RSS
Home
The Top Five Best and Worst MMO Ideas
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
Since the days of Ultima Online, Everquest and Asheron's Call, each new massively multiplayer game has tried to build upon the good of the last while eliminating the bad. And each one has made as many mistakes as they have made good choices. Here is a look at some of the best and the worst that has come since the early days.
The Top Five Worst MMO Ideas
5. The name: Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game.
We should really be calling these games what they are: Virtual Worlds. At least then we could separate games like World of Warcraft, Everquest II, Age of Conan, etc, from games like Hellgate: London. Hellgate: London isn't a Virtual World. In fact, Hellgate: London is what I would call the future multiplayer games. The chat screen used for picking people to play a game with replaced with an in-game avatar area to find players, but for all intent and purpose, the game is a multiplayer game.
Games such as World of Warcraft and Age of Conan operate under a totally different dynamic than games like Hellgate: London and we should note this by calling them Virtual Worlds instead of just MMORPGs.
MMOs have come a long way since Ultima Online
4. Instances.
Instances have the unique place in being listed as both a pro and a con, so before you get the tar and feathers ready be patient enough to read why it gets on the Five Best Ideas list!
Instances make the Five Worst MMO Ideas list not because of what they can do, but because of how they have been used. Most games using instances use them simply as a way around creating enough content to support the game, and to this end they are bad for the games. Most players would rather enough actual content to support the game world as opposed to the same content replicated through instances and served up.
For example, Everquest II creating instances for areas like the Commonlands is a symptom of simply not spending the time, energy and money in building enough landmass and adventuring spots to adequately hold the number of players allowed on a server.
For this I say: Give us content, not instances!
3. Group vs Solo mobs.
This is much the same as instances. Buffing up some mobs and designating them as 'group' mobs. For example, you see a couple of goblins standing around, and you think, hey, they should be about the same difficulty. But one of them hits you for a gazillion points of damage.
I have no problem with 'boss' mobs being beefed up, and raid mobs being super beefed up, but when you segregate all of the content into solo and group mobs then, really, much like instances, you are trying to get around the need for enough content. I think the key here is to build in a reasonable balance between grouping and soloing such that people will have a reason to group more than just the fact that the developer decided to give certain goblins three times more hit points and four times more strength.
The group vs solo tag is more of a quick fix for a design flaw than anything else.
This isn't to say that different 'levels' of mob types in a game is always a bad thing. City of Heroes, for example, does a pretty good job of having different types of mobs (cohorts, leaders, heroes, etc) without it feeling like an artificial quick fix that forces you into a certain way to play the game.
2. Archetypes
This is another quick fix that has popped up in recent games, but it is a quick fix for class balance as opposed to a quick fix for content. Archetypes are horrible. At least with instances and group/solo mobs they can be done well or done poorly, but having an archetype class structure is really just a bad choice.
The big question is: Why have an archetype system? There is not a single benefit that it provides that cannot be achieved without an archetype system, and yet it limits what can be done in the system. In that regard, it can only detract from the game.
For those unfamiliar with archetype systems, it is a system that divides classes into groups where each group plays a 'role' and each class in that group plays that role 'equally'.
Archetype systems are bad because they eliminate the options available to classes. There are no more hybrids because each class must perform its role equally. There are no more generalists or jack-of-all-trades classes because they must perform their roles equally. There are no more specialty classes that do something vastly different because they must perform their archetype role equally. In point: it eliminates variety in the classes.
And, for no good reason. There isn't anything that an archetype system provides that cannot be done without an archetype system. The major purpose of the archetype system is to ensure that no one class reigns supreme in a role, and that can certainly be achieved without going to an archetype system.
If we were to use Everquest's class system as an example, we could certainly create the system such that shamans heal on par with clerics, shadow knights and paladins tank on par with warriors, magicians/necromancers/wizards all do roughly the same damage, monks/rogues to roughly the same damage, and still leave bards, enchanters, rangers, and druids as hybrids, generalists, and specialist classes. We've achieved the goal of not having a single class best at a major role while not limiting ourselves in class design and not eliminating hybrids, jack of all trades, etc.
In essence, the choice to have an archetype system is basically like saying "I do not trust myself to be able to design good classes so I have to limit myself."
1. Over-analyzed and Overt Balancing.
Balance is a key feature to these games, but it is important to remember two things: (1) Balance means harmonious proportion, not equality. Two classes need not be equal to be balanced. And (2) Balance should never get in the way of Fun. If you rank the most important aspects of game design it would go FUN first EVERYTHING ELSE next.
The recent trend has been to analyze and over-analyze balance to the point where it seems the fun is being sucked out of the games. I've already mentioned the archetype system, and it is an example of over-analyzing classes to the point where some fun classes (hybrids, etc) are axed because they don't fit into a system of equality.
This same type of zealous balancing effects other areas of the game from items that seem stale and ho-hum because the stats are just about the same as the stats on any like item of equivalent level/type to mobs that seem just like the mob next to them with different graphics to the different rules to keep things such as kiting out of the game and reduce game play to very simple (and easily balanced) tactics.
Balance is important, don't get me wrong, but balance should be balanced with fun. It should not be taken to the extent where the game seems stale and over-analyzed.
The Top Five Best Ideas in MMOs
I will start this section by saying that I have not played every MMO out there. If I attribute an innovation to one that was done first by another then feel free to leave a comment pointing that out. Credit should be given where credit is due and I'm quite happy for any innovation to be given its proper credit!
5. The Camp Bonus from Dark Ages of Camelot.
It's a very simple thing, really, and yet incredibly cool and (more incredibly) not copied. For those that didn't play DaoC, if a mob hadn't been killed for quite some time it would give a bonus to experience called a camp bonus. The next time it was killed it would give a slightly less camp bonus, and so on until soon it gave no bonus. If you went to an area where no one had been for a while you could be getting up to a 50% (or more) bonus on killing stuff until you had been there long enough to diminish the camp bonus.
A simple thing, like I said, but both effective and cool. Effective in that it helped combat a problem that all MMO's have with area density, which is when one camp spot becomes 'popular' and a lot of players are found there while other camp spots aren't as popular and become desolate. The camp bonus gives players an incentive to go out an find less popular areas to adventure, and it also gives incentive to move around so as not to completely reduce your bonus. In other words, it gives you a big thumbs up for finding out-of-the-way spots and another thumbs up for moving and fighting instead of just camping a spot.
Despite its flaws, DAoC had a lot of good ideas.
4. The Awesome Character Customization in City of Heroes.
I usually don't spend much time in the character customization screens in MMO's because invariably it matters little what choices you make as your equipment is just going to cover it all up anyways and everyone is going to go around looking the same. City of Heroes, being essentially an itemless MMO, was able to create a customization screen so powerful that you could easily create an appearance unique to your server.
Obviously, MMO's with items experience a little more difficulty in this area, but I also think they should put much more effort into player's being able to choose a look as opposed to choosing the stuff with the best stats.
An example of such as system would be one in which the 'back' slot and the 'waist' slot were for items that had absolutely no attributes/skills/abilities/etc attatched to them. They are purely for cosmetic purposes. In this way a character can choose a cloak, a cape, perhaps neither, choose they type (fur-line purple cloak anyone?), for the waist slot they could choose a leather belt with pouches, a belt with a jeweled scabbard, a rope, a talbard, etc.
And, of course, the more expensive the item the cooler it could look. There's no reason not to bring 'I got the mula' into it -- the main thing to remember would be to keep attributes out of it or, invariably, people will just wear the item with the best stats. (Letting them be enchanted with user-chosen stats would also work.)
There are certainly other ways this sort of customization could be done, but the point is that it can be done. And, in my opinion, it is important enough to give a little effort to instead of getting the same old I Can Make My Nose A Little Bigger system.
3. Chains Attacks.
Chain attacks were a good addition, especially chain attacks that work between party members (where the fighter might have to do something before the rogue can do the next thing in the chain). EQ2 was the first I played with this type of system but it may have been put into an MMO before this -- it's certainly not a new idea to gaming in general.
There is a lot of potential in this system that has yet to be realized. The system in EQ2 while it was still in beta, for example, was better than the one they released (which was like a dumbed down version).
Anything that provides extra tactics in combat is going to get a thumbs up. As it stands, MMO's are stuck in a very deep combat rut where one fight pretty much flows like the next. More tactics will lead to more variety.
2. Instances.
Yeah, like I said, they make both lists. They make this list because instances COULD be very cool. Some of the instances in EQ2, for example, show what could be done. The secret passageways and puzzles of Nek Castle, for example, is something that doesn't quite work so well if multiple parties are cruising around.
Instances should be areas designed to morph based on player actions such as a bridge that crumbles away after the party passes thus trapping them on the other side, etc. They should be made instances because they couldn't work quite right with multiple parties. (I.E. there should be a reason they are instances and not just instanced to provide more content availability).
In this way, instances could really help MMO's by making them feel more alive. As it stands, instances are often used to just dish up the same content over and over again. Hopefully we'll get more of the good stuff and less of the bad stuff as new MMO's are released.
1. The Defense-Oriented Reactive Combat system of Dark Ages of Camelot.
DaoC made its fair share of mistakes, but it was on the right track with combat. Not the most perfect system mind you, but definitely traveling down the right path.
Too many MMO's whittle combat down to a tank who gets hit a lot and a cleric that spams heal spells. Talk about little to no tactics and really little to no skill! I think the only real way to provide a good, fun tactical system with choice is to bring defense to the forefront and to allow tactics to circumvent the defense of the opponent.
To this end, I think DaoC was on the right path. They might not have walked too far down it, but they chose the right way to go. In DaoC, a fighter could choose to specialize in blocking, or parrying, and defense-oriented fighter would really block (or parry) a lot of blows. On top of this, some weapon abilities required them to block (or parry, or dodge, etc) a blow before they could be used. In this way they were 'reactive' abilities.
I don't think reactive abilities are necessary for great tactics, but I do think they help, and I do think that a defense-oriented style of combat is very helpful for having deep tactics. And I think a mixture of standard abilities, style based abilities, reactive abilities, and everything else you can throw at it would go a long ways to providing tactics and, most of all, choice. Because, really, it is choice that is going to make combat fun and engaging.
Related Articles:
Comments
