Showing posts with label groups. Show all posts
Showing posts with label groups. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
powerful doesn't mean solo
Diablo 2 and Borderlands have proven that it is not necessary to make classes difficult to solo to encourage grouping.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
multiplayer does not equal grouping
Again, I'm going to cheat and simply reprint a comment I made over at Cameron's site.
First, MMOs attract gamers for more reasons than just the other players. The worlds are huge compared to single-player games, as are loot tables. There's simply more to explore than in single-player games.
That said, the point of playing in the same gameworld as other players can potentially extend far, far beyond grouping. In the real world, individuals constantly affect the lives of others without direct contact. In fact, that's the basis of modern economics. The same can happen in games.
In Shadowbane, I once wandered onto a smoldering ruin. There were no players around, but the burning buildings and broken walls I was viewing were the results of a siege that had taken place just a day or two before I arrived there.
The now extinct Trials of Ascension included many ways in which players could create gameplay for each other without ever meeting. For one example, a player could sacrifice the last of his lives to create a relic which would be randomly hidden in the world.
Simply watching other players run around helps to create the feeling of a living world. Multiplayer can mean so much more than merely grouping!
First, MMOs attract gamers for more reasons than just the other players. The worlds are huge compared to single-player games, as are loot tables. There's simply more to explore than in single-player games.
That said, the point of playing in the same gameworld as other players can potentially extend far, far beyond grouping. In the real world, individuals constantly affect the lives of others without direct contact. In fact, that's the basis of modern economics. The same can happen in games.
In Shadowbane, I once wandered onto a smoldering ruin. There were no players around, but the burning buildings and broken walls I was viewing were the results of a siege that had taken place just a day or two before I arrived there.
The now extinct Trials of Ascension included many ways in which players could create gameplay for each other without ever meeting. For one example, a player could sacrifice the last of his lives to create a relic which would be randomly hidden in the world.
Simply watching other players run around helps to create the feeling of a living world. Multiplayer can mean so much more than merely grouping!
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
solo-based classing
As I said over at Cameron's article, I think the reason soloing has become empowered in MMOs is not because developers think more people want to solo, but because it's easier to make both soloing and grouping viable option by beginning production with solo gameplay.
People love to group in Diablo 2, yet every class is capable of being a powerhouse on its own. What makes grouping attractive is mainly loot sharing and the ability to tailor one's skills to match any partnership. Both grouping and soloing are fun because complimentary skillsets are an option, rather than the rule. A necromancer can focus on curses, thereby playing a support role, but necromancer is not essentially a support class.
Solo-based design is more versatile.
People love to group in Diablo 2, yet every class is capable of being a powerhouse on its own. What makes grouping attractive is mainly loot sharing and the ability to tailor one's skills to match any partnership. Both grouping and soloing are fun because complimentary skillsets are an option, rather than the rule. A necromancer can focus on curses, thereby playing a support role, but necromancer is not essentially a support class.
Solo-based design is more versatile.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
classes vs roles (response to Warhammer news)
If you're interested in Warhammer Online at all, you've probably read about Mythic's decision to drop four classes before their imminent launch. I respect that they're willing to abandon or postpone so much content for the sake of quality, but I'm not sure yet if this specific move was a smart idea.
Questions arise only because they removed the tank of two factions and the barbarian (melee DPS) of two factions... while leaving other factions with both tanks and barbarians. Jacobs has said they don't expect a balance issue, despite the uneven role distribution. I think whether or not they're right depends on the fundamental nature of classes in Warhammer Online.
It's possible for the removal of classes (on one side but not the other) to not upset balance... but only if the classes are designed more in the style of Diablo 2 than in the style of typical MMOs.
I know that WAR is abandoning many ridiculous MMO traditions. And I know they want every class to be capable of soloing. So it's possible that Jacobs is right, and there's really not a severe balance issue caused by this recent move by Mythic. We'll just have to wait and see, right?
In any case, I recommend Diablo 2 as a model for anyone working on a skill or class system.
Questions arise only because they removed the tank of two factions and the barbarian (melee DPS) of two factions... while leaving other factions with both tanks and barbarians. Jacobs has said they don't expect a balance issue, despite the uneven role distribution. I think whether or not they're right depends on the fundamental nature of classes in Warhammer Online.
It's possible for the removal of classes (on one side but not the other) to not upset balance... but only if the classes are designed more in the style of Diablo 2 than in the style of typical MMOs.
- In a typical MMO, each class is designed primarily to fulfill a specific role in group combat. The class's efficiency outside a group or outside that specific role in the group is secondary and generally suffers in some way(s).
- In Diablo 2, on the other hand, each class is designed to be a damage-dealing powerhouse in itself, and any class can be tailored to a variety of roles in group combat. The specific skills, open skill selection and upgrade system, open stat selection, and mostly-open item system make this possible. Even the barbarian can be made into a ranged support role through skill and stat selection.
I know that WAR is abandoning many ridiculous MMO traditions. And I know they want every class to be capable of soloing. So it's possible that Jacobs is right, and there's really not a severe balance issue caused by this recent move by Mythic. We'll just have to wait and see, right?
In any case, I recommend Diablo 2 as a model for anyone working on a skill or class system.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Alone together
In a comment on Brian Green's blog, Michael Chui made a great point:
"Notice that, in EVE, I have never heard someone annoyed at the necessity of joining a corporation. It has a lot of "alone together"; my friends and I gang up, but we generally don't do missions together."
COMMUNAL SOLOING
In MMOs, encouraging players to group together is just one way of encouraging them to feel like part of a community and act as a member of that community. Soloing often does not mean being anti-social. It means fulfilling your communal role while apart from others.
For most of us, when we go to work each day, there's usually at least a little time during which our tasks do not require the direct aid of others; we might even be more efficient in those tasks without others. But we are still working toward a communal goal, even as that goal coincides with personal goals.
Group-play is definitely important. Sharing experiences can heighten those experiences and ingrain them in memory. But there's a difference between encouragement and strong-arming.
Generally speaking, developers should encourage players to group without forcing them to group. I certainly agree that some goals should require group action, but those goals should generally be directed toward benefiting a community more than benefiting individual players. When dozens of players unite to slay the dragon or destroy the Death Star, it should be for the purpose of promoting community interests (possibly including NPCs in that community), rather than securing loot and xp for individual players.
MMO developers should strive to get players to focus on things beside just themselves. With that accomplished, players can then choose when to adventure with the squad or clan and when to adventure "alone together".
MAKING FRIENDS
In real life also, friendships often begin by necessity or forced togetherness. But they also commonly begin in other ways, such as speaking with your neighbors (people near you) as you're working or playing separately.
I remember, in EQ2, I made friends with other crafters because we'd gravitate toward familiar crafting stations and those stations were near one another. We didn't work together -- we didn't even trade goods or advice most of the time -- we simply conversed about whatever came to mind as we tackled our individual tasks.
Another way people commonly become friends is through admiration or curiosity. If your crafts/inventions greatly impress me, I might try to meet with you to express my admiration and discuss the craft. If you accomplished a feat beyond those of average folks, I might want to find out how you did it. Or I might just be curious where you found a particular item or got a particular title... even if the game was too dynamic for me to expect to be able to acquire the same item or title. In real life, there's no chance of my being able to acquire a Porsche 911 Turbo or a high-end Martin guitar, but that doesn't stop me from approaching owners of those items and carrying on a genuinely friendly chat about them.
And then, of course, there's non-professional networking. I happened to be friends with your friend, so we meet up and become friends ourselves. Note that, in real life, such meetings are often not based on goals of accomplishment. Perhaps I'm meeting you for lunch, and you bring your friend with you because you want us to meet or because the two of you happened to be together at the time. In this case, the three of us are doing something together, but we are not working toward a goal other than to simply relax and talk.
Likewise, in a game, social networking may arise without any quest, loot or other reward involved. For example: if a game actually made visiting another player's character-house worthwhile, friendships might be made at gatherings which are purely social.
In short, grouping needn't be the backbone of a successful MMO.
"Notice that, in EVE, I have never heard someone annoyed at the necessity of joining a corporation. It has a lot of "alone together"; my friends and I gang up, but we generally don't do missions together."
COMMUNAL SOLOING
In MMOs, encouraging players to group together is just one way of encouraging them to feel like part of a community and act as a member of that community. Soloing often does not mean being anti-social. It means fulfilling your communal role while apart from others.
For most of us, when we go to work each day, there's usually at least a little time during which our tasks do not require the direct aid of others; we might even be more efficient in those tasks without others. But we are still working toward a communal goal, even as that goal coincides with personal goals.
Group-play is definitely important. Sharing experiences can heighten those experiences and ingrain them in memory. But there's a difference between encouragement and strong-arming.
Generally speaking, developers should encourage players to group without forcing them to group. I certainly agree that some goals should require group action, but those goals should generally be directed toward benefiting a community more than benefiting individual players. When dozens of players unite to slay the dragon or destroy the Death Star, it should be for the purpose of promoting community interests (possibly including NPCs in that community), rather than securing loot and xp for individual players.
MMO developers should strive to get players to focus on things beside just themselves. With that accomplished, players can then choose when to adventure with the squad or clan and when to adventure "alone together".
MAKING FRIENDS
In real life also, friendships often begin by necessity or forced togetherness. But they also commonly begin in other ways, such as speaking with your neighbors (people near you) as you're working or playing separately.
I remember, in EQ2, I made friends with other crafters because we'd gravitate toward familiar crafting stations and those stations were near one another. We didn't work together -- we didn't even trade goods or advice most of the time -- we simply conversed about whatever came to mind as we tackled our individual tasks.
Another way people commonly become friends is through admiration or curiosity. If your crafts/inventions greatly impress me, I might try to meet with you to express my admiration and discuss the craft. If you accomplished a feat beyond those of average folks, I might want to find out how you did it. Or I might just be curious where you found a particular item or got a particular title... even if the game was too dynamic for me to expect to be able to acquire the same item or title. In real life, there's no chance of my being able to acquire a Porsche 911 Turbo or a high-end Martin guitar, but that doesn't stop me from approaching owners of those items and carrying on a genuinely friendly chat about them.
And then, of course, there's non-professional networking. I happened to be friends with your friend, so we meet up and become friends ourselves. Note that, in real life, such meetings are often not based on goals of accomplishment. Perhaps I'm meeting you for lunch, and you bring your friend with you because you want us to meet or because the two of you happened to be together at the time. In this case, the three of us are doing something together, but we are not working toward a goal other than to simply relax and talk.
Likewise, in a game, social networking may arise without any quest, loot or other reward involved. For example: if a game actually made visiting another player's character-house worthwhile, friendships might be made at gatherings which are purely social.
In short, grouping needn't be the backbone of a successful MMO.
Monday, July 02, 2007
Humiliation
Damianov raised an interesting idea in a comment to my last article:
"Taking advantage of vengeance: how about a death penalty which can be largely recaptured/recovered by achieving revenge?"
You fight an orc. The orc kills you. There's no corpse for you to leave behind (no corpse-runs), but the orc takes some symbol of you or your faction/guild and displays it proudly. Everybody knows... he beat you.
Public humiliation.
Perhaps the orc stole the faction badge that once decorated your shoulder or hung over your breastplate. Now it decorates his armor; a joke at your expense.
Or perhaps he hangs it on a spear, like a banner. You might be able to steal it while he's not looking, but the action takes time.
Perhaps his trophy is kept in a nearby bag or chest. Any other player who digs through that chest will see your emblem, along with every other victim's. The emblem will remain there, a sign of your defeat, until you recover it or weeks pass and the orc throws it away.
Take it back. End your public humiliation, and avenge your death! =)
"Taking advantage of vengeance: how about a death penalty which can be largely recaptured/recovered by achieving revenge?"
You fight an orc. The orc kills you. There's no corpse for you to leave behind (no corpse-runs), but the orc takes some symbol of you or your faction/guild and displays it proudly. Everybody knows... he beat you.
Public humiliation.
Perhaps the orc stole the faction badge that once decorated your shoulder or hung over your breastplate. Now it decorates his armor; a joke at your expense.
Or perhaps he hangs it on a spear, like a banner. You might be able to steal it while he's not looking, but the action takes time.
Perhaps his trophy is kept in a nearby bag or chest. Any other player who digs through that chest will see your emblem, along with every other victim's. The emblem will remain there, a sign of your defeat, until you recover it or weeks pass and the orc throws it away.
Take it back. End your public humiliation, and avenge your death! =)
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
The group and the individual
Player groupings should be separated by more than just numbers and organization. They can be designed for different types of encounters, different rewards, and different limitations. And by "different types", I don't mean different in the nominal way EQ2 has "Solo" and "Group" encounters.
SOLDIERS AND TREASURE-HUNTERS AIN'T THE SAME
Raiding in MMOs never seemed all that wonderful to me. I tried it a couple times and felt most of the time like I was being prodded through a guided tour.
In fact, that analogy works pretty well, because a raiding party in current MMOs is a group much more in the sense of a tour-group than of a militia. Sure, the individual players enjoy each other's company (ideally, anyway), but they're mostly concerned with individual goals (loot and/or xp). Guilds sometimes boast about having defeated a particularly tough enemy, and this represents a truly community-oriented goal (national honor -- i.e., patriotism); but they typically face that same enemy over and over for the sake of individual player progressions.
Goals in MMOs rarely lean more toward community benefits than individual benefits. If you dig deeply enough, of course, the line between self-serving acts and selfless acts is often hypothetical; one act serves both ways. But what concerns us here is the player's focus and intent.
True militia
I'm not arguing that traditional raiding should be abandoned entirely, but I am suggesting that the traditional reward system of "loot and xp always" is bland and primitive.
For years now, a common goal among MMO developers has been to make players feel more important to the gameworld. True militia gameplay is one means of accomplishing that. Instead of painting every player into a mercenary role, players may be allowed to join NPC causes and serve NPC factions in ways that position lore progression (story engagement) before all other goals. Star Wars: Galaxies seemed to prove the viability of this. In my SWG experience, players did take faction quests for the purpose of self-advancement, but it also was not uncommon for faction-bound players to engage faction enemies in combat for the sake of a cause or role-fulfillment. The game was certainly much more enjoyable for me because of my faction affiliation (Empire) and the call to eliminate any "Rebel scum" I might happen across or hear about.
A piece of the action
Many successful FPS games have cast the player as a soldier who will assuredly receive no rewards of loot, money, faction, or progression points. But the player doesn't mind, because he's in it for the action... and possibly (though I doubt it) for the story progression. If MMOs can't sell players on the idea that some encounters are rewarding enough through the action alone, then it seems that would make liars out of those who claim MMO combat is truly exhilirating. MMO veterans would have expectations that must be managed, of course, but those expectations may be changed.
Fame and glory
Does anyone really doubt that guilds (or other large groups of players) would still tackle ferociously tough monsters even without any promise of loot, wealth, or experience points? Bragging rights are a big deal. I remember an incredibly difficult cheat to unlock in Goldeneye N64 that required beating a level in a ridiculously short time. After players beat it, they didn't talk about how cool the unlocked cheat was; they talked about how hard it was to get and how skilled (and lucky) that made them.
Tie such communal victories in with the game's lore and dynamic events. Then, offer the group a lasting legacy. Legacies can be accomplished through a Hall of Heroes, library records, minstrel songs, and any number of other possibilities. If a legendary one-spawn creature is taken down, the developers can ask the guild for some visual figure that is representative of the group, then place a statue of that figure in a nearby village for the duration of the gameworld. In some cases, it may make sense to recognize the individuals within the group directly (like a list of names in a library record), but it's alright to reward the group as a whole instead.
Noble deeds
See the previous blog.
SOLO GAMEPLAY = GROUP GAMEPLAY WATERED-DOWN?
There seems to be an implicit assumption in MMOs that the only significant differences between solo gaming and group gaming are complimentary skills and chatting. Not so.
Solo gaming involves a freedom from many social pressures which affect how the player engages the game.
Pacing
Players in a group generally try to stay together, watching the others and adjusting their pace to a comfortable compromise. A solo player can follow impulses to rush ahead or sneak as slowly as he wants to.
One of my favorite MMO experiences was ever-so-slowly sneaking up to and down through a cave full of narglatches (like nasty-tempered lions covered in red scales and spikes). My character must have spent at least 20-30 minutes crawling on his belly, stopping completely whenever a narglatch might notice me. I was down in the thick of their lair before I was finally discovered. That's an experience I couldn't have had with a group.
Soloing means much tighter control over one's gameplay experience. Everyone probably knows what it's like being talked into some dungeon crawl, quest, or loot run that you really were not all that interested in. Sometimes that's good. Sometimes, we need someone to push us into new, enjoyable experiences. But sometimes, perhaps just as often, we look back and think, "yep, I knew this would suck."
Tactics and strategy
Some expressions of this difference are obvious, but there's a lot to be explored here. For example, solo players must often be more attentive to their surroundings and careful with positioning (relative to the enemy) than groups. They're more vulnerable to surprise attacks. Positioning is something MMOs haven't adequately incorporated into gameplay (with notable exceptions). But if they did, it is certainly something that is realized very differently in solo gameplay ("I bet he can't see me on this cliff above him") than in group gameplay ("You three circle behind him, and I'll drive him to you").
In the interest of getting this posted today, I'll leave it at that. But I hope the general idea is clear. Developers may just continue debating which loot to give solo gamers, which loot to give small groups, and which loot to give raiding parties. But it makes more sense to me that large groups, small groups, and solo experiences generally represent different goals and settings...and should often involve reward systems that are fundamentally different (not just different in quantity or quality). Mercenary armies are feasible, but armies marching off to protect an allied people (for free) or hunting a dragon for eternal glory (and nothing else)...those sort of scenarios make more sense to me when considering large group gameplay.
SOLDIERS AND TREASURE-HUNTERS AIN'T THE SAME
Raiding in MMOs never seemed all that wonderful to me. I tried it a couple times and felt most of the time like I was being prodded through a guided tour.
In fact, that analogy works pretty well, because a raiding party in current MMOs is a group much more in the sense of a tour-group than of a militia. Sure, the individual players enjoy each other's company (ideally, anyway), but they're mostly concerned with individual goals (loot and/or xp). Guilds sometimes boast about having defeated a particularly tough enemy, and this represents a truly community-oriented goal (national honor -- i.e., patriotism); but they typically face that same enemy over and over for the sake of individual player progressions.
Goals in MMOs rarely lean more toward community benefits than individual benefits. If you dig deeply enough, of course, the line between self-serving acts and selfless acts is often hypothetical; one act serves both ways. But what concerns us here is the player's focus and intent.
True militia
I'm not arguing that traditional raiding should be abandoned entirely, but I am suggesting that the traditional reward system of "loot and xp always" is bland and primitive.
For years now, a common goal among MMO developers has been to make players feel more important to the gameworld. True militia gameplay is one means of accomplishing that. Instead of painting every player into a mercenary role, players may be allowed to join NPC causes and serve NPC factions in ways that position lore progression (story engagement) before all other goals. Star Wars: Galaxies seemed to prove the viability of this. In my SWG experience, players did take faction quests for the purpose of self-advancement, but it also was not uncommon for faction-bound players to engage faction enemies in combat for the sake of a cause or role-fulfillment. The game was certainly much more enjoyable for me because of my faction affiliation (Empire) and the call to eliminate any "Rebel scum" I might happen across or hear about.
A piece of the action
Many successful FPS games have cast the player as a soldier who will assuredly receive no rewards of loot, money, faction, or progression points. But the player doesn't mind, because he's in it for the action... and possibly (though I doubt it) for the story progression. If MMOs can't sell players on the idea that some encounters are rewarding enough through the action alone, then it seems that would make liars out of those who claim MMO combat is truly exhilirating. MMO veterans would have expectations that must be managed, of course, but those expectations may be changed.
Fame and glory
Does anyone really doubt that guilds (or other large groups of players) would still tackle ferociously tough monsters even without any promise of loot, wealth, or experience points? Bragging rights are a big deal. I remember an incredibly difficult cheat to unlock in Goldeneye N64 that required beating a level in a ridiculously short time. After players beat it, they didn't talk about how cool the unlocked cheat was; they talked about how hard it was to get and how skilled (and lucky) that made them.
Tie such communal victories in with the game's lore and dynamic events. Then, offer the group a lasting legacy. Legacies can be accomplished through a Hall of Heroes, library records, minstrel songs, and any number of other possibilities. If a legendary one-spawn creature is taken down, the developers can ask the guild for some visual figure that is representative of the group, then place a statue of that figure in a nearby village for the duration of the gameworld. In some cases, it may make sense to recognize the individuals within the group directly (like a list of names in a library record), but it's alright to reward the group as a whole instead.
Noble deeds
See the previous blog.
SOLO GAMEPLAY = GROUP GAMEPLAY WATERED-DOWN?
There seems to be an implicit assumption in MMOs that the only significant differences between solo gaming and group gaming are complimentary skills and chatting. Not so.
Solo gaming involves a freedom from many social pressures which affect how the player engages the game.
Pacing
Players in a group generally try to stay together, watching the others and adjusting their pace to a comfortable compromise. A solo player can follow impulses to rush ahead or sneak as slowly as he wants to.
One of my favorite MMO experiences was ever-so-slowly sneaking up to and down through a cave full of narglatches (like nasty-tempered lions covered in red scales and spikes). My character must have spent at least 20-30 minutes crawling on his belly, stopping completely whenever a narglatch might notice me. I was down in the thick of their lair before I was finally discovered. That's an experience I couldn't have had with a group.
Soloing means much tighter control over one's gameplay experience. Everyone probably knows what it's like being talked into some dungeon crawl, quest, or loot run that you really were not all that interested in. Sometimes that's good. Sometimes, we need someone to push us into new, enjoyable experiences. But sometimes, perhaps just as often, we look back and think, "yep, I knew this would suck."
Tactics and strategy
Some expressions of this difference are obvious, but there's a lot to be explored here. For example, solo players must often be more attentive to their surroundings and careful with positioning (relative to the enemy) than groups. They're more vulnerable to surprise attacks. Positioning is something MMOs haven't adequately incorporated into gameplay (with notable exceptions). But if they did, it is certainly something that is realized very differently in solo gameplay ("I bet he can't see me on this cliff above him") than in group gameplay ("You three circle behind him, and I'll drive him to you").
In the interest of getting this posted today, I'll leave it at that. But I hope the general idea is clear. Developers may just continue debating which loot to give solo gamers, which loot to give small groups, and which loot to give raiding parties. But it makes more sense to me that large groups, small groups, and solo experiences generally represent different goals and settings...and should often involve reward systems that are fundamentally different (not just different in quantity or quality). Mercenary armies are feasible, but armies marching off to protect an allied people (for free) or hunting a dragon for eternal glory (and nothing else)...those sort of scenarios make more sense to me when considering large group gameplay.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Nobility and reward
Originally, this was part of a blog I'm writing concerning group gameplay versus individual gameplay. But it's become so long, I'm going to make this its own article.
FOR LOOT OR NOBLE REWARD
The Three Amigos faced El Guapo to save the town, not to rob the thieves.
Current MMOs are more encouraging of mercenary alliances of convenience than of noble causes. In real life, individuals are often filled with a powerful sense of self-satisfaction when they recall memories of good deeds he or she has done, or when the deed's recipient smiles back appreciatively. If noble action can be so fulfilling in reality, then it could certainly be fulfilling in a game as well. There's a significant affectual difference between helping another person and helping an NPC, but each can be gratifying.
Sure, games regularly offer players opportunities for noble deeds, but there is always another form of reward (and usually not just one) that often seems to overshadow the player's good will. It might be only experience points, or loot, or faction that can be "cashed in" for something beside good favor. As I'm sure I've written somewhere before, I'd like to see rewards more separated: loot alone, xp alone, faction alone... and nobility alone.
ORGANIZED CHARITY
Players could join organizations for the expressed purpose of noble deeds, perhaps even of a particular scope. And the appeal isn't limited to roleplay (enter the "virtual world vs game" debate =P ). These can be fun.
Those paladin pansies...
For example, a paladin might occasionally group with fellows of his order to keep an enemy population in check. In the upcoming MMO Darkfall, a dynamic spawning system allows a creature population to "migrate" after being overhunted in one area. Such a setting would be ideal for this sort of organization.
The paladin order could not only maintain safety on one particular border, but they might also perform reconaissance and travel from one area to the next hunting zombies or demonspawn. If developers allowed these creature populations to grow to burdensome levels if left unchecked, then player paladins might even receive encouragement from non-paladins! In this case, though there may be many types of rewards involved in the struggle at any given time, it is clear how such a system may keep an impression of noble action front-and-center.
Herbs on demand
Another possibility is an alchemical organization driven by NPC groups with alchemical needs. In fact, this provides a way to show how one altruistic organization might be bound to another.
Suppose that the undead, which the paladins attempt to keep in check, can have some negative effect on NPC villages that they come into contact with. The effect might be perpetual fear, illness, or might even be a plethora of maladies. The alchemical organization would then enter the village to obtain, create, and apply remedies (with visually perceptible effects) to the NPC population.
The paladin order might often be the messenger of need, calling upon the alchemical society after raids; or vis versa. There might even be circumstances in which the two organizations must work cooperatively for success. For instance, a stricken village might be extremely hard to cure as long as undead just outside its borders exert a psychic hold over the villagers (i.e., undead leaders must be slain to release the town from corruption). Or (in the opposite direction) the paladins might call on the alchemists to purify a holy pool which is a boon to paladin powers in the area, thereby strengthening the paladins against nearby undead.
In short, it is feasible for altruism to be its own reward at times in games (within the context of enjoying the act itself...like combat). It isn't necessary for grouping with other players to always involve a possibility of personal gain. Sometimes enjoyment come from feeling helpful and identifying one's self with a larger and nobler cause.
FOR LOOT OR NOBLE REWARD
The Three Amigos faced El Guapo to save the town, not to rob the thieves.
Current MMOs are more encouraging of mercenary alliances of convenience than of noble causes. In real life, individuals are often filled with a powerful sense of self-satisfaction when they recall memories of good deeds he or she has done, or when the deed's recipient smiles back appreciatively. If noble action can be so fulfilling in reality, then it could certainly be fulfilling in a game as well. There's a significant affectual difference between helping another person and helping an NPC, but each can be gratifying.
Sure, games regularly offer players opportunities for noble deeds, but there is always another form of reward (and usually not just one) that often seems to overshadow the player's good will. It might be only experience points, or loot, or faction that can be "cashed in" for something beside good favor. As I'm sure I've written somewhere before, I'd like to see rewards more separated: loot alone, xp alone, faction alone... and nobility alone.
ORGANIZED CHARITY
Players could join organizations for the expressed purpose of noble deeds, perhaps even of a particular scope. And the appeal isn't limited to roleplay (enter the "virtual world vs game" debate =P ). These can be fun.
Those paladin pansies...
For example, a paladin might occasionally group with fellows of his order to keep an enemy population in check. In the upcoming MMO Darkfall, a dynamic spawning system allows a creature population to "migrate" after being overhunted in one area. Such a setting would be ideal for this sort of organization.
The paladin order could not only maintain safety on one particular border, but they might also perform reconaissance and travel from one area to the next hunting zombies or demonspawn. If developers allowed these creature populations to grow to burdensome levels if left unchecked, then player paladins might even receive encouragement from non-paladins! In this case, though there may be many types of rewards involved in the struggle at any given time, it is clear how such a system may keep an impression of noble action front-and-center.
Herbs on demand
Another possibility is an alchemical organization driven by NPC groups with alchemical needs. In fact, this provides a way to show how one altruistic organization might be bound to another.
Suppose that the undead, which the paladins attempt to keep in check, can have some negative effect on NPC villages that they come into contact with. The effect might be perpetual fear, illness, or might even be a plethora of maladies. The alchemical organization would then enter the village to obtain, create, and apply remedies (with visually perceptible effects) to the NPC population.
The paladin order might often be the messenger of need, calling upon the alchemical society after raids; or vis versa. There might even be circumstances in which the two organizations must work cooperatively for success. For instance, a stricken village might be extremely hard to cure as long as undead just outside its borders exert a psychic hold over the villagers (i.e., undead leaders must be slain to release the town from corruption). Or (in the opposite direction) the paladins might call on the alchemists to purify a holy pool which is a boon to paladin powers in the area, thereby strengthening the paladins against nearby undead.
In short, it is feasible for altruism to be its own reward at times in games (within the context of enjoying the act itself...like combat). It isn't necessary for grouping with other players to always involve a possibility of personal gain. Sometimes enjoyment come from feeling helpful and identifying one's self with a larger and nobler cause.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
