Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
We suck when it comes to freedom,
calranthe
Member UncommonPosts: 359
People are lording Archeage as the new messiah of sandbox games but really we will end up limiting and ruining it over time like any other..
We just suck so much in games when given freedom.
Every mmo out there can show examples of what happens when you give players freedom, oh not everyone some of us like to play games "as intended", I like to beat or play a game within the intended ideals of the developers, I will not look for exploits and if I find myself doing some thing that seems to good to be true I will contact a gm and ask about it.
SWTOR has just launched and nearly every patch up to now has had exploit fixes, now you can argue that Dev's should have tested or not been so naive but when it came down to it, these exploits are the ultimate form of sandbox within every game, be it market dupes that allow you to copy items, using dance moves to stop an enemy attacking, all these things we as players made the choice to do that, the programming was not there to stop us.
We lord ourselve and demand our freedom of choice in games but we caused the themepark style gameplay and it all started way back in muds, muds or some of them were the ultimate form of sandbox, when every room is a text description the freedom you can give players is amazing.
For example, a real time creation system can allow your spell effects to affect the world, mages using words of fire can cause an entire areas glacier to start melting, can turn a forest area in to a desert, but being a dev and gm of a mud was a 24/7 hobby and me like a lot of others burnt ourselves out completely trying to deal with players who were hell bent on abusing any freedom you gave them..
My mud still runs 14 years later but I no longer log on there, 8 odd years of dealing with players, spending more and more time fixing cheats and exploits than actually creating new wonderful systems for players to use will burn you out.
We look back at UO as being one of the best examples of a sand box game, most of the developers of the game came from a mud background and giving the player freedom was always a big goal but an example of what we do with that freedom has a knock on effect.
Furniture in the street, players were given the ability to drop items anywhere, so certain individuals barricaded city entrances and left only a killing zone for people to leave and enter cities, dev's had to give players the ability to destroy/cut up furniture, bring that forward and you see why most games these days do not allow you to drop your latest trophy on the ground to show your friends..
It was a constant battle between a dev's dreams and a players ability to exploit any new system.
One of the hated things when SWG launched was the inability to jump, oh the forum threads about it but lets face the cold hard facts we caused it, Games have to make money and the bigger your team of people who have to deal with exploits and keep an eye on players each one of those people is not creating he or she is countering a players move like in chess, by not having the jump command they did away with an entire section of abuses like shooting enemies from the top of buildings or finding that one null point in an area where you were out of the games control.
We caused that.. look back to EQ in the plains of karana there was a house you could get on the roof, npc's had never been coded to be able to move on that kind of Z access so players could kill mobs with impunity.
Anarchy online there was a patrol droid level 200 I believe and a specific abuse used by soldiers, they had an amazing nano called the mirror shield set, it reflected damage back on target, people figured out you could get a group together, send in a soldier let him attack the droid and its own dps would kill it over time, spawn spot was close so the soldier just fought died and respawned. Totally unrealistic and it was also killing own side guards
In time they nerfed the entire line of the nano mirror shields and no good complaining we caused it.
I know there is a lot of us who love playing games as intended, who see it as an achievement to beat, win or succeed in a games but there is sadly a lot who don't.
Think how much development time could be saved or new content created if everything put in to a mmo now has to be checked to see if it can be exploited and fixed when it does get exploited.
So when I see an amazing looking game like ArcheAge with so much potential and ideals I have to wonder, how long till we as players destroy it, because believe me, giving player freedom in a game costs and abuses or exploits also cost and before that game comes out of beta certain people will have lists of ways to abuse every system in there.
At least in SWTOR there is less chance of players destroying my experience becaus of the themepark limitation.
We suck lol.
Comments
Great exposition, and I agree on plenty of the things you say.
However, games like VG, EVE or Ryzom show that freedom is possible.
I was also helping maintain a MUD for a while, and many of our players were IT students who would not only try to exploit the game but also try to hack the server right away, so I know how you feel. Hell, I even had my admin account hacked once. But even though we had to cope with that, it was worth it, and I even met some ppl who are my RL friends now.
No matter how much freedom or how linear a game is, there will be players trying to exploit it. UO and SWTOR are 2 examples at both ends of the spectrum. This does not mean we have to accept the lack of freedom on today's MMOs.
I agree, unfortunately. Games need to design to the "least common denominator" with us players. "Freedom" many times spells disaster for a game. I believe (hope) that the majority of players will play "as intended", but it just takes a few to spoil the game.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Arche Age unlike some other especially western games isn't designed for the lowest comon denominator its not for the Blizzard or Bioware type players its for people how can appreciate a great mixture of both (themepark and sandbox).
Better comparison would have been Everquest plus housing. If people can't handle the freedom thats fine go play some of the incredible linearic games outthere, especially Bioware is nowadays known for them.
The players you are mentioning won't enjoy AA and I doubt they'll even look at it which is fine, let them have fun with Mists, GW 2 and whatever will come out this year.
We need a MMORPG Cataclysm asap, finish the dark age of MMORPGS now!
"Everything you're bitching about is wrong. People don't have the time to invest in corpse runs, impossible zones, or long winded quests. Sometimes, they just want to pop on and play."
"Then maybe MMORPGs aren't for you."
You really do have no idea about this do you ?
These people love sandbox games, they love to push the limits, exploit every part and cause the dev's to create a balance/nerf cycle that harms everyone and puts the developor in a situation where they have to make changes because believe me people will mess up there amazing ideas and use them in ways not intended.
Stop putting people into neat little boxes, you will do better at life, I enjoy the ps3 and 360, I own 2 games pc's, my wife enjoys games herself, we are part of a pvp alliance in EVE, we also enjoy games like GW, SWTOR and will probably enjoy archeage but it will not be without its issues and will not be without its abusers, it is human nature for some.
if players are given freedom, they are not expected to play "as intended". quite opposite, to be honest.
If people want balance - go play an FPS couse a MMOG will never be balanced around PvP period.
No game will be without issues thats for sure but fact of the matter is, ArcheAge will clearly not be for everyone people who like to be guarded and limited will not enjoy this game thats for sure. I just hope they wont have an official forum and stick to their gameplan without giving up to the whiners.
We need a MMORPG Cataclysm asap, finish the dark age of MMORPGS now!
"Everything you're bitching about is wrong. People don't have the time to invest in corpse runs, impossible zones, or long winded quests. Sometimes, they just want to pop on and play."
"Then maybe MMORPGs aren't for you."
People are just speculating about Archage and filling blanks with their wishful thinking.
Moot discussion there.
However, what you described is just horrible game design, not particularly a player fault.
There is no freedom without restrictions, rules and repercussion and I would also add that there is no entertainment with labor involved.
UO and MUDs decided to ignore those and got what they deserved...
I really don't think you understand what he is talking about.
His post is about how too many players abuse the freedom afforded in games that are built to support emergent gameplay, causing the devs to have to divert an inordinate amount of time to patching holes rather than creating new engaging content.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
They do not abuse freedom but very poor game design...
All us vets miss the hardmode games but lets just try and be thankful for the games slated to be released this year. The mmo genre hasn't looked this bright for quite a long time.
Gd, that can be the case sometimes, but to deem the abuse of freedoms to be 'poor game design' is absurd. You limit or increase freedoms within the game world according to how your players use or abuse them. Sometimes you have to take away the nice toys, other times you have to severely limit them, and sometimes you develop new tools for the toys because they're doing really cool things with them. A sweeping generalization that if a freedom is abused then it was bad game design simply can't be used unless your contention is that emergent behaviour and player-defined content is bad.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
You can't predict EVERYTHING that creative players could invent if they have enough freedom. Like in EVE you have high security zones guarded by powerful NPCs. So what? Players invented literally a million ways to get around: starting from stupid "free stuff" containers and ending suicide alfa-strike. Poor game design? Nope, that a human nature if they say you that this is a "no-no thing" some will try and get a workaround for that.
And i personally thing that it's great. Because playing something linear like COD:MW is dull and boring. And i think that's why Minecrft is a such popular game - it's all about your creativity. Yes, creativity can be a negative one, but the problem is that you can't limit only negative one. You limiting both or get in that "shell vs armor" situation when both sides working to invent new measures and countermeasures in infinite circles.
Thing is ArcheAge is NOT sandbox
Don't get me wrong, this is not about me being 'elitist' and ranting about AA that it is not 'true sandbox' enough.
I am wating for AA myself and I find it most interesting mmorpg upcoming title by FAR above all else.
Still AA is hybrid. It is as sandboxy as themeparky. So comparing it directly to games like UO or SWG or even Darkfall is wrong.
This will not be game like that. It will share SOME of those games concepts and features but it will be more casual than many people imagine. But also less casual than your average AAA themepark.
Thatis is in a way good thing imo, because game like ArcheAge that has 'fat' millions spend on, need broader playerbase.
It isn't absurd. I will explain in reply below.
And that is why you include rules, restrictions and repercussion to any feature you introduce.
UO went the other way round - they gave players as much "freedom" as possible and afterwards when it turned out not to be working they had to put restrictions.
Freedom does not mean no limits but available options.
No limits design is a poor design.
No one is advocating 'no limits design' so it would be helpful if you left rhe strawmen behind and stuck to the topic.
In order to let people explore options with content, you have to give them a certain amount of freedom with it. Predicting everything that hundreds of thousands of people will do with that content is near impossible. You create it within certain guidelines, monitor it and adjust the rules accordingly. The more flexible the rules, the more chance it will get abused BUT the more opportunity there is for emergent behaviour which is one of the goals of creating such content in sandbox games.
Abuse isn't necessarily the result of bad game design. It is often one of the many outcomes of affording freedom and flexibility in ANY environemnt, real or virtual.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
That is the topic...
No limit design is causing...
Binding sovereignty to Outposts without possibility to destroy them is perfect example of poor no limit design(Seleene says Hi! ).
So if a development team consisting of say, 20 members, cannot with absolute certainty predict every possible way that their 500 000 players could use (or abuse) a feature, that feature is best left out of the game ?
No wonder we don't have any sandbox games anymore, lol
Are you also stucked much on idea that freedom must come from enforced unintended use of the game features?
Or maybe I should let you argue a point no one was making...
This topic reminds of the EQ Legend, Fancy, the Bard.
The Sullon Zek server was created as a no rules PvP server, back in the day. I lie, because it did have 1 rule: levels 1-5 were immune to open world PvP. That was intended to get players used to their character and give them some kind of fighting chance.
Along comes Fancy, the Good Bard who roleplays. At 5th level, bards get the song Selo's Accelerando, a movement increase song. Fancy had an idea...
In the Desert of Ro and North Ro, Fancy decided the only way to get at all the "evil people" in those zones was to train Sand Giants on them. It was very effective.
Now, was this an exploit, as Fancy was immune to the opposition's spells and attacks, being only level 5? Or was this within the intended ruleset? Was Fancy smart and skilled, or was she an exploiter? Was this bad game design?
Many petitions were instigated. Some of the GM conversations with Fancy were along the lines of "Well done!"
After only three days of this, EQ finally implemented another rule on their "no rules server." Players in zones other than starting zones lost their immunity to other players' spells and attacks.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Fansy is the most awesome person I have ever heard of in all my life.
This is certainly not restricted to small dev teams and open sandbox games. WoW has had its share of exploits. The ZG disease that hunters would get on their pets, dismiss them, then unleash in crowded cities. Guilds and players useing server jumps to get around the raid lockout restrictions. Training Khazak-doom or whatever his name is all the way to stormwind and logging out.
Heck, during the zombie plague event for WoTLK, my girl and I spent half a day trying to buyg out guards and single-handledly kill the king of Stomrwind. Got the bugger to 3% too.
Long story short: It is 100% IMPOSSIBLE to make a game expliot -proof, unless you don't let anyone play it. Players wil find a way. I mean the OP mentioned TOR as being relatively exploit free...look at the Splicer mess!
If you look carefully at that whole post you are quoting from, you will see that it's a response to your sweeping statement saying that any abuse of game mechanics by players is only possible due to "very bad game design".
So, I'll explain my comment once again, seeing as you completely missed the point. You are alleging that if developers cannot foresee ALL the possible ways of using their game mechanics, then they are guilty of "very bad game design".
I was simply pointing out the fact that a single team of developers cannot predict ALL the possible ways that a large amount of players can use a game feature, unless they make all their features highly restrictive and limited in scope.
I feel Stuck is strong with this one...
You're already bitching about ArcheAge freedom, it hasn't even come out in Asia yet. I hate to break it to people in NA/EU area, but your not seeing this game for atleast a year after release in Asia, that is how Korean/Chinese games are, they play it til the playerbase is bored over there, then send it to NA/EU area and call it new so they don't have to make a new game right away if they don't want too which extends the shelf life of these games. When you talk about a New Korean game being made just remember, it'll be a year minimum after release before you get to even play it unless you live in Asia.