Decline of EVE Online

[Data4]

I dunno... I think CCP are being pretty tone deaf about the problems with EVE. Yeah, the "flying in space" people were all butthurt about Incarna, but I was one of the people who was looking forward to what Incarna has to offer. My issue was the slippery slope potential of their RMT store. I'm cool with PLEX, but the Noble Exchange is toeing the pay to win line. I think if a game is going to charge a sub, everything should be available in-game to everyone, with the cost being in-game effort.

Incarna opens up new gameplay possibilities and I'd like that. The loveletter I got seemed to imply that Incarna related stuff was going to be downplayed in favor of the in space parts. I'm not a social player, so getting involved in corp activity isn't something I can do. So, if I want to play EVE right now, it's mission running and mining, and that's so goddamn boring that I put my account on hold several months back (even before the Noble Exchange brouhaha started) to wait for the Incarna roll-out. Seems like I'll be waiting longer.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

Setting alone does not a game make. In fact any setting and sense of story will be raped by an MMO's persistent nature, so the less you care about the setting the better.

I wouldn't say that's a necessity. It depends on how you handle things. Cryptic for instance has been using the Champions setting fairly well. Though the type of setting can help a lot with this kind of thing. Enormous metaplot like what oWoD had would definately be at odds with an MMO.

 

[Grunker]

A player cannot achieve anything in an MMO. There is no progress, the story is persistent. The quest to find King Harold's Golden Testicles must still be there when Marcus comes along after Peter has just been there.

This is essentially means zero player impact on the game world. So why, again, would you want such an experience in a world you treasure?

 

[Shannow]

A player cannot achieve anything in an MMO. There is no progress, the story is persistent. The quest to find King Harold's Golden Testicles must still be there when Marcus comes along after Peter has just been there.

This is essentially means zero player impact on the game world. So why, again, would you want such an experience in a world you treasure?

Well, GW2 is trying to break the mold (a little bit), by having quests dynamically change due to the outcome of previous quest(phases). The Secret World seems to aim for similar stuff on a smaller scale.
As I understood it Ultima Online (and EVE itself) were strongly impacted by player actions (but I didn't play them past trial, so I'm not sure).

While I wouldn't get my hopes tpp far up, I do expect mmos (perhaps World of Darkness, too) to become more dynamic over the next 5 years or so. The main problems for a dynamic world are how death is handled and mmotards.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

A player cannot achieve anything in an MMO. There is no progress, the story is persistent. The quest to find King Harold's Golden Testicles must still be there when Marcus comes along after Peter has just been there.

This is essentially means zero player impact on the game world. So why, again, would you want such an experience in a world you treasure?

Well that's the case with most games anyway. And does your playthrough of Arkham Asylum suffer from the fact that several million others played it too?

But it's still a rather irrelevant point, since MMOs are a whole different animal from normal games in many respects. Certain types of MMO, like EVE or UO as Shannow mentioned, can have enormous emergent dynamic changes to the world through player action, like that one infamous corp infiltration in EVE. The problem with this though is that players are more likely than not shit-grinning monkeys, which leads to the changes being ultimately about power rankings.


PS: Truly dynamic worlds are way rarer than the Codex thinks anyway. And Fallout 1 and Arcanum aren't good examples of truly dynamic design. There's a world of difference between setting post-quest dialogue for relevant characters and having ending slides, than to have actual effects to the game based on your actions.

 

[Grunker]

A player cannot achieve anything in an MMO. There is no progress, the story is persistent. The quest to find King Harold's Golden Testicles must still be there when Marcus comes along after Peter has just been there.

This is essentially means zero player impact on the game world. So why, again, would you want such an experience in a world you treasure?

Well, GW2 is trying to break the mold (a little bit), by having quests dynamically change due to the outcome of previous quest(phases). The Secret World seems to aim for similar stuff on a smaller scale.
As I understood it Ultima Online (and EVE itself) were strongly impacted by player actions (but I didn't play them past trial, so I'm not sure).

While I wouldn't get my hopes tpp far up, I do expect mmos (perhaps World of Darkness, too) to become more dynamic over the next 5 years or so. The main problems for a dynamic world are how death is handled and mmotards.

You're missing the point. I can see the appeal of what you're describing in a single player game, but WHY OH WHY in a multiplayer one? What do I care if future quests change based upon my choices for me, when they do not change the WORLD at all. Why combine single-player consequences to quests in the storyline with an MMO? If there are no implications for other players I might as well be playing a single-player game.

Well that's the case with most games anyway. And does your playthrough of Arkham Asylum suffer from the fact that several million others played it too?

No, but I'm not playing Arkham Asylum with millions of other players now, am I?

But it's still a rather irrelevant point, since MMOs are a whole different animal from normal games in many respects. Certain types of MMO, like EVE or UO as Shannow mentioned, can have enormous emergent dynamic changes to the world through player action, like that one infamous corp infiltration in EVE. The problem with this though is that players are more likely than not shit-grinning monkeys, which leads to the changes being ultimately about power rankings.


PS: Truly dynamic worlds are way rarer than the Codex thinks anyway. And Fallout 1 and Arcanum aren't good examples of truly dynamic design. There's a world of difference between setting post-quest dialogue for relevant characters and having ending slides, than to have actual effects to the game based on your actions.

I don't understand what relation this has to my point? I questioned Jaesun's appetite for a WoD MMO when he dislikes other MMOs. I asked him why he would consider a WoD MMO different from other MMOs - what inherent trait of WoD that would save the game compared to other MMOs.

What you and Shannow are describing is sortta the The Old Republic way, but this doesn't have shit to do with a dynamic way, it's just placing a single-player experience within the framework of a multiplayer game.

 

[Mangoose]

To be honest I play MMOs because they are my (poor) substitute for single player sandboxes. Maybe someday Bethesda will actually improve NPC interaction and I'll be happy.

 

[Shannow]

What you and Shannow are describing is sortta the The Old Republic way, but this doesn't have shit to do with a dynamic way, it's just placing a single-player experience within the framework of a multiplayer game.

Actually it's not, not at all.
Your point sounded like: All mmos are static. All players do the same quests again and again. The world doesn't change due to their actions which is shit. It will be the same with the World of Darkness MMO, so why would Jaesun expect anything else.

I pointed out that some existing mmo worlds are in fact strongly influenced by player actions and GW2 was trying to break the static mold, too. (BTW, in a completely different way than TOR. I can't see how anybody could think those systems to be similar.) And TOR, now that you mention it, also tries to break the mold (albeitly in a shitty fashion), so one might not be able to expect a dynaic world in WoD, but one can hope.

Personally, I bet Jaesun is just a fag for the setting...

 

[Grunker]

Shannow, do you mean dynamic as in "quests change for the player based on his actions" - because if so, why then play a fucking multiplayer game?

Or do you mean truely dynamic, as in the world changes for all players based on what the player does. If so, how on earth do they achieve this?

 

[made]

Well, these days Goonswarm is ganking miners all over the place which drives raw material prices up and consequently affects every player in the universe. That's dynamic gameplay for you.

 

[Grunker]

Indeed, too bad EVE always felt like having a second job for me.

So does it work, or does it just add to frustration?

 

[Shannow]

Shannow, do you mean dynamic as in "quests change for the player based on his actions" - because if so, why then play a fucking multiplayer game?

Or do you mean truely dynamic, as in the world changes for all players based on what the player does. If so, how on earth do they achieve this?

In EVE and UO...no idea *g* Anything I'd write would just be hearsay, but Made gave an example. I think it's economics^^
In GW2 it'd be like:
Player enters region and made aware of some "quest" (0) happening, eg centaurs attack an outpost. He (and anyone else who wants and is in the area) joins the action.
1. The players beat the centaurs back. New quest (3) pops up to find the root of the centaur raids and stop it.
2. The players lose and the outpost is lost. New quest (4) pops up for players to free the outpost.
3. I players win leads to 5 find food to feed the hungry centaur fowls. If players lose leads to 0.
4. If players win leads to 0.
etc.
Not an actual example, just the general system as I understood it. Look into the GW2 thread if you want to learn more.
Supposedly there are trains with up to 15 nodes. Far from perfect but a change for the better, IMO. *shrug*

 

[Grunker]

That's still a recyclable non-dynamic... ah shit, we're getting nowhere here. Same goes for Made's example.

My original claim was that you setting wouldn't matter because setting is tied to story and you can't have a dynamic STORY in an MMO. Gameplay, perhaps (Made's example), but setting and story-dynamics are, as I see it, impossible.

If you can give me an example I shall reconsider, but until then I'll stick to my claim:

Why anyone would want a story-focused MMO in their favourite setting is something I do not understand.

 

[Excidium]

The VTM MMO is going to be different from others because it's going to be focused on player politics, not grabbing more gear to defeat more bosses. Every sect position is going to be filled by players, in a structure similar to the VTM LARP. And the devs said they would implement means to allow the players to change the game's city over time.

And the 20th anniversary edition is good stuff, but it's loaded with bullshit on the business end. Only
direct order release? No retail? Limited print? ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTEEN FUCKING DOLLARS?!

The PDF is going for $29.99 which is a good price, they'll be releasing it on p.o.d soon.

http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product_i ... s_id=94815

 

[Mangoose]

Well, despite the static-ness of the GW2 example, it's still heads and shoulders more dynamic than any single player sandbox implementation so far. Give me procedural settings changes in single player games and I'll be happy.

Dynamic story, though, that's different. It's useless, for me at least. But millions of sheeple out there would love the chance to get their unique storyline items and brag to their friends.

It could be interesting though if an MMO maintained the illusion that the player character was the protagonist, and every other player was a supporting character.

 

[Excidium]

I don't give a damn about the game's plot, the good MMO story is the ones the players make themselves over time.

All the drama, the forum fights, the famous exploiters...I mean, I don't play EVE but the coolest thing about that game is the whole shit that happens in the metagame. Just give the players the tools to make their own story, instead of forcing people through cutscenes.

 

[Grunker]

The VTM MMO is going to be different from others because it's going to be focused on player politics, not grabbing more gear to defeat more bosses. Every sect position is going to be filled by players, in a structure similar to the VTM LARP. And the devs said they would implement means to allow the players to change the game's city over time.

Sounds very interesting in theory. In practice though... Let's just say I'd like to see it before I believe it.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

Well, EVE did do pretty fucking amazing things when it came to emergent gameplay based on power politics. Personally I don't like EVE because I feel it's an "old boys club" and it's like having a second job. I get much more out of going to shove my foot up Shadow Destroyer's ass while larping witty superhero banter with friends (though on the other hand, I absolutely loathe the usual RP that takes place in MMOs. I can't stand that furry relationship mary sue drama bullshit, let's just go be fucking superheroes doing superhero things).

In general, it seems following the GW2 announcement procedurally generated or emergent content has been on the menu for MMOs (Bioware's just peddling their romance/ego-stroke bullshit as they always do). A similar thing is the Alert system Cryptic is working on for Champions, where though details have been slim it's apparently mix-n-match piecing of quest elements to create a random quest in a random location with random villains, outlined by Alert type chosen. Nothing too complex, but it does sound like a lot of fun team content.

Also on the subject of static worlds, Champions Online actually has advanced the PnP metaplot as well, with the most recent adventures having 1) seen Doctor Destroyer return and Shadow Destroyer and the Conquerors got their asses handed to them leaving Multifaria free, 2) The Qliphothic Realm close to the Champions earth has disappeared and the Avatars of the Kings of Edom failed to reincarnate on Earth, 3) Luthor Black has died, at least his physical body has.

Personally I don't mind people being able to do that stuff over and over again, what matters is that it's fun to do yourself and it's even more fun with friends (maybe with a bit of larping as a side dish). Storywise the solution is pretty simple for managing the setting: Do not specify the heroes or use setting characters instead. Standard PnP GM practises really.

 

[Shannow]

A player cannot achieve anything in an MMO. There is no progress, the story is persistent. The quest to find King Harold's Golden Testicles must still be there when Marcus comes along after Peter has just been there.

This is essentially means zero player impact on the game world.

That's what you said. That's not what GW2 offers. There is progress, not everybody (gets to) do(es) the same quests, the gameworld is impacted by the players' actions. Not as much as I'd like (by far). And whether it's actually fun to play also remains to be seen. But you should heve been more (less) concrete from the beginning

But your more general comments on (non-)emergent story-lines in mmos (and games in general) are right. But who cares about stories in games? Especially mmos?

What I'd like is a simulationist world with player based politics and economics that finds a way to deal with death and griefers. The devs would not provide a story per se but introduce challenges the player population has to deal with, once in a while...

 

[Grunker]

But who cares about stories in games? Especially mmos?

See, this is why I was trying to make you hold focus, and yet you slipped

Jaesun said the WoD MMO would be better - AND that's why we're discussing setting and story. For it to be better out of virtue of being an MMO, it would have to drastically change the way MMOs did story.

So my only point was: "Don't expect a better framework to these things because it's WoD - expect worse because this times it's being done to something you like/love."

 

[Shannow]

The WoD MMOG is/was one of the only MMOG I was actually interested in.

Unlike all the other shit WoW grindan clone #365273568243

How exactly did you expect this to be different? I'm trying to imagine an MMO without grind but it's just... not... coming...

Setting alone does not a game make. In fact any setting and sense of story will be raped by an MMO's persistent nature, so the less you care about the setting the better.

See, that's where you slipped. Gameplay, mechanics, setting all of them are more important than story. Even more so in an mmo.
Setting is a given and one has to assume Jaesun likes it.
Gameplay one cannot comment on since nothing is known.
We mentioned possibilities in mechanics and world interaction.
Not our fault if you just want to focus on the least important aspect and try to shoe-horn it into some kind of deciding factor why somebody should be interested in this mmo...

 

[Grunker]

Oh come on mate, Jaesun commented on the WoD being an MMO he was interested in as opposed to others. I therefore assumed it was because of setting. I therefore commented that the mechanics in MMOs were not good enough to make the setting matter - in fact at most it would harm it.

So I'm not sure where you're going with this. I even say it myself:

Setting alone does not a game make.

 

[made]

All you really need is a sandbox and the tools for players to create their own stories within it. EVE does that, to a degree. (Watch this dramatization of a space battle that may or may not accurately mirror an actual large scale fleet operation in EVE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSxSyv4LC1c )

I guess CCP being the developer people were expecting similar sandbox gameplay out of WoDO - vying for control of urban environments, political intrigue, betrayal - but with a more personal touch (and gay vampire romance).

 

[Jaesun]

Oh come on mate, Jaesun commented on the WoD being an MMO he was interested in as opposed to others. I therefore assumed it was because of setting. I therefore commented that the mechanics in MMOs were not good enough to make the setting matter - in fact at most it would harm it.

Man, slow troll day for you there Grunker?

Since I had had a few beers when making my rather vague comment, what is appealing to me with the WoD MMO is:

1. The nWoD setting. I fucking LOVE the new setting.

2. As Excidium already pointed out: "it's going to be focused on player politics, not grabbing more gear to defeat more bosses. Every sect position is going to be filled by players, in a structure similar to the VTM LARP. And the devs said they would implement means to allow the players to change the game's city over time."***

3. Story potential within a nWoD setting. I Am a huge storyfag and usually love in game lore.

The 3 things above spark my interest. What WoD will eventually turn out to be, who knows. It is one of a very few list of games I actually have my eye on. But still, little information exists on it so far. And the announcement of the delay on it could actually be a good thing. Hopefully.

*** Developers sometimes promise many things, but sometimes they cannot deliver due to time or other restraints.

 

[Excidium]

But the MMO is going to be set in the old world of darkness.