[MUD-Dev] Attractive Grouping (Was: Focus vs. Scope)

[cruise]

John Buehler wrote:
> Cruise writes:
>> P J wrote:

>>> Back in beta, I heard WoW called - the best single-player game
>>> I've ever played with other people.  That pretty much sums it up
>>> in a nutshell. While there are things you need other people for
>>> - and I totally disagree that you have to FORCE grouping - it
>>> addresses the fact that there is little beyond game mechanic
>>> goals to retain users. You CAN 'win' WoW - or at least it feels
>>> that way.  Great as a game - IMHO longterm death for a MMO.

>> Interestingly, this is similar to the complaints many have about
>> CoH - the lack of socialisation.

>> It seems likely that this is a result of the
>> streamlining...you're too busy playing to worry about other
>> people. I guess the question then becomes: "Can we have focused
>> MMORPGs that are also social?"

>> A better way of phrasing it might be: "Is it possible to make
>> socialising and grouping as much fun and /rewarding/ as just
>> playing the game as if it were a single-player game?"

>> So what of problems need to be overcome?

>>   - Time to group
>>   - Lumped with bad team-mates
>>   - Communication is awkward or too fiddly

>> And no doubt there's more...

>> Again, can we blame the grind? Is anything that doesn't
>> contribute to that next level going to be ignored? Is it possible
>> to have socialising aid the levelling process in other ways from
>> just getting more XP in teams?

<snip>

>  For example, my idea for sating the desires of the combat-hungry
>  is to have a kind of Front Lines Area where the NPC baddies are.
>  There is literally a front line, as with WWI or WWII combat.
>  Through the actions of player characters, that line can be pushed
>  back and forth.  The pushing back exposes new ground (to vary the
>  combat), new resources (to vary the trade and exploration
>  experiences) and perhaps new opponents.  On day one of the game,
>  the Vandals are at the gates of Rome.  On day one thousand of the
>  game, the Vandals have long been defeated, and many other enemies
>  (probably all members kingdoms of some vast evil empire), and the
>  lands claimed have been settled by the other players.

>  The point of doing this is to ensure that no grouping is
>  necessary, that the combat-interested have a place to gather,
>  that there is always a ready stream of opponents (directed at the
>  macro level by company employees for maximum challenge), and that
>  progress is measured for the group, not for individuals.
>  Capturing the Third Orc Tower is a moment in game history.
>  Perhaps to be lost again, but the gaining of the tower is a
>  landmark moment.

I like the concept - I'd be worried about the havoc griefers could
cause, but certainly a very interesting idea.

As a more general thought, could we do without groups in any MMORPG?
Players simply play the game, and work together if they happen to be
in the same area. The only difficulty is how to dish out
rewards...it can't be based on damage done, because that screws over
support classes. Measuring general utility or assistance provided is
probably intractable, or at least going to be perceived as unfair
more often than not.

Maybe a more flexible version of EQ2's combat locking? The first
player to a mob locks it, but other players can be invited to the
fight at any point - it would end up similar to grouping but on more
of a per-fight basis. Suddenly discover that your current fight is
harder than you expected? Yell for help, and any nearby players can
respond and join in for a share of the reward (and perhaps penalty
if the original player dies? Just trying to balance the various
abuse possibilities).

A groupless system would also work well in J C Lawrence's "resource
economy based on human attention."

Either of these systems would make actual /communication/ and
socialising an inherent part of playing the game, rather than
something which is just done in downtime.

>  Such a game cannot have character levels that significantly
>  affect character effectiveness.  Levels inherently oppose a group
>  identity.  Recognition of standing in a group is perfectly
>  reasonable, but distinct power levels immediately results in
>  partitioning of game content, meaning partitioning of social
>  groups according to character effectiveness.  It's the classic
>  case of 'keep up or drop out'.

If you removed the forced level penalties from combat in most RPG
systems, I think you'd have a good compromise. That needs
explaining, so let's take an example.

In CoH, every other level you can add a new ability. Generally you
start with the most basic, general powers, and add more powerful but
specific ones later.  However, there are fixed penalties for
fighting enemies higher level than you, which go up exponentially as
the level difference increases.  Take those penalties away, however,
and the only difference between low and high level is the range of
abilities they have. A low level hero will have no resistances
against holds, for example, making them very vulnerable to a higher
level character with them.

This still provides the benefit to levelling, but enables new
players to at least contribute something. This couples nicely with
the no-grouping concepts above, as you don't have to worry about the
level of the person who comes in to help...

--
[ cruise / casual-tempest.net / transference.org ]
   "quantam sufficit"
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev