Core values of rulesystems (for MMORPGs)

Adamantine

What do you think are the core values, or core goals, when designing a rulesystem for a MMORPG ?

I think they are, in order of importance really, but none of these are optional:

- Depth (or Challenge) : This clearly is the predominal goal, you want the player to be engaged and to having to think what they do next. The most drastic failure in this regard is a one trick pony, a character who keeps repeating using one and the same skill over and over, because it just works in every situation and against every opponent.

- Diversity : you want to have as many different options to create a character as possible, and make these options as substantial and different from each other as possible.

- Balance : you want different characters to be overall in balance in regards to their power, such that when grouping all players feel they contribute to the group.

Amaranthar

I like that. 
It fits my own interpretation of an MMORPG. 
However, I think that saying it fits all MMORPGs is a stretch. 
There are gamers who want some of what you listed there as a negative. 

The biggest trick is how you go about designing your game. 
You can make it "gamey", or richly in the "worldly" way. Both have value to different gamers. But I do think that "gamey" has been beaten to near death. 

mekhere

If you want to create depth and challenge, that comes with a consequence. It's called a learning curve. Most learning curves discourage players. You need to teach people how to problem solve and defeat the learning curve through design. Each level should train your mind to achieve that savant like mentality to explore and conquer an open world. There should be no problem that player cannot solve. That's how you keep your player base.

Gorwe

To facilitate interdependance of players while elongating the game as much as possible so as to sell more game time / microtrans. And give an illusion of choice / results while keeping that dopamine flow via drops, levels and such.

Kyleran

"A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law."

Oh wait, wrong thread.....

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Kyleran

Adamantine said:

What do you think are the core values, or core goals, when designing a rulesystem for a MMORPG ?

I think they are, in order of importance really, but none of these are optional:

- Depth (or Challenge) : This clearly is the predominal goal, you want the player to be engaged and to having to think what they do next. The most drastic failure in this regard is a one trick pony, a character who keeps repeating using one and the same skill over and over, because it just works in every situation and against every opponent.

- Diversity : you want to have as many different options to create a character as possible, and make these options as substantial and different from each other as possible.

- Balance : you want different characters to be overall in balance in regards to their power, such that when grouping all players feel they contribute to the group.

These sound like core values for designing an ARPG or any single player RPG.

MMORPGs present opportunities other genres don't really have which unfortunately developers haven't focused much on for quite a few years.

1. Socialization and interaction between players first and foremost. MMORPGs should have dependencies which strongly encourage and reward players yet don't go so far overboard as to make the more solo orientated player feel alienated.

2. Multiple and interesting progression mechanics, with a more horizontal focus so as to not divide the player base into smaller pockets such as strong vertical progress typically does. EVE is actually a good model, but certainly not the only example nor perfect by any means.

3. Make it truly Massively Multiplayer, open world PVE content meaning design activities that larger numbers of players are required to participate in, preferably not dominated by larger groups who can exclude others.  Rift's rift's, Tabula Rasa's invasions, DAOC's or Lineage 2's Dragon raids,  the more the merrier.

4. PVP.  Yes, this too is part of the 1st bullet, but I feel it should never be a total free for all and at the very least be restricted from safe(r) zones like in EVE or better, limited to specific regions a la DAOC. 

Most important is players should always have the option to participate in PVP or not, (hmm, probably goes for PVE activities as well) without their progression being penalized or then being made to feel like 2nd class citizens.

Perhaps such a game can never really be made, but sure would be nice if some competent developers were trying.

Amaranthar

Kyleran said:

Adamantine said:

(skip)

(skip)

4. PVP.  Yes, this too is part of the 1st bullet, but I feel it should never be a total free for all and at the very least be restricted from safe(r) zones like in EVE or better, limited to specific regions a la DAOC. 

Most important is players should always have the option to participate in PVP or not, (hmm, probably goes for PVE activities as well) without their progression being penalized or then being made to feel like 2nd class citizens.

Perhaps such a game can never really be made, but sure would be nice if some competent developers were trying.

I still think that perhaps the best answer to PvP is a Justice System that really works. 
For it to work, you have to have the possibility of a real punishment for the "criminal" Character. Loss of Skills/levels, and loss of stats. Knock them back, from just a little to a lot, depending on how much they've done. 
But only for "criminal" actions. 

Athena, and all of the gods/goddesses of justice, demand it. 
(Or her mechanical owl of wisdom, in the case of Sci-Fi.)
 

kitarad

Oh my a Clash of the Titans reference.

Arglebargle

Amaranthar said:

Kyleran said:

Adamantine said:

(skip)

(skip)

4. PVP.  Yes, this too is part of the 1st bullet, but I feel it should never be a total free for all and at the very least be restricted from safe(r) zones like in EVE or better, limited to specific regions a la DAOC. 

Most important is players should always have the option to participate in PVP or not, (hmm, probably goes for PVE activities as well) without their progression being penalized or then being made to feel like 2nd class citizens.

Perhaps such a game can never really be made, but sure would be nice if some competent developers were trying.

I still think that perhaps the best answer to PvP is a Justice System that really works. 
For it to work, you have to have the possibility of a real punishment for the "criminal" Character. Loss of Skills/levels, and loss of stats. Knock them back, from just a little to a lot, depending on how much they've done. 
But only for "criminal" actions. 

Athena, and all of the gods/goddesses of justice, demand it. 
(Or her mechanical owl of wisdom, in the case of Sci-Fi.)
 

If I can't opt out of PVP, I don't buy the game. 

That may be due to most games inability to handle asshat players, which a real Justice system might be able to do.  But real exploiter/griefer types need to be meta'd and IP banned or the equivalent, because they run off other paying customers.

Amaranthar

Arglebargle said:

Amaranthar said:

Kyleran said:

Adamantine said:

(skip)

(skip)

4. PVP.  Yes, this too is part of the 1st bullet, but I feel it should never be a total free for all and at the very least be restricted from safe(r) zones like in EVE or better, limited to specific regions a la DAOC. 

Most important is players should always have the option to participate in PVP or not, (hmm, probably goes for PVE activities as well) without their progression being penalized or then being made to feel like 2nd class citizens.

Perhaps such a game can never really be made, but sure would be nice if some competent developers were trying.

I still think that perhaps the best answer to PvP is a Justice System that really works. 
For it to work, you have to have the possibility of a real punishment for the "criminal" Character. Loss of Skills/levels, and loss of stats. Knock them back, from just a little to a lot, depending on how much they've done. 
But only for "criminal" actions. 

Athena, and all of the gods/goddesses of justice, demand it. 
(Or her mechanical owl of wisdom, in the case of Sci-Fi.)
 

If I can't opt out of PVP, I don't buy the game. 

That may be due to most games inability to handle asshat players, which a real Justice system might be able to do.  But real exploiter/griefer types need to be meta'd and IP banned or the equivalent, because they run off other paying customers.

The idea is twofold. 

1:
It allows for one player to attack another once in a while with a risk of only a slight penalty. 
There are some things that code cannot handle. For instance, a player training MOBs onto you and your friend. The two of you can take that player out, and only risk a very small penalty. But you can't do this a lot, save it for the worst moments. 
Up to a small limit, these penalties for rare PKing, usually justifiable, these penalties should wear off after a couple of RL weeks, so that a Character can always have a few justifiable kills at their disposal for the jerks in the game. 
This helps to prevent Jerks in the first place. 


2: 
Constant griefers risk losing a lot. The compounding list of crimes keeps adding and adding. Eventually, it's going to catch up to them and they are going to face a very heavy penalty. Knocking them back to newbie-hood in bad cases. 
Most players aren't going to put their characters at that risk. 
So this prevents most PKings, ganks, etc. 

There will always be Players who want to grief so badly that they'll pay the penalty, re-build, and do it so more. 
When those names become known (and in social games such as UO, they do become well known to enough other player) they'll start facing a KOS situation. 
This makes their life in-game miserable. 

And yes, I know of an extreme case from UO, where a player was such a pain with his abusive griefing, that a large number of Players did this. KOS.
He stopped after deleting that character and starting over. 
The 1: situation above would allow this. 

And keep in mind that a game built for socialization would have lower spreads of power, so small penalties aren't that big of a hit to take, if you have to. As long as you aren't a griefer-in-practice. 

Sovrath

Amaranthar said:

Kyleran said:

Adamantine said:

(skip)

(skip)

4. PVP.  Yes, this too is part of the 1st bullet, but I feel it should never be a total free for all and at the very least be restricted from safe(r) zones like in EVE or better, limited to specific regions a la DAOC. 

Most important is players should always have the option to participate in PVP or not, (hmm, probably goes for PVE activities as well) without their progression being penalized or then being made to feel like 2nd class citizens.

Perhaps such a game can never really be made, but sure would be nice if some competent developers were trying.

I still think that perhaps the best answer to PvP is a Justice System that really works. 
For it to work, you have to have the possibility of a real punishment for the "criminal" Character. Loss of Skills/levels, and loss of stats. Knock them back, from just a little to a lot, depending on how much they've done. 
But only for "criminal" actions. 

Athena, and all of the gods/goddesses of justice, demand it. 
(Or her mechanical owl of wisdom, in the case of Sci-Fi.)
 

I would say then that there would have to be a trial system and a chance for the player to "get off" if one can't prove them guilty.

Otherwise there's no incentive to have pvp if a player is going to automatically lose something.

Amaranthar

By the way, for the above post, anyone helping a PKer-griefer should also be flagged just like the PKer. 
This is "blue healers", thieves robbing your gear and spell components, etc. 
If you die, they all get flagged for killing you. 

mekhere

Amaranthar said:
1:
It allows for one player to attack another once in a while with a risk of only a slight penalty. 
There are some things that code cannot handle. For instance, a player training MOBs onto you and your friend. The two of you can take that player out, and only risk a very small penalty. But you can't do this a lot, save it for the worst moments. 
Up to a small limit, these penalties for rare PKing, usually justifiable, these penalties should wear off after a couple of RL weeks, so that a Character can always have a few justifiable kills at their disposal for the jerks in the game. 
This helps to prevent Jerks in the first place. 


2: 
Constant griefers risk losing a lot. The compounding list of crimes keeps adding and adding. Eventually, it's going to catch up to them and they are going to face a very heavy penalty. Knocking them back to newbie-hood in bad cases. 
Most players aren't going to put their characters at that risk. 
So this prevents most PKings, ganks, etc. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. With over 20 years of gaming experience in an MMORPG I can say that player training MOBS on your enemy is a feature the developers use to abuse it's player base. Stop looking at it like the PKer/Ganker is trying to be a Jerk and realize that the game developers allow that feature. We have all experienced these bullies at some point in game, and I have to say I forgave them. Give a scammer crypto and he will exploit it. The developers need to stop giving the exploiters weapons. When developers keep giving players overpowered pets to train on another player, (example - Alb Necro), they will abuse it. If you keep playing their games, shame on you. 

Players Pets are so supposed to cause interrupts and not disable a player from playing. The interrupt is supposed to be strategically used in the fight maybe 2 or 3 times and that is it. There also supposed to be on timers so you can't spam them. Anything other than that is a disgruntled game developer designing Pets to abuse his player base because he lost to much. No one in there right mind wants to spam cast pets. You don't feel like you had a fulfilling fight. 

2. If players Gank the same players more than like 5 times they get a timer. They can't attack the other players. If they don't move to another spot, same thing, they get weaker or some abilities won't work. Gankers exist to challenge you. Again this is the developer not teaching people how to defeat this concept. You can't get mad at the Gankers. The developers did not give the players enough weapons to play the game as it was intended. Provide weapons to win, and players take the risk. One day I hope the stock market will learn the same lesson.

PvP is so hard to design and engineer. Players have to win, or they leave. PvP also comes with a learning curve and developers don't do enough to train you how to PvP. They just have you pay a subscription, log in, get PKed/Ganked and then you rage quit because the developer can't figure out how to train you to think. You don't know how to build a suit with armor that has great stats, no one knows how to use their abilities, and no one knows how to apply math to solve any of these problems. The developer's approach to this is just like the stock market. If you born into DnD you excel at PvP and character building. If you weren't, you go to school to learn, or your poor and get farmed, used and abused the elites. Exploring economies needs to stop in video games. No one wants to craft anymore, grind anymore or work for anything in a game anymore and now you understand why. I hope AI can fix these issues and possibly close and education gap this country is so in need of.

eoloe

Core values?

hmmm...

Let's guess this one!

- Make sure the classes are gender locked with mostly pretty female characters

- Make the players pay the big bucks for the more skin shown (bikini armor mandatory)

Profit!

Even better, make it heroes based with a gacha system!
The more powerful (correlated with the amount of shown skin for female chars + breast size) the rarer! Even more big bucks !!!

Amazing !!!

Make sure it is anime style. All the chars use the same face or about. Just change the clothing, color of hair, eyes. Even get crazy with eyes not the same colors!!! Some call that "creativity"(lol) and the crazy ones are sure this is art !!!! What I am sure about it is less money spent on 3D artists ! It also attracts this way a strong weeb fanbase, that will ensure the longevity of the game (whether it is good or not), and especially will secure a good cash flow...

Here is the core value ! Money whatever the cost! The recipe of success!

Amaranthar

mekhere said:

Amaranthar said:
1:
It allows for one player to attack another once in a while with a risk of only a slight penalty. 
There are some things that code cannot handle. For instance, a player training MOBs onto you and your friend. The two of you can take that player out, and only risk a very small penalty. But you can't do this a lot, save it for the worst moments. 
Up to a small limit, these penalties for rare PKing, usually justifiable, these penalties should wear off after a couple of RL weeks, so that a Character can always have a few justifiable kills at their disposal for the jerks in the game. 
This helps to prevent Jerks in the first place. 


2: 
Constant griefers risk losing a lot. The compounding list of crimes keeps adding and adding. Eventually, it's going to catch up to them and they are going to face a very heavy penalty. Knocking them back to newbie-hood in bad cases. 
Most players aren't going to put their characters at that risk. 
So this prevents most PKings, ganks, etc. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. With over 20 years of gaming experience in an MMORPG I can say that player training MOBS on your enemy is a feature the developers use to abuse it's player base. Stop looking at it like the PKer/Ganker is trying to be a Jerk and realize that the game developers allow that feature. We have all experienced these bullies at some point in game, and I have to say I forgave them. Give a scammer crypto and he will exploit it. The developers need to stop giving the exploiters weapons. When developers keep giving players overpowered pets to train on another player, (example - Alb Necro), they will abuse it. If you keep playing their games, shame on you. 

Players Pets are so supposed to cause interrupts and not disable a player from playing. The interrupt is supposed to be strategically used in the fight maybe 2 or 3 times and that is it. There also supposed to be on timers so you can't spam them. Anything other than that is a disgruntled game developer designing Pets to abuse his player base because he lost to much. No one in there right mind wants to spam cast pets. You don't feel like you had a fulfilling fight. 

2. If players Gank the same players more than like 5 times they get a timer. They can't attack the other players. If they don't move to another spot, same thing, they get weaker or some abilities won't work. Gankers exist to challenge you. Again this is the developer not teaching people how to defeat this concept. You can't get mad at the Gankers. The developers did not give the players enough weapons to play the game as it was intended. Provide weapons to win, and players take the risk. One day I hope the stock market will learn the same lesson.

PvP is so hard to design and engineer. Players have to win, or they leave. PvP also comes with a learning curve and developers don't do enough to train you how to PvP. They just have you pay a subscription, log in, get PKed/Ganked and then you rage quit because the developer can't figure out how to train you to think. You don't know how to build a suit with armor that has great stats, no one knows how to use their abilities, and no one knows how to apply math to solve any of these problems. The developer's approach to this is just like the stock market. If you born into DnD you excel at PvP and character building. If you weren't, you go to school to learn, or your poor and get farmed, used and abused the elites. Exploring economies needs to stop in video games. No one wants to craft anymore, grind anymore or work for anything in a game anymore and now you understand why. I hope AI can fix these issues and possibly close and education gap this country is so in need of.

I was talking about training MOBs on players to get them killed. 

mekhere

eoloe said:

Core values?

hmmm...

Let's guess this one!

- Make sure the classes are gender locked with mostly pretty female characters

- Make the players pay the big bucks for the more skin shown (bikini armor mandatory)

Profit!

Even better, make it heroes based with a gacha system!
The more powerful (correlated with the amount of shown skin for female chars + breast size) the rarer! Even more big bucks !!!

Amazing !!!

Make sure it is anime style. All the chars use the same face or about. Just change the clothing, color of hair, eyes. Even get crazy with eyes not the same colors!!! Some call that "creativity"(lol) and the crazy ones are sure this is art !!!! What I am sure about it is less money spent on 3D artists ! It also attracts this way a strong weeb fanbase, that will ensure the longevity of the game (whether it is good or not), and especially will secure a good cash flow...

Here is the core value ! Money whatever the cost! The recipe of success!

This sounds like a target display meeting in the halls of mithril. The Elves want to put the class character display in front of the castle because there smaller. LMAO

cameltosis

Adamantine said:

What do you think are the core values, or core goals, when designing a rulesystem for a MMORPG ?

I think they are, in order of importance really, but none of these are optional:

- Depth (or Challenge) : This clearly is the predominal goal, you want the player to be engaged and to having to think what they do next. The most drastic failure in this regard is a one trick pony, a character who keeps repeating using one and the same skill over and over, because it just works in every situation and against every opponent.

- Diversity : you want to have as many different options to create a character as possible, and make these options as substantial and different from each other as possible.

- Balance : you want different characters to be overall in balance in regards to their power, such that when grouping all players feel they contribute to the group.

The first few things I would want to nail down when designing an MMORPG are:

* Make sure it is genuinely Massively Multiplayer - to me, this means supporting 500+ players within the same virtual environment.

* Make sure it is online

* Make sure it includes roleplaying mechanics - specifically, that players get to make choices about their character's role, and that those choices are meaningful.

That's it. If the game can do those three things, then it's an MMORPG and will set itself above the majority of games that call themselves MMORPGs.

Beyond that, I fall firmly into Raph Koster's line of thinking when it comes to designing a game. He is of the belief that learning is at the heart of fun in video games. Learning mechanics, learning maps, learning lessons....and when the learning is finished, you get bored and move on.

So, there are three steps to designing:

1) What lesson do you wish to teach?

2) What mechanics can you use to teach that lesson?

3) What surface-layer can you add to those mechanics to motivate players?

So, as an example, I believe that in this modern world of mobile phones, the ability to read an ordanance survey map is disappearing. So, following the 3 steps above, I would:

1) Decide to teach map reading skills

2) Design my ingame maps so they look exactly like a proper map. Give players the map and a compass, then introduce them to NPCs who can explain what the symbols mean. Players would have to use the map and compass "properly" (i.e. trying to match features on the map with features they can see in game in order to work out where they are).

3) Put that map and compass in a large game world that players will want to explore, thus encouraging them to engage with map reading.

[NB you can perhaps see from this why I dislike companies like CD Project Red so much. Their method to designing games is backwards - they start with the surface layer first, the story, then add mechanics to help tell the story. They may be able to tell good stories, but I've always felt like they were missing the point of creating a game.]

Adamantine

Amaranthar said:
There are gamers who want some of what you listed there as a negative.

Well thats what this thread is about, what are the principles you want a rulesystem based on.

Amaranthar said:

The biggest trick is how you go about designing your game. 
You can make it "gamey", or richly in the "worldly" way. Both have value to different gamers. But I do think that "gamey" has been beaten to near death. 

...

I am not sure I understand this passage too well ?

Any game needs a rulesystem at the core. Its not optional. Just like you cannot make a game without, say, a user interface.

mekhere said:

If you want to create depth and challenge, that comes with a consequence. It's called a learning curve.

A system thats easy to start but hard to master is a value, yes. That doesnt contradict challenge as a core design principle though. And I dont like WoW for numerous reasons, but their rulesystem isnt half bad. At least the principles its based on.

A compareable principle would be to make something complex from simple elements. Also something WoW does. Or something that chess does.

Ultimately you cannot make a game that everyone likes.

And I'd rather have a game thats absolutely awesome for a small group of people than a game that only kind of works for a large group of people.

Kyleran said:

These sound like core values for designing an ARPG or any single player RPG.

Why, more or less, yes.

D&D was created for tabletop and is used in computer games, too. And I dont even think D&D is too good a base for computer games, but its a very complex, very interesting, very well thought out and pretty well balanced system thats already in existence, thus it works out pretty great on computers, too.

Likewise, a good rulesystem for MMORPGs could be adapted to regular RPGs. But MMORPG rulesystems are in my experience a lot more sophisticated than what regular RPGs use.

Lineage 2, WoW, Vanguard etc all have far more complex rulesystems than for example the original Knights of the Old Republic (3 regular classes, 3 Jedi classes) or Dragon Age: Origins (3 classes) have. In the case of the first game, we have a MMO version of that, The Old Republic, and while I wouldnt call it a brilliant design as such it tried to introduce the complexity typical for MMORPGs, over the singleplayer game.

So yes, MMORPG rulesystems can be used in single player RPGs. Would actually be awesome to have them there.

I am personally not interested in action games. Especially over the internet I want a game with cooldowns on abilities, so players with worse ping arent in the disadvantage.

Kyleran said:

1. Socialization and interaction between players first and foremost.

The ability of players to cooperate and compete is inherent to any MMO, yes.

We tolerate the shortcomings of MMORPGs because these games have people in them.

This isnt really part of rulesystem design though.

Kyleran said:

2. Multiple and interesting progression mechanics [...] EVE is actually a good model, but certainly not the only example nor perfect by any means.

The idea to offer multiple angles of progression is commonplace in MMORPGs, yes. Like levels, gear, harvest, crafting, etc.

EVE already exists, and has found its audience. No need to recreate it.

Personally I'm not too fond of the idea to have a game being merely an economy simulator. I'd rather focus on having a great adventure game first.

Amaranthar said:

I still think that perhaps the best answer to PvP is a Justice System that really works.

Why, tell us when you find one.

Crimes in reallife are handled by a complex justice system with highly paid experts, and even then its still not working out perfectly.

Meanwhile I would only allow sportive PvP - PvP in which both parties have agreed to PvP. Like Arenas, Battlegrounds (i.e. contested content), Castle Sieges, etc.

Making a good PvP system basically requires creating a second rulesystem just for PvP. Abilities that are fine in PvE might be considered unfair in PvP, for example if a class has a stun ability thats a really bad thing in PvP, when the other player suddenly just cant do anything anymore and his allies might be unable to help him, too.

cameltosis said:

* Make sure it is genuinely Massively Multiplayer - to me, this means supporting 500+ players within the same virtual environment.

Thats a hardware question, you need the necessary network bandwidth. Also an implementation question, you need your software to be able to run on a multiprocessor system. Its also a commercial problem, private people can maybe run their servers for 30 people or some such.

Its not related to rulesystem design at all.

cameltosis said:

 Raph Koster's

Always talks so much and yet says so little. And has he archieved anything since Ultima Online ?

Learning how a game works is fun, yes, but its not the only kind of fun to have in a game, and just because you know the rules doesnt mean you're done.

Chess is easy to learn. Its rules fit on a piece of paper. And yet (some) people spend their lifes learning it.

Scot

Ewan90 said:

Hello,Depth/Challenge: Engaging the player and providing a sense of challenge is crucial. Players should be required to think strategically and make meaningful decisions. Avoiding repetitive gameplay and encouraging the exploration of different strategies is important for maintaining player engagement. Diversity: Offering a wide range of character creation options promotes player creativity and personalization. Providing substantial and distinct choices allows players to craft unique characters that suit their preferred playstyles. Balance: Striving for overall balance among different character classes or abilities is essential. Ensuring that no single character or ability dominates the game promotes fairness and encourages cooperation within the player community. Balancing power levels and roles allows each player to contribute meaningfully in group settings.

I think this guy is an adbot, reported.

Amaranthar

Adamantine said:

Amaranthar said:

The biggest trick is how you go about designing your game. 
You can make it "gamey", or richly in the "worldly" way. Both have value to different gamers. But I do think that "gamey" has been beaten to near death. 

...

I am not sure I understand this passage too well ?

Any game needs a rulesystem at the core. Its not optional. Just like you cannot make a game without, say, a user interface.

Look at cameltosis's post above about using maps, that's "worldly" game design. 
"Gamey" would be if the players have an arrow on their screen showing which way to go. 

Amaranthar said:

I still think that perhaps the best answer to PvP is a Justice System that really works.

Why, tell us when you find one.

Crimes in reallife are handled by a complex justice system with highly paid experts, and even then its still not working out perfectly.

Meanwhile I would only allow sportive PvP - PvP in which both parties have agreed to PvP. Like Arenas, Battlegrounds (i.e. contested content), Castle Sieges, etc.

Making a good PvP system basically requires creating a second rulesystem just for PvP. Abilities that are fine in PvE might be considered unfair in PvP, for example if a class has a stun ability thats a really bad thing in PvP, when the other player suddenly just cant do anything anymore and his allies might be unable to help him, too.

I did, up thread. 

Amaranthar

Adamantine said:

cameltosis said:

 Raph Koster's

Always talks so much and yet says so little. And has he archieved anything since Ultima Online ?

Learning how a game works is fun, yes, but its not the only kind of fun to have in a game, and just because you know the rules doesnt mean you're done.

Chess is easy to learn. Its rules fit on a piece of paper. And yet (some) people spend their lifes learning it.

I think you are missing a lot when Raph talks, to say that. 

Yes, he was a biggie at SWG, before they moved him out and then ruined that game. Then he built that game that Disney bought.
And he wrote a book about game design that lots of game designers have bought. 

Scot

Amaranthar said:

Adamantine said:

cameltosis said:

 Raph Koster's

Always talks so much and yet says so little. And has he archieved anything since Ultima Online ?

Learning how a game works is fun, yes, but its not the only kind of fun to have in a game, and just because you know the rules doesnt mean you're done.

Chess is easy to learn. Its rules fit on a piece of paper. And yet (some) people spend their lifes learning it.

I think you are missing a lot when Raph talks, to say that. 

Yes, he was a biggie at SWG, before they moved him out and then ruined that game. Then he built that game that Disney bought.
And he wrote a book about game design that lots of game designers have bought. 

It is not his reputation that is in question for me, it is that so much of the new project depends on the meta not good solid games.

Cactus_LFRez

It some degree those core values can apply to any game.

I would sub out challenge for engagement, since a game does not have to be challenging to be engaging, like Animal Crossing

But specifically for MMOs, you have to factor in the social aspect, as in why is it online and multiplayer

I don't think there is a single correct way for this to manifest,
A game could lean on more competitive gameplay, more cooperative, indirect gameplay, collaboration and sharing, or a mix of different types.

But an MMO has to justify why it is online and multiplayer in the first place and reflect that in its fundamental gameplay

It is fine for a game to have multipleyer components but it doesn't necessarily need to be a whole MMO.

So if you are using the MMO designation you have to make good of it and create an experience that cannot be replicated in single player or regular multiplayer games.

cameltosis

Adamantine said:

cameltosis said:

* Make sure it is genuinely Massively Multiplayer - to me, this means supporting 500+ players within the same virtual environment.

Thats a hardware question, you need the necessary network bandwidth. Also an implementation question, you need your software to be able to run on a multiprocessor system. Its also a commercial problem, private people can maybe run their servers for 30 people or some such.

Its not related to rulesystem design at all.

It's the starting point for everything else!

If you are designing a game that only supports 12 players, or designing a game that supports 500+ players, it's going to affect absolutely everything else. How you design your combat, your economy, your roleplaying will all be affected by how many people are going to be involved.

Adamantine said:

cameltosis said:

 Raph Koster's

Always talks so much and yet says so little. And has he archieved anything since Ultima Online ?

Learning how a game works is fun, yes, but its not the only kind of fun to have in a game, and just because you know the rules doesnt mean you're done.

Chess is easy to learn. Its rules fit on a piece of paper. And yet (some) people spend their lifes learning it.

I've tried a number of responses to this but it just ends up as a wall of text.

With Raph.....yeh, he hasn't produced any good games recently. But, he still has one of the best CVs in the MMORPG genre, and he's done more research into game design than anyone else. If you have any interest in game design (which this thread indicates you do), you should read his books. "A theory of fun" is the most relevant, but "Postmortems" is great if you played MUDs, UO, SWG or Metaplace.

On learning, you've sort of made my point for me. Learning only stops when mastery occurs. Something like chess will never be mastered by the average person, so the fun can remain forever. 

mekhere

Adamantine said:

A typical rule-based system has four basic components:

• A list of rules or rule base, which is a specific type of knowledge base.
• An inference engine or semantic reasoner, which infers information or takes action based on the interaction of input and the rule base. The interpreter executes a production system program by performing the following match-resolve-act cycle

• Match: In this first phase, the left-hand sides of all productions are matched against the contents of working memory. As a result a conflict set is obtained, which consists of instantiations of all satisfied productions. An instantiation of a production is an ordered list of working memory elements that satisfies the left-hand side of the production.
• Conflict-Resolution: In this second phase, one of the production instantiations in the conflict set is chosen for execution. If no productions are satisfied, the interpreter halts.
• Act: In this third phase, the actions of the production selected in the conflict-resolution phase are executed. These actions may change the contents of working memory. At the end of this phase, execution returns to the first phase.

• Temporary working memory.
• A user interface or other connection to the outside world through which input and output signals are received and sent.

How do you fix the spam class using this framework? 
I don't see diversity as an issue in game. There's plenty of good vs evil and a million different races. It is pretty impressive in game how inclusive race is. That's more of an outside of game issue. We all know the gaming industry is doing everything it can to Un diversify its player base by catering to the more bountiful among them. 
I know your thinking to yourself AI is the answer we have all been waiting for. It will balance skills, abilities, armor factors, weapon factor, and spells. AI will shame the savants among algorithms. I hope your assumptions are right. I guess the ultimate test of AI will be how unbalanced hackers can make a game while hacking AI during live gameplay. I know that's what you're thinking. 

I disagree with you on diversity. Your gaming portfolio isn't diverse enough to choose diversity as a core issue with games.