional masochist.

Yeah, you just summed up the entire eve player base very very succinctly :)

Re:Yeah, but.... (3, Insightful)

Wildclaw (15718) | more than 3 years ago | (#32011452)

Yeah, you just summed up the entire eve player base very very succinctly :)

And the reason for the success of EVE is exactly because it aims to satisfy a very specific minority. :)

So using the word antique in my original post was perhaps an exaggeration. It is more a matter of what client group you aim at. I would however be very surprised to see any new high value production aimed at world PvP. At least any western production. I know that Asia seems to have a generally different mindset around the whole PvP subject.

The what of Even? (3, Interesting)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 3 years ago | (#32011926)

Eve is tiny, on any chart it rides the bottom. Oh, it gets a LOT of attention but that is in no relation to its financial success.

Most MMO's aspire to higher subscription ratings with 1 million being considered the line between success and an "also ran".

I always find it amusing to see PK and PvP and twitch fans scream that their genre's are OH SO POPULAR and yet not a single game that gives them what they want is a success. Odd that. Why are PK and PvP and Twitch fans not playing the games aimed at them?

Meanwhile, the closest to WoW is Lotro and that is a distinct PvE game of the old mold.

It is like saying people LOVE FPS, when Quake sells 10 copies. The figures would not support the claims.

Re:The what of Even? (1)

thoth (7907) | more than 3 years ago | (#32013942)

I always find it amusing to see PK and PvP and twitch fans scream that their genre's are OH SO POPULAR and yet not a single game that gives them what they want is a success. Odd that

No kidding... you'd think, if PvP was so hugely popular, there would be more games catering specifically to it. Instead we have what, Darkfall? Shadowbane (now defunct)? EVE Online? Maybe Warhammer? Guild Wars itself has the "fairest" PvP system, but it is only in controlled environments, not world.

Re:The what of Even? (2, Interesting)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#32014486)

Most MMO's aspire to higher subscription ratings with 1 million being considered the line between success and an "also ran".

That's where EVE played it differently and were still very successful. They didn't NEED a million subscribers to make a good profit off of supporting their product for a lengthy period of time. They just built their market around the ability to buy additional time codes and sell them in game for in game money.

Essentially, they've diverted the money that would be flooded to chinese farmers back into their own pockets.

Re:Yeah, but.... (1)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 3 years ago | (#32012044)

EVE did it right insofar as it gave you ample techniques to avoid unwanted PvP. When I was still playing, I was dwelling in deep 0.0, but did only engage in PvP about once per month tops. I usually hauled stuff around making my life as a trader. Carefully played, the chance that you get ganked is very low. I actually liked the threat of PvP and the measures I had to take to get around safely, while not being particularily fond of PvP itself.

Re:Yeah, but.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32013390)

Hehe...I like eve...though you are correct on that count....gruefers and thier ilk make it hard for others to enjoy stuff...like flying cool ships they spent 6 months learning to fly and outfit

Re:Yeah, but.... (2, Interesting)

justinlee37 (993373) | more than 3 years ago | (#32011314)

Free world PVP also satisfied social gamers. Part of the game is generating and organizing a large social network. If you want to be safe from attack, you need to be bigger and more organized than the next guy. You need military equipment, training and organization. This is how warfare works in the real world and when it works that way in an MMO, it can be fun.

When you have "arena" PVP where the teams are automatically generated by the game itself, it removes the social part of the game. The part of the game where you have to network with other people and organize an army to take control of the free world PVP situation. You might even organize a blockade of critical end-game zones or a siege of a starting city.

EVE online has this sort of spontaneous organization amongst players who are attempting to succeed in free world PVP and obviously the game is quite successful with a niche group at least.

Personally, I love the freedom of free world PVP. In fact, I'd love to play a game with free world PVP and permanent character death ... hardcore Diablo 2 on battle.net was one of the most satisfying experiences ever.

Re:Yeah, but.... (1)

Bakkster (1529253) | more than 3 years ago | (#32012340)

When you have "arena" PVP where the teams are automatically generated by the game itself, it removes the social part of the game.

In this case, Guild Wars had random arenas (no need to form a team), team arenas (form a group of 4), faction arenas (form a group of 4, team up with two other groups for 12v12), and guild combat (8v8 guild teams).

Re:Yeah, but.... (1)

MartinSchou (1360093) | more than 3 years ago | (#32012464)

Personally, I love the freedom of free world PVP. In fact, I'd love to play a game with free world PVP and permanent character death ... hardcore Diablo 2 on battle.net was one of the most satisfying experiences ever.

That is somewhat entertaining, but Diablo 2 suffers from the typical problem plaguing these kinds of games: Invulnerability.

If you're a high enough level, you are essentially invulnerable to anything below a certain level. That's boring and quite frankly silly.

While you can find that in modern warfare (Amazon Indians would be helpless against an Aircraft carrier), it doesn't hold up in infantry battles (which is what pretty much all RPGs simulate). Doesn't matter how well you equip your infantry (apart from armoured vehicles), if you make them do nothing for an hour against an enemy that massively outnumber them, they'll take massive losses. Yet in RPGs you can leave the computer for an hour after walking into the middle of a stronghold of low level enemies.

Re:Yeah, but.... (1)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 3 years ago | (#32012592)

Part of the game is generating and organizing a large social network. If you want to be safe from attack, you need to be bigger and more organized than the next guy.

That sounds a bit like school yard bullying (and, worryingly, international diplomacy). "The only way to be safe is to spend time ganging up against everyone else, and you need to watch your back the whole time". Or you could, you know, go for fun and entertainment without the "I may be in the strongest group, but what if they turn against me?" paranoia.

Re:Yeah, but.... (0, Flamebait)

stonewallred (1465497) | more than 3 years ago | (#32011374)

WoW carebear server I assume. I actually have rerolled toons on Cho'Gall Alliance side just because it is 30:1 horde to Alliance population. Some people like hardmodes.

Re:Yeah, but.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32011402)

If your PVPing on Wow you are the VERY definition of a carebear player. That game has never had any real pvp.

Re:Yeah, but.... (0, Offtopic)

stonewallred (1465497) | more than 3 years ago | (#32011798)

I disagree. It does not have twitchy PvP, which relies more on reflexes and latency than skills or gear for wins. But I dare say the arena tournament realms are not carebear by any measure. And feel free to come play on Cho'Gall as an Alliance toon. When you have more horde in SW or IF than Alliance, when a /who will at times show fewer than 8 Alliance toons on the realm, and a WG win is a rare, rare thing, we'll see you QQing all the way back home. Of course I am biased, as I find the idea of PvE grindfests to be abhorrent and boring. When they implemented XP on BGs, I level every toon that way now, except for gear runs through instances and grinding for rep. Why play against a pre-programmed mob, when I can match up against a real person? I an only say AC I am replying to is a n00b scrub that can't get an arena rating over 1500 or win a BG.

Re:Yeah, but.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32012056)

I'd feel cheated when wast and mighty MMO WoW offers shriveled little sandboxes called Arenas as their core content for many PvP players.

Don't you feel it? Step back from WoW for a second and look at it objectively. Is WoW PvP really that good? 3-5 player teams in tiny little boxes fighting against each other for no reason in a world that was supposed to be in constant war?

Sure arena is hard but that isn't the problem. The problem is: WoW arena sucks compared to most other hard multiplayer games in existence, and especially compared to what WoW was supposed to be: _massively multiplayer_ battles for resources. Not puny 3v3, 5v5 team deathmatches.

5v5 does not mmo make, buddy.

Re:Yeah, but.... (1)

Zediker (885207) | more than 3 years ago | (#32012222)

well, thats just the arenas. the BGs are 10,15,20,40ish players i believe. So thats fairly involved.

WoW isn't a PVP game (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32011788)

All the changes affecting world PVP in WoW have been _away_ from PvP.

Moved battlemasters to cities -> No BG entrance PvP anymore. (eg. Tarren Mill vs South Shore)
Flying mounts -> Opposing faction players don't meet each other anymore as everyone flies on _mostly dismount immune_ mounts.
Flagged PVP zones even on PVP servers. -> No PVP unless both want it.
Sancturay zones on neutral cities like Dalaran, Sathrath. -> No PvP.
Overkill, quickly respawning guards in neutral villages + dura penalty when killed by one. -> No PvP.

And probably many others I don't remember anymore. One would expect such limits on MMO PvE servers only, but with WoW these limits are on PvP servers!

Re:Yeah, but.... (1)

Admiral Ag (829695) | more than 3 years ago | (#32011772)

My way of putting it is that some people are dumb enough to want an MMO to be a war simulation, overlooking the facts that: (1) War is generally anything but fun; and (2) any game has to have sufficient motivation for the losers to keep playing, or it will eventually end.

PvP could be different - current designs are bad. (1, Insightful)

PMBjornerud (947233) | more than 3 years ago | (#32012026)

Only a small minority thinks it is fun to kill people in uncontrolled world PvP.

But why is that?

Because they implemented PvP wrong.

Being invaded and killed could have been a thrilling experience. What makes it utterly dull for most people is that your options seems to be:
A) Respawn and die again.
B) Log out.

Imagine a game where lowlevel players that are killed in their home areas would be conscripted as local militia and set to control siege-like defensive installations. Instead of being spawnraped, the lowlevels getting killed would be given immense power - but limited in time and only usable to fight off the invaders.

It's all about creating win/win situations. A lot of people dislike PvP because it turns into repetetive, frustrating gameplay.

That is a design issue.

So forcing it upon them makes it better? (4, Insightful)

Moraelin (679338) | more than 3 years ago | (#32012434)

The fact is that nevertheless some of us don't want to have anything to do with PvP at all. It's not a question of feeling stronger or weaker, it's simply a question of it not being what I want to do in a game. Conscripting me into some group that _has_ to do PvP is just going to piss me off more and make me cancel the subscription.

That's the kind of solution that presumes that everyone else too is a complexed idiot who's just there to feel powerful by ganking someone weaker. Some of us play for entirely different goals and reasons, though.

Re:So forcing it upon them makes it better? (1)

stonewallred (1465497) | more than 3 years ago | (#32012860)

So if you play WoW, play on a PvE server. There are probably not 10 things between lvl 1 to 80 that will force you to PvP flag, and they are all voluntary. What sucks about WoW is that I have to PvE if I want BiS items. Most PvE gear is better than PvP gear. I don't gank except on Cho'Gall. There the rule is red = dead. On the PvE servers, unless you are bothering me and are flagged, I ignore lowbies, excepting horde lowbies bothering Alliance lowbies.

Re:So forcing it upon them makes it better? (1)

Moraelin (679338) | more than 3 years ago | (#32013980)

Oh, nothing against the way WoW implemented it. What I was ranting against was the whole idea of being shanghaied into a PvP minigame, as advocated by the post I was answering to.

Re:PvP could be different - current designs are ba (2, Insightful)

Aceticon (140883) | more than 3 years ago | (#32012688)

I think the issue that the GP pointed was uncontrolled PvP environment.

What you describe is actually a controlled PvP environment.

Re:PvP could be different - current designs are ba (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32012824)

And how many of those previously killed, now slaves to the overlords are going to want to keep playing and PAYING. I for one would just delete character and start over so I wasn't stuck as a conscript. The other problem with free-world PvP is that it is hard for new players to level and get any of the good stuff because all the veterans are killing them off.

What would be a reasonable PVP design change is that, if you killed a character in a controlled area (much like EVE secure areas) the killer would be caught, locked up and put in a penalty box for days or weeks (years game time) for murder. Or - as in EVE, the character is just killed - to respawn and start over. Wilderness areas (non-secure) would be much like EVE 0-security areas - venture there and you better be able to defend yourself or accept the consequences.

Re:PvP could be different - current designs are ba (4, Insightful)

edremy (36408) | more than 3 years ago | (#32013210)

Actually, the PvP issue is a lot more fundamental than you think.

Why does ganking exist? Because the penalties for losing are so *low*. Unrestricted PvP works in Eve (and I'd argue, pretty much only in EvE) because there are serious penalties. Lose a major ship, lose training time- it can take a while for things to get back to where you were. Even the gankers realize this, and avoid combat unless they know they are going to win, and they realize the guy may well be back with friends to stomp them into the ground.

Compare this to something like WoW. What's the penalty for dying? Running back to your corpse. Even in something like Darkfall with full looting you just have people run around naked, since there's no real penalty for dying otherwise.

Imagine a PVP game where dying killed your character dead. No resurrection. Of if that's too harsh, perhaps losing 5 levels as well as giving the keys to your bank to your slayer, or having the character lock out for a month. Or perhaps having every guard in every town on the continent kill you on sight? You think people would randomly attack strangers? Ganking would vanish in a heartbeat. You'd probably end up with a feudal system very quickly, where everyone was in one of a few massive guilds that would issue kill on sight orders for anyone that harmed one of their own- this may not be what the designers/players want, but it would work. Make losing hurt and the ganking issue solves itself

Re:PvP could be different - current designs are ba (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#32014428)

Imagine a PVP game where dying killed your character dead. No resurrection. Of if that's too harsh, perhaps losing 5 levels as well as giving the keys to your bank to your slayer, or having the character lock out for a month. Or perhaps having every guard in every town on the continent kill you on sight? You think people would randomly attack strangers? Ganking would vanish in a heartbeat. You'd probably end up with a feudal system very quickly, where everyone was in one of a few massive guilds that would issue kill on sight orders for anyone that harmed one of their own- this may not be what the designers/players want, but it would work. Make losing hurt and the ganking issue solves itself

And you can also imagine that this game will be just as destitute in players as Darkfall. The vast majority of people aren't going to want to play that.

Re:Yeah, but.... (1)

mwsw (1011777) | more than 3 years ago | (#32012172)

Perhaps it's true that only a small minority enjoys killing someone in uncontrolled PVP (although I'm not convinced of that) but I get the distinct impression that the people who do enjoy that activity, usually have playing habits that are more 'hardcore' than the so called carebears (in terms of time spent playing, etc.). While this isn't always the case, in some business models the hardcore group sends a lot more cash to the MMO.

Moreso, one can argue that a lot more than a minority enjoys uncontrolled PVP, but that part of those people is scared away by the possibility of losing, both for losing their ingame items/status, or for tasting the bitter shame of defeat after the same guy killed you three times in a row. While the adrenaline rush you get after killing someone can be very powerful, the frustration after being killed can be too.

Re:Yeah, but.... (1)

loufoque (1400831) | more than 3 years ago | (#32012906)

Only a small minority thinks it is fun to kill people in uncontrolled world PvP.

It's not a matter of fun.
The rules of the world should be the same for every entity in the world: be them players, monsters or NPCs. If players are different from the rest of the world, then they're not really part of it.

You should be able to kill a player just as well as a monster. To avoid bullying, you just need to have some kind of police force (probably NPCs, note they should still be killable) that maintains order and that sanctions murderers.

Re:Yeah, but.... (1)

Beezlebub33 (1220368) | more than 3 years ago | (#32013384)

The problems with this are:

1. level separation. There is no way for a bunch of lower level players to kill a higher level player (if the separation is enough, say 10 or 15 levels). Outside of a city where the NPCs are, the only defense is to group up, and after a couple levels, it just doesn't matter. So the higher level ganker is immune to any attack and the lower levels can either log out or continue dying.

2. No long term negative effect of ganking. A high level character that goes around and kills lots of lower levels should get a bad reputation. They should get a price on their head, where even higher level players can kill them for extra credit / reputation. And maybe their own guards will kill them for the money. And the stench of being a ganker should stick around for a while. If its an even fight, then fine, but other than banning high levels from killing lower levels, then some sort of other social effect needs to take place.

Re:Yeah, but.... (1)

thoth (7907) | more than 3 years ago | (#32013826)

Only a small minority thinks it is fun to kill people in uncontrolled world PvP.

I've never understood world PvP (uncontrolled) in an MMORPG. You have level imbalances (one side might be significantly higher level than the other), class imbalances (always an issue in one-on-one or small groups), gear/equipment imbalances (a staple of these games is the loot), and numbers imbalances (one side significantly outnumbers the other side). Mix this in a cauldron and you get crap stew for gameplay.

I can see controlled PvP, along the lines of WoW's battlegrounds, or GW's alliance battles. At least there you have some attempt at throttling levels and numbers. GW goes further and basically makes a flat level and gear/equipment playing field as well.

If I want fun in uncontrolled PvP I'd play a different type of game altogether, a FPS or MMOFPS. At least there gear/weapon upgrades are available on the field of battle, levels go away, classes go away, and number imbalances could be part of the challenge/fun - defending a chokehold or fort against an onslaught.

But in an RPG? It has sucked in every game I've played, I think it just fundamentally appeals to a different (minority) audience altogether. With the imbalances listed above, many fights are effectively impossible for one side to win.

Re:Yeah, but.... (-1, Redundant)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 3 years ago | (#32011220)

He never really says that. He's talking about killing mobs together. In existing games you always get less XP or level slower if you're playing in a party, and if you happen to be in the same area you can't just join them in a fight. If another player has already pulled the mob, you won't get any XP or rewards for helping to kill it.

Besides, joining a party with other unknown players isn't as easy as it should be. Currently you have to ask them to invite you to their party and if they have the same quests you have, you know, actually talk with people instead of just joining the fight.

Re:Yeah, but.... (1)

Bakkster (1529253) | more than 3 years ago | (#32012370)

He never really says that. He's talking about killing mobs together. In existing games you always get less XP or level slower if you're playing in a party, and if you happen to be in the same area you can't just join them in a fight. If another player has already pulled the mob, you won't get any XP or rewards for helping to kill it.

Actually, the problem goes the other way around. If you've pulled a mob and somebody else joins the fight to kill it, you get less experience. This makes players in the open areas avoid each other, killing the social aspect. It seems Arena Net is trying to encourage ad-hoc parties both through removing that disincentive, and by providing events which require large groups.

Re:Yeah, but.... (1)

kodr (1777678) | more than 3 years ago | (#32011288)

Where did you read you can't kill someone ?
You can PvP in GuildWars 1. Guild Wars 2 will also have that and more, with large scale battle in World PvP.
Do you mean PK ?

To each their own (4, Insightful)

Moraelin (679338) | more than 3 years ago | (#32011576)

To each their own. I realize that some people thrive on ganking and being an ass, but then a lot of people don't. And each game can choose their own niche, and decide if they want to cater to one category at the expense of losing another.

The griefer segment is kind of an easy choice, though, since you mention taking it to the point where you're trying to get people out of the game. A single unchecked griefer can lose them a hundred subscription of other people, so basically they're actually losing money by catering to those. They're not any sleep if you leave for lack of that kind of fun.

But, at any rate, each dev team and publisher ultimately makes choices to cater to market A at the expense of market B. E.g., Blizzard chose to cater to the medieval fantasy fans, at the expense of being less fun for some of us who'd have preferred a good SF MMO. (Say, World Of Starcraft;) E.g., they chose to have guns and explosives and helicopters, which actually was at the expense of losing some purists who'd have preferred a more Dark Ages kinda setting where the highest tech is maybe a crossbow. (Heck, much as I'm otherwise for SF, I'd prefer to keep medieval stuff medieval, if it had to be medieval in the first place.) E.g., they chose to have no xp penalty for death, even though that made some people cry bloody murder. E.g., they chose to have cartoonish graphics, even though for some people it causes them to cancel the subscription. Heck, it's still the #1 stated reason for not playing WoW. E.g., they chose to have separate servers, which some of us like, but then it made the fans of a more Guild Wars style instancing say it sucks. Etc.

Ultimately you can't please everyone. To make player group X happier, you have to make player group Y unhappier. You get to choose which group you want more.

E.g., to make medieval fantasy fans happier, you have to make strictly SF fans a lot less interested in the game. And, again, you can't please everyone. You can't make a game that's high fantasy with elves and horses _and_ SF with warp drives and tricorders, because you'll just annoy both groups instead of catering to both. (Though using SF as a backstory for a medieval game sometimes works.)

To some extent you can try to give group Y something else to do. But sometimes it's not easy to reconcile. You can't give griefers something else to do, because they need those unwilling victims. At some point you just have to just let go of group Y.

Re:To each their own (1)

Admiral Ag (829695) | more than 3 years ago | (#32011828)

You don't have to cater to one or the other. It is possible to design a game that appeals to both. The obvious solution is to turn griefing behaviour from a liability into a boon.

Allowing griefers to play as outlaw characters at a certain cost (that cost being whatever it takes to make sure that it remains a minority activity, and ought to vary according to supply and demand) and providing incentives for law abiding players to hunt them down gives both parties what they want. The griefer gets to annoy people and gain a reputation as a badass. Everyone else gets to hunt him down for fun and money.

After all what's a fantasy setting without brigands and sadists to provide some colour? The game designer's only thought should be making sure that brigandage serves the world and does not ruin it.

Still doesn't work (3, Insightful)

Moraelin (679338) | more than 3 years ago | (#32011932)

The obvious problem is that if everyone else actually liked hunting someone down in PvP, they'd already be on a PvP server anyway. You're proposing a system which basically asks some people to play the game how they don't like it, and not pursue the goals _they_ want, just to give some sad loser the attention he craves.

I suggest you start with reading Bartle's paper.

The achiever segment (those who'll just have to have more gold and reputation) and the killer segment are actually very distinct categories and natural enemies. They like different things in a game, play for different goals, and both tend to despise each other. Asking an achiever to play a killer role in that pose isn't giving him fun stuff to do, it's trying to convince him to do unfun (for him) stuff and ultimately conclude that the game sucks (he hasn't been doing what he likes, after all) and leave. It's akin to trying to make some gazelles hunt lions. Even if they could, they're not going to enjoy it.

It also does nothing whatsoever for the other categories. The socializers aren't even going to be motivated by that gold and fame to take a role they despise. The explorers won't find anything to discover in it either.

So essentially all that would happen is that some killers might be convinced to play with other killers... but that's something that's not much fun for them. Unwilling victims are where their fun is at.

And in the process you gave both free hand to ruin everyone else's fun.

Besides, the "player run justice" idiocy has been done to death before, and never worked. Letting the players deal with "bandits" so you don't have to, has been not just tried and failed on UO, it's been the holy grail on MUDs too and it failed abjectly there each time. As Benjamin Franklin once said, "Madness is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result." I fail to see why an experiment which failed every single time before, should be hailed as _the_ solution that'll work this time.

And finally, well, I've heard the "provide some colour" excuse before. And the "I can't RP if I can't gank" and the "it's unrealistic" and "without someone ganking them those players will lack a challenge and leave in droves!!!!11eleventeen" In my brief days of coding for a MUD, you'd be surprised how many people felt a need to whine about why they should be allowed to drive others off the game, and how limited a repertoire of excuses they had.

In the end it's a non-sequitur. What matters isn't "colour" for its own sake. Nor "realism", nor "challenge", nor "RP" for their own sakes, for that matter. What matters is whether enough players like it or not. If the larger mass doesn't, well, take your colour somewhere else, really.

Re:Still doesn't work (-1, Troll)

Admiral Ag (829695) | more than 3 years ago | (#32012082)

Many griefers want to be the famous badass, so I just don't buy it.

And past experience is not much of a guide, since there hasn't been a decently designed MMO yet. They tend to be designed by the socially inept, or by people with libertarian beliefs (in other words, mainly Americans). Too much thought is put into combat mechanics and not enough into social mechanics.

Re:Still doesn't work (1)

Moraelin (679338) | more than 3 years ago | (#32012240)

Oh, that griefers want to be famous badasses isn't what I'm disputing. What I'm saying is that for the badass-vs-posse scenario you've proposed, someone has to play the posse. And it's there I'm seeing a problem. Most people don't want to play a posse to start with. And most people couldn't give a damn that there's a posse somewhere, when they're still getting their open instance event ruined by a jackass. That someone will then go and play cops-and-robbers with the jackass doesn't really do anything for them.

Re:Still doesn't work (3, Insightful)

Golden_Rider (137548) | more than 3 years ago | (#32012788)

Oh, that griefers want to be famous badasses isn't what I'm disputing. What I'm saying is that for the badass-vs-posse scenario you've proposed, someone has to play the posse. And it's there I'm seeing a problem. Most people don't want to play a posse to start with. And most people couldn't give a damn that there's a posse somewhere, when they're still getting their open instance event ruined by a jackass. That someone will then go and play cops-and-robbers with the jackass doesn't really do anything for them.

Exactly, that is 100% the problem. The problem in creating a game which makes both griefers and non-pvp players happy is that any "incentive" for the non-pvp players to willingly go hunt down the griefer simply does not exist. Because hunting down the griefer would involve something the non-pvp players by definition do not want to do: pvp. If I log on and look forward to partying with my friends and xping in the dungeon of ultimate doom, I do not want to interrupt that to go hunt down some griefer for an hour. Not even if I get some reward for it. Simply because that is not what I wanted to do that evening. Even with some incentive for killing that bastard, he STILL managed to impose his way of playing the game onto me and forced me to do something I did not want to do. And if that happens too often, the non-pvp players will not find the game entertaining anymore and leave, causing the griefer to leave, too (because there are not enough victims anymore). That's why most western MMO with completely open pvp either fail or stay at low subscriber numbers. Not because the designers suck and cannot find a good system of making pvp players and non-pvp players both happy, but because it is not possible.

Also, there seems to be a problem with western gamers mentality. If you CAN do something (e.g. stand outside a newbie town with your uber char and simply kill anybody for hours who wants to go kill his lvl 1 mobs), someone WILL do it. You would not find something like that on e.g. Korean servers.

To those above who commented that "games with open pvp are a success in Korea" - consider e.g. Lineage 2 - a niche game with completely open pvp here on our western servers, and a huge success with millions of players in Korea. Here on the western servers you will find all kinds of griefers, gankers, whatever type lowlife you look for, you will find it. On the Korean servers, people are helpful, pve together in peace, party up with people from other clans and usually ONLY pvp during announced siege times. This seems to be because most players there play in internet cafes, so you cannot hide behind your online anonymity, and you usually also have others watching your screen over your shoulders, commenting on what you do. That simply works as some kind of "control". If you were to go and grief other players, it would not be unlikely to have your RL name on some messageboard soon afterwards, and somebody might come around to punch you in the face. So it's not that the players in Korea like open pvp more than us western players, it's that in Korea there is some kind of self-control, while around here in Europe/US, players can hide behind their online anonymity - and so the Korean games can get away with pvp rulesets which would lead to endless griefing if they had western players.

Re:Still doesn't work (1)

stonewallred (1465497) | more than 3 years ago | (#32012926)

PvE servers with PvP flagging. That way if you desire to PvP you can, and if you don't, then don't flag. WoW has that right at least.

Re:Still doesn't work (1)

stonewallred (1465497) | more than 3 years ago | (#32012910)

Well, I play WoW, one of the most successful MMORPGs, but I don't think it in any way encourages or supports RP. I play it because it is fun, it kills time and some of my friends play. First MMORPG that supports RP, has character customization, the variety and largeness of WoW, and a decent size player base, I am jumping ship and letting WoW go on about its business. If you want to be good at the gme, your toon has to be like every other toon at your level and class. So 50 toons looking alike, carrying the same weapons and wearing identical armor, using the same rotations is not RP.

Re:To each their own (1)

famanz (1447895) | more than 3 years ago | (#32013536)

Allowing griefers to play as outlaw characters at a certain cost (that cost being whatever it takes to make sure that it remains a minority activity, and ought to vary according to supply and demand) and providing incentives for law abiding players to hunt them down gives both parties what they want.

Runes of Magic actually attempted to do something like this, although a year ago when I was playing it wasn't very successful. There was basically a good/evil (blue/red) scale where you'd become more evil for killing neutral/good players and become more good by killing evil players. The evil players would get bonuses to their damage but would have an increased chance to drop equipment when killed. The good players would get more defensive bonuses and possibly a reduced chance to drop equipment, can't remember exactly.

However the implementation was very flawed. For one, the good/evil bonuses weren't implemented while I was playing, and for all I know they may still not be. The bigger problem was once you reached a certain level of "evil" you were effectively banished from all towns and teleporters because guards would instakill you. This meant that trying to start an evil life as a low level character almost entirely restricted you from being able to do any quests. Not to mention the fact that there were probably 50 blues for every red, and the blues would gang up on the reds and kill them repeatedly trying to farm for blue rep.

I think it's an interesting idea that if done right could make for a very fun game.

Re:To each their own (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32012234)

To each their own..

Pretty much. Obligatory serious reading [mud.co.uk] for anyone interested in balancing MUDs (and MMOs in general).

TL;DR: there are different types of players and you want to catter to all of them, being watchful of how each group thrives or decays, since you are risking the stability of your entire system (i.e. all players suddenly leaving).

Re:To each their own (1)

ComputerGeek01 (1182793) | more than 3 years ago | (#32013802)

E.g., they chose to have guns and explosives and helicopters, which actually was at the expense of losing some purists who'd have preferred a more Dark Ages kinda setting where the highest tech is maybe a crossbow. (Heck, much as I'm otherwise for SF, I'd prefer to keep medieval stuff medieval, if it had to be medieval in the first place.)

E.g., to make medieval fantasy fans happier, you have to make strictly SF fans a lot less interested in the game. And, again, you can't please everyone. You can't make a game that's high fantasy with elves and horses _and_ SF with warp drives and tricorders, because you'll just annoy both groups instead of catering to both. (Though using SF as a backstory for a medieval game sometimes works.)

So what then, you mean to say Warhammer 40K will never have an MMORPG? That makes me a very sad panda.

Actually... (1)

Moraelin (679338) | more than 3 years ago | (#32014044)

Actually, WH40K doesn't pretend to be both medieval and SF at the same time, does it? I mean, sure, it has power armours and chain swords and whatnot, but, really, those are just as much SF props.

I wouldn't mind a WH40K MMO, to be honest. It has a metric buttload of lore and character by now.

Re:Yeah, but.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32012208)

Actually he mentioned nothing about PVP character battles. He was talking specifically about stealing kills and worrying about loot distribution, something that is most certainly NOT fun - not pvp character conflict.

Re:Yeah, but.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32013902)

I have to agree with others. People who want to kill other people should be playing with people who want to kill other people. Those who think differently actually just want easy targets and to get their jollies aggravating others and messing up their gameplay. PvP flags and/or servers are one way to do it, PvP game areas another. I hope GW will continue its trend of letting people roll PvP-only chars with unlocked abilities and equipment, max level and ready to roll.

I also applaud their decision to weaken the problem of kill/loot stealing without having to resort to instanced gameplay. Encouraging people to work together like that is an excellent idea, and the kind of thinking that, IMO, made GW such a superior game to many MMO's, because it dared to break out of the mold. Adding additional layers of things to do will help bring in more of the positive elements of the MMO genre and hopefully inspire more companies to follow their example.

I don't have time to wait for the "event" to end (-1, Troll)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 3 years ago | (#32011058)

I'm glad that you welcome my help, because I'd rather stab you in the back and steal all your loot than help you defeat whatever it is that you think needs defeating.

If you're going to take away the freedom of movement and self-direction in a game, I'd rather go play something else where I can loot, steal, and kill to my heart's content.

Re:I don't have time to wait for the "event" to en (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32012942)

And eventually, everyone will know that is the type of game it is and there will be no one to attack except others, like yourself, who want to rob and kill. At that point, the game will shut down because there aren't enough people paying to play.

That's what made Borderlands fun. (1)

protodevilin (1304731) | more than 3 years ago | (#32011064)

Even if your teammates stole kills and hoarded items, everyone at least obtained 100% of the money and XP earned from the fight. It's a great concept, and I'd like to see it carried even further in MMOs.

Re:That's what made Borderlands fun. (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#32013920)

The only problem I have with this... people hanging out near boss battles or high exp mobs. Wait for a party to attack, hit it a few times and walk away, get 100% exp. If you have an area full of groups/people hunting then you have people who will sit there popping off arrows to as many engaged mobs as possible to increase their exp intake without risking their own death.

Warhammer Online (3, Informative)

eeCyaJ (881578) | more than 3 years ago | (#32011078)

Sounds sort of like the open quests from Warhammer online. Show up in area, help out, get loot bag. True, there's a ranking system which means if your efforts weren't good enough you won't get anything immediate, but you still earn points which raise your rank in the chapter and (eventually) enable you to pick up useful, class-specific equipment.

Re:Warhammer Online (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32013404)

Did they actually implement the ranking now?

I remember the outrage a few weeks after the release, where players tried to deduce the formula for the ranking, and found out that your contribution score is actually a random number that gets rolled once when you enter the open quest (In addition to the other random number that is displayed to the players and rerolled each time).

everyone gets 100% ???? (1)

frovingslosh (582462) | more than 3 years ago | (#32011082)

everyone who was seriously involved in the fight gets 100% of the XP and loot for the kill.

This makes no more sense when a game says it than when a Democrat promises it. With this logic a few players with a few pieces of gold could go off to a remote location and take turns teaming up against each other, and soon their few pieces of gold would grow to a vast sum (it work only take 30 or 40 such robberies). If the game is this sloppy with it's economy then inflation will keep everyone poor.

Re:everyone gets 100% ???? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32011170)

Maybe they are talking about PvE instead of PvP?

Re:everyone gets 100% ???? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32011192)

Seriously, why has every single post so far been talking about how they'd rather just kill you? The article is obviously talking about PvE. Why does it take two anonymous cowards to point out the obvious?

Re:everyone gets 100% ???? (1)

Barny (103770) | more than 3 years ago | (#32011306)

Yeah, not to mention that the grandfather is further refuted because EVERY mmog that has currency farmers has inflation, its a fact of life, or well, virtual life.

Re:everyone gets 100% ???? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32011320)

Seriously, why has every single post so far been talking about how they'd rather just kill you? The article is obviously talking about PvE. Why does it take two anonymous cowards to point out the obvious?

Because 90% of those posts are by 10-13 year old WOW players with no life, a sack of 80th level characters and the need to prove that their dick is bigger than everyone elses.

Re:everyone gets 100% ???? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32011186)

If you're hell bend on interpreting stuff to sound bad and exploitable, I'm sure it's possible pretty much all the time.

In TFA, I don't read any mention of PvP looting, which would be required for your scheme.

Re:everyone gets 100% ???? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32011264)

That's the great thing about Guild Wars, there is no player killing in PvE. The only time you get to kill other players is in PvP, and chances are that the rewards you get will not be based on what is in the dead players inventory.
If you have ever played GW, you also know that the devs pre-test everything on their private servers, so for the most part there are few ways to exploit the economy/farming/etc. If someone does they put a lot of thought into a solution that does not harm the overall balance of the game. Try it, you might like it.

Re:everyone gets 100% ???? (1)

Exitar (809068) | more than 3 years ago | (#32011606)

You missed the "when someone kills a monster".
But probably is a habit of your party to take sentences out of context just to attack the opposing one...

Communism (1)

Psyborgue (699890) | more than 3 years ago | (#32011130)

You're asking for communism?

Re:Communism (1)

JackieBrown (987087) | more than 3 years ago | (#32011190)

You're asking for communism?

Only the paranoid still used that word. The new word(s) is "caring and civilized society." It's kind of a mouthful, but you get a warm feeling when saying it.

Re:Communism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32012992)

I doubt the people who have lived under communism would have been any warmer if they had.

Re:Communism (2, Funny)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 3 years ago | (#32011536)

No, that would be when the developers hoard all of the items and gold for themselves and distribute just barely enough for the paying customers to survive. Despite the five-year plan that showed that treasure distribution was occurring on paper, lower level admins and moderators would hoard resources for themselves for sale on ebay and taobao. Gold farming and profit-making would be illegal, and grounds for banishment. The manifesto by O'Brien would be worshipped as a sacred document, studied in universities, and contradicting it would be grounds for banishment. Other players would be recruited as spies to inform on anyone who spoke against the developers. Players would spread out from GW2 to other games, trying to spread the gospel of O'Brien, with assassinations by polonium poisoning if necessary. Emigrating to any other game would be forbidden.

Hopefully... (3, Insightful)

sstamps (39313) | more than 3 years ago | (#32011146)

It won't follow the existing model of Guild Wars 1.. a few short months of "experiencing the story", followed by years of title grinding for a bronze wall plaque in the sequel.

Re:Hopefully... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32011342)

Where is the problem with this model? You are by no means forced to grind those titles. And for those "short months" of story just see it from the cost per hour of gameplay point of view. You do not pay monthly, only once, and can play for as long as you want. I picked GuildWars because i did not want to pay monthly fees for a game that already cost me money for the purchase in the first place.

Re:Hopefully... (1)

Nemyst (1383049) | more than 3 years ago | (#32014346)

See it this way: you're paying for a few months of entertainment. This is an MMO without the monthly fee, so even getting only 60 hours of gameplay means you'd be happy with it if it weren't called an MMO.

Think about it, Guild Wars is probably one of the best bang for your buck you can get as far as RPGs go, if you forget for a second that it's a MMO on top of that.

Shared plus extra (1)

gringer (252588) | more than 3 years ago | (#32011506)

What about pooled experience + extra experience, as I noticed used in 'Valthirian Arc':

50% of the experience gained is put into the shared pool (equal amount to all contributors), and the rest is distributed around based on proportional contributions.

e.g. two PCs, PC1 does a very small amount of damage, PC2 does almost all damage: PC1: 25% total experience, PC2: 75% total experience

Re:Shared plus extra (1)

Jedi Alec (258881) | more than 3 years ago | (#32011554)

And the healer, in whatever shape or form, gets shafted? ;-)

Re:Shared plus extra (1)

gringer (252588) | more than 3 years ago | (#32012784)

And the healer, in whatever shape or form, gets shafted? ;-)

Why? Admittedly it makes contribution calculations harder, but you could consider healed damage (including regeneration) in the experience calculation. Damage would need to be named (23 points of damage from X, 18 points of damage from Y) and either cued or stacked depending on what model better fits -- does it make sense to heal old wounds first?

That might encourage people to get a small whack from every monster they encounter, then run away and wait for regeneration (or get a friend to heal), so that they "contribute" to the encounter.

Re:Shared plus extra (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#32014046)

Then define to me the point of creating a character strictly for buffing and/or crowd control. No healing, no damage, but VERY useful in group situations. Are you going to further complicate that equation to include damage the "might" have been caused by the mob sleeping? Who was this mob attacking? Warriors mitigate more damage than a wizard.

Re:Shared plus extra (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 3 years ago | (#32013380)

One thing I noticed in Warhammer Online's "enfless trial" area is that it was extremely easy in the early Public Quests to get the most contribution points solely by healing. This was on the Chaos side as the Zealot class.

Re:Shared plus extra (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32012472)

What about pooled experience + extra experience

I played an MMO a long while ago where XP wasn't awarded when you killed something, it was awarded when you did damage to a mob, based on the amount of damage and your relative level. It was pretty effective at discouraging "boosting" low level characters (your lv1 fighter isn't going to do more than 1hp damage to a level 50 mob, and you get nothing for the lv50 guys in your party beating on it) but I think it was also a pretty effective way of eliminating "kill stealing" and such, since the final kill isn't the reward (unless you were on a "kill 100 rats" quest). A lv50 guy hitting a lv1 mob might cause 5000hp damage, but the level modifier made it worth 1xp.

Re:Shared plus extra (1)

Bakkster (1529253) | more than 3 years ago | (#32012494)

Because this still violates their principle. Even then, if someone joins the fight part-way through, those who were there from the beginning get less experience.

So what they really mean is.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32011512)

That it will use Aion's model, where whoever takes more than 50% of a mobs health gets the loot?

Mages and Rogue-like classes will have a field day.

Don't fix what's not broken (1)

Joshua Fan (1733100) | more than 3 years ago | (#32011678)

Doesn't he realize that current MMO model is already perfect as it is, as an endless revenue generating device? No other form of digital entertainment can top the inimitable success of World of Warcraft's eternal cash grind. The subtleties of the conflicts and drama caused by XP distribution rules based on real market economics serve a noble purpose: to increase the realism, immersion, and playtime of the subscriber to keep them coming back for more of the realpolitik of hamster-wheel mechanics month after month. By freeing up the restraints on rewards, he risks alienating those who play these games to develop their societical diplomacy skills in parallel with their real lives, which inevitably tend towards either tribalism or isolationism anyway.

Re:Don't fix what's not broken (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32012412)

It's not about just being successful. It's about innovating a very stale MMO space.

I welcome ArenaNet's enthusiasm and risk-taking and hope more developers follow their lead.

Missing the point... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32011704)

Humans are competitive, I DON'T want to help every Tom, Dick and Harry who I run across. I'll help guildies, but other than that, I'd prefer to be selfish and greedy in my MMO. Hell, if WoW allowed for same faction killing in the world enviro, I'd gank my own kind too... If they want a true care bear 'everyone can help everyone' game they shouldn't call it 'Guild Wars', 'Hello Kitty Island Adventure' seems more appropriate.

Re:Missing the point... (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 3 years ago | (#32011792)

I continue to wait for a massively multiplayer version of GTA. Not this pathetic pickup game crap.. as if GTA is Quake or something. GTA is a sandbox game.. I want to knock down the other kid's sandcastles. I want them to try to knock down mine - and fail, because I'm better. If I have to team up with someone else I want it to be because if I don't I can't compete. And through adversity maybe I'll start to bond with my crew and fight to protect them.. but if one of them squeals to the cops, he's dead.

Re:Missing the point... (1)

ZosoZ (1603973) | more than 3 years ago | (#32012062)

I continue to wait for a massively multiplayer version of GTA.

You might want to keen an eye on APB [wikipedia.org]

Re:Missing the point... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32014456)

I smell a ganksta who goes around smushing greycons and acting like he's King Shit because of it, or else will only fight someone with overwhelming odds that guarantees a win. The cry of the dinosaur when he realizes the mammals are taking over. :D

Re:Missing the point... (1)

Bakkster (1529253) | more than 3 years ago | (#32014562)

And you don't have to. Problem solved. That said, it allows you to 'help' people for purely selfish reasons, as well, since you get full loot and XP.

I have no problems with a 'care bear' experience, as long as it keeps the d-bags like you out. Go play a game designed for guys like you.

Dear Mr O'Brien (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 3 years ago | (#32011874)

Thank you for the insightful article that quite a few people on this site have actually read. I know all the comments so far don't indicate that.. and you really shouldn't hold out hope for some interesting comments. Guild Wars 2 looks like it will be awesome. I look forward to reading more articles about it, and will probably buy the game when it comes out.

It has already been done (4, Informative)

Andtalath (1074376) | more than 3 years ago | (#32011910)

Dungeons and dragons online already does this.
All XP and rewards you get are based around how you as a group finish the instance (you do get penalties and bonuses depending on how many times you die though, and if you left the dungeon), you always run around with a group and no other characters are visible outside of the cities and all characters in the cities interact with you as if you are on of the few heroes helping it.

No collecting wolves tails there, you help people from level 1 and forward with actual questing which feels like it's helping someone.

Otoh, the game started breaking at around level 8 or so when I played it, especially due to haven essentially eternal gold and quite simply too large monsters which made claustrophobic dungeons pretty much impossible.

Sounds like a great idea (1)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 3 years ago | (#32011966)

Sounds like a great idea, and I wonder if they push it all the way through. Does rare loot also spawn for everyone? Or does everyone get their own "chest" with their own drop? Could be intresting but what are mobs going to be like that might be attacked by 500 low levels at once? There is a reason most games don't encourage grouping like this, it upsets the game balance. 500 lvl 1's could team up to defeat a lvl 10 monster and all get lvl 10 drops?

Mind you, I don't see that as a problem, that is smart thinking and the individual risk would be high because if you are the one stomped on... bye bye.

It is about time MMO's get a breath of fresh air and not just more twitch, more pk and more PvP because that has been proven to be a financial death end. Enough games tried and not a single one of them has managed to break the 1 million player barrier that is the line between success and being just another game that survives from month to month only to dwindle when players get fed up with slow updates because their is no money to pay for them.

GW's was/is a lot of fun, but in PvE its combat is to simple, if they can truly make something intresting out of this AND create a TRUE MMO (GW, is a hub game), then I am certainly buying it.

Oh, and boob jiggle, that is important too.

Re:Sounds like a great idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32012184)

Well, if they make it so significantly underleveled chars can't contribute meaningfully in an encounter, no matter how many of them are present, problem solved. I hope they keep the trend of the original GW and make 'max-level gear' pretty easy to obtain to cut down on pointless grind to be competitive, and make the rest about vanity goodies. Glowy weapons, super-fancy armors, a giant fountain in your GH or some other eye-candy e-peen stuff that has no real game impact, is just about bragging rights. Let those who want to fap over a gear score keep playing WoW. I HATE the whole 'grind this raid for gear to grind this raid for gear to grind this raid for gear' vicious cycle.

By the same token, I hope they also keep the ability to roll a max-level PvP char with unlocked skills and gear to keep the focus there on player skill and teamwork instead of LOL NUBZ I GOTS ALL PURPZ DIE DIE LOLLOLLOL!!! I think that combined with the philosophy of "No, you can't just go ganking lvl 1's because your weenie is little and your RL sucks" is a lot of what made GW great. Now by filtering out kill and loot stealing from persistent play, they eliminate another big problem of traditional MMO's. Combine that with ALL mobs being on short respawn timers, say five minutes max, and you cut way down on the need to wait for mobs to pop.

A lovely idea, but... (2)

Millennium (2451) | more than 3 years ago | (#32012280)

This is how MMO gaming should be, with nothing coming at the expense of another player. Unfortunately, there is a portion of the MMO population that will not be satisfied unless they can have their domination and bullying fantasies, and even though they ruin gaming for everyone else, they're big enough that few game makers have the guts to take them on.

Re:A lovely idea, but... (1)

Bat Dude (1449125) | more than 3 years ago | (#32012886)

Well put. I enjoyed EVE but gave it up due to the griefers and gankers. or is that wankers same thing to me. This sounds like the way to go .

Coordination is hard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32012760)

Coordination between people in real life is hard. If you have a god like arbiter making everything fair it takes away a lot of the realism from social interactions.

I must need glasses (1)

Stupid McStupidson (1660141) | more than 3 years ago | (#32013098)

Am I the only one who looked at the RSS feed and read, "ArpaNets MMO Design Manifesto"? I should stop reading these things in the morning.

Nice marketing (1)

KalgarThrax (984520) | more than 3 years ago | (#32013200)

I see nothing in that article that is a concrete design choice the GW2 team has made to specifically address the "problems" of current MMOs. They simply provide out-of-context examples of potentially cool scenarios. Wouldn't it be cool if we fired through walls of fire!!!! Yes it would, the first 15 times.

MMO design needs to take a radical step away from "MMO combat mechanics" into other directions (some people suggested more social aspects which I do not like) in order to be innovative. These mechanics were spawned by old school D&D mechanics by way of MUDs, and honestly, these ideas are OLD. Not all are bad, either. Until they do innovate though, no amount of marketing by game studios will convince me to subscribe to their new games. Neither will it convince all the people currently playing WoW to switch to something else.

There is a reason millions are playing that game. It provides cheap entertainment value for them, through a myriad of activities that, although repetitive, are greatly enhanced through the social aspect that is provided by online connectivity to a context of a world. Combat is boring, UNLESS you have to orchestrate with 25 people. Crafting is boring UNLESS you can sell your wares to a market economy. And so on.

As soon as a game is created to provide the same or greater entertainment value to people, they will jump. It just has to be innovative enough to make them jump. And yeah, open world group quests already failed, with WAR. That game could have been a radical attempt to reforge the MMO landscape, but the designers instead opted to play it safe and re-create WoW. Who will be next? From what I have read it doesn't seem like GW2 is ready to take up that cup.

Experience, yes. Loot, no. (1)

Tuan121 (1715852) | more than 3 years ago | (#32013870)

So a snake is going to drop 20 snake eyes on death? Experience makes sense- although 100% seems way overboard, you will just have mobs of people fighting trash and levelling like crazy. But wait, it's only if they "significantly" contribute- good luck with that. You will have people playing characters that can do the most damage. Or healers who just heal everyone who doesn't need it.. fighting for heals such that everyone just wastes mana. Loot does not make sense, and it was just lead to a world where everyone has everything. Fun. Player's wanting items/spells/skills others do not posses is what makes MMO's interesting. If you don't think so, then just use IRC.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...