Anarchy Online and Roleplaying POG updater.

Greenbean

Anyone interested in mmorpgs should definitely look into Anarchy Online. This is more than just a name of a new mmorpg you occasionally hear about; I'd call it a second generation mmorpg.

In a first generation mmorpg your aim in the game is to build up your stats, quickly at the start and then slowly at the end (so slow it takes you months) just because you are hooked on increasing your stats, so you can become fuking bleeding fantastic at sword sharpening. What do you suddenly do once you reached the top?, oh you've basically finished the game, maybe form a clan - come up with some made yoke of an idea about pretending to roleplay and helping newbies and chatting with online friends all the time - tahts about the guts of it.

In a second generation mmorpg, the end result is not the completion of some stats game, but the advancement of your player into a social hierarchy with positions held by real people, positions which give real power - eg in UO this would mean you really could become lord blackthorne and have amazing destructive influence and magic. Of course theres only one blackthorne, but everyone gets the right to fight for the position.

Anarchy online allows you to choose between two styles of play.
1) You start off in the clan area, this is a waste land, with no social structure - an Anarchy. You can join/leave other clans at your will or even form them. The programmers have provided in game tools for you to choose your clan structure - be it a socialist one, a capitalist one or a monarchy.
2) You start off with the ... forget their name... but they are the technological types. Here there is a strict heirarchy, which players are allowed to fill. The positions come with well defined ways to get into them and their uses.

The gameplay is then about the battle between the techies military government and the tribal peoples (if they can co-operate well enough) battle over the servers. Yes you build up stats, but your game isn't over when you have filled your stats - you've got to play to the big picture, the overall war to get anywhere and this makes it intriguing and fun for everyone.

Greenbean

I reckon I should explain the second part of the topic

Well basically PlayerOfGames.com (Dev, Regi, meself, Ronin, Vexorg etc) are looking for a rpg type to update on topical rpg news. Also any rpg review games we get would be sent to the rpg man to review. We can't guarantee copies of anything like, so far we've been reviewing our own bought stuff and would expect any happy volunteer to do likewise, but the tide has recently turned as new stuff has appeared.

There is also a need for a Strategy updater, who would be in the similar role for strategy games.

Reply if you think you're the man!

Hobbes

I think it's funny that all the quake heads are jumping up and down now when AO has been around for ages (being worked on).

Another concept that people fail to grasp with online RPG's is there is no real "win" or "end of game". If you think the concept of an MMORPG is to get the top stats then your not going to enjoy the game.

The game ends when it is no longer fun. The regulars here will pretty much tell you that. Your comment "oh you've basically finished the game, maybe form a clan - come up with some made yoke of an idea about pretending to roleplay and helping newbies and chatting with online friends all the time - tahts about the guts of it" is kind of insulting.

It's like saying everyone has to play the game you do. This simply isn't the case (at least in a good online RPG).

Anarcy Online by the way does have a "end". They have set thier server storyline into a 5 year Arc. This means that they have an underlining plot that everyone has to follow and at the end of 5 years the game will be shut down.

DeVore

To be fair to GB, I think a lot of players DO play like that Hobbes.
I've been playing EQ with a few people you box up as "quakers" for a while now and it certainly seems to be a predominant goal of players.

There's nothing wrong in seeing advancement and I think GB wasn't casting aspertions. Its not like any gamer has a blank cheque to starting calling anyone else a nerd

The difference with AO is that a lot of the plot is created by the players (or at least should be) rather then spawn camping and repetitive sword-sharpening or arrow making.

They intend to run a weekly newspaper/magazine website to report the major events of the week (so no doubt you will see virtual Kate Adie reporter types too).

Instead of many servers and zone they have created someway of having everyone in the one server (I dont know how) but this means that events which are reported are reported for all. No more reading something and finding its on a different server.

Since its sci-fi anf has guns, it may even shake the elves'n'wizards stigma (not that I care about that tbh but it seems to deter others).

Its definitely a game to watch.

DeV.

Hobbes

I should point EverQuest is not an RPG. The whole point of the game is to gain levels and items. There is nothing else to the game. Save a town from being overrun by Orcs? Give it 10 minutes and the orcs are back again. So that's not a good example of an RPG.

Asherons call and Ultima are (or UO was) closer to an RPG. In those (well UO at least) your not constrained by your skills or items. a 1 hour newbie can go to the most dangerous dungeon and survive (if they know someone there). Even a chef could go where they like.

I doubt it's one server, probably a cluster of servers (UO doesn't have zoning either). What they might do is the same lay out each planet as main shard then cluster servers under that. Should be intresting.

Da Bounca

lets not exagerate now,1 hour newbies do not survive most dangerous dungeons

---

The supreme irony of life is that no one gets out of it alive.

Hobbes

err yes they do. If you have played from 2 years back and played UO now straight from scratch you can be earning 25k an hour with little to zero risk. The game is extremly easy now

But my comment is that in UO I could start off a new character and go to the most dangerous dungeon with other people and survive. Heck people train in the Lich lord room with thier newbie characters.

The difference in EQ is you have to team up with people of like level to go anywhere.

[This message has been edited by Hobbes (edited 01-11-2000).]

Greenbean

Eh, Hobbes get off the high horse for fuk sake. I've been playing mmorpg's and muds for years, UO, Jumpgate, Discworld mud - I know what I'm talking about; I've been aware of AO for ages, I'm disgusted at your us and them mentality, when all I was doing was talking as one gameplayer to another. Christ sake man.

As far as I can see, most mmorpgs are flawed in that a bad player can make the game unenjoyable for the roleplayer. Games like the old battletech mud, possibly Jumpgate in coming future and certainly AO force players to roleplay, otherwise they won't advance with any conviction - I reckon thats the best scenario. So for all those players that just have to play 24/7 to be the best - they will have to try convince players to join their cause; they will have to roleplay something worthy to be good; rather than just kill newbies outside Britannia or camp spawning grounds in EQ. Its cool because you've taken the potentially worst elements and turned them into positive ones. Now someone like me can casually roleplay and enjoy the rich envoirnment and storylines which the game is, via the players, creating.

Hobbes

My comment was that you state "finish the game" as a finite reachable goal. That just isn't the case. For someone who's played so many games I would of thought you'd know better.

And if you think that people "will have to roleplay" I'll make a bet that there will be loads who won't. Your basically defining anyone who doesn't roleplay a grief player?

Define roleplaying? From what I've found (in the major games) is that there are various levels of RP. You have those that follow the rules of the game and then you got those who think because someone won't act the way you do isn't roleplaying.

Just because the game has an underlining storyline doesn't mean it's going to be a roleplayers heaven.

Greenbean

People can do whatever they want; some choose to roleplay extensively at the exclusion of sensibility; some choose instead to just "beat the system" - I dont deny anyone to what they want - but I do challenge the games developers to make something which suits everyone more, rather than being scewed. I mean if I want to roleplay in UO I've got to ignore the fact that if I call myself Lord DarkMore, vampire lord esquire - that I'm not really a Lord of anything and I'm far from a vampire. This means I've gotta forcefully pretend I'm a Lord and no-one believes me.

Then you have someone who wants to be the best swordsman in the realm, perhaps into it for the glory; Typically I'd imagine a swordsman entering tournaments of skill, challenging other great swordsmen and maybe going off to slay dragons. But then someone points out that hacking your sword off newbies/trees/rocks increases your stats quicker if you macro it. What does our swords man do? - if hes a) a roleplayer he will continue doing things the hardway which is totally the fault of the games developers and his wish for roleplaying. if hes b) a "beat the system" type he will obviously macro away until he's the best.

Typically in most games a few find a nice niche when they build themselves up after a year; they find a way of continuing their fun which doesn't involve just macroing or bug hunting or being just plain vicious. They try to develop communities, they try to pretend to be a notorious figure that lives in the woods, they try to buy all the houses - but its not supported by the game, its forced - as far as the games developers are concerned they've successfully made you play for a year through a lure of statistical character improvement and they couldn't care less about enhancing your experience at this stage - 120 quid thankyou very much. AO seems to be in it for the big experience and hey I don't need to explain AO to anyone here. That would be just stupidly naive of me.

Hobbes

I always find the hard core roleplayers purposely impose restrictions on themselves. (that's not a bad thing)

Your Lord Darkmore Vampire example is not a problem with the game. It wasn't designed to play a vampire.

As for being best swordsman analogy this is another thing I find that some players are inflicted with the "Hero syndrome". They believe that if they play the hero or claim that your the best swordsman they expect the world to change to thier view. In a fantasy novel or a tabletop RPG this the case, but not in an MMORPG.

If you want to roleplay a master swordsman, you have to work and train. If that means whacking rocks or whacking dragons it depends on at what point you want to create the history of your character. Some people will work the slow way building up thier character, others will macro up then claim they were that all along. Neither gameplay is really wrong.

But you can't just wander into the game and go "look at me I'm a master swordsman" (without getting laughed at). How does this vary from AO? If I claim to be the leader of Planet Zog in AO and request the respect that everyone bows to me, what makes you think anyone is going to take me seriously? Even if I roleplay?

Greenbean

But you can't just wander into the game and go "look at me I'm a master swordsman" (without getting laughed at). How does this vary from AO? If I claim to be the leader of Planet Zog in AO and request the respect that everyone bows to me, what makes you think anyone is going to take me seriously? Even if I roleplay?

Ok, in AO is just plain out of context, for the envoirnment - in UO EQ its not unrealistic to expect there to be a master swordsman - its a medevil world. In AO if someone immediately says ok I'm ruler of clan Zathar the best warriors in the waste land - people will laugh at him BUT he can go off and do it - the tools are available to create clans with internal rules of advancement. He can pump his clan into action and he can defeat other clans. You just can't do that in EQ or UO without a hell of alot of aimacable people prepared to follow self imposed rules. If someone pretends to be an alien, then they can go waste their time else where; the world is about two clans versus the military guys.

If someone wants to say, hey I'm a powerful guy with loads of connections and I'm vice president of the Omni-Tech etc, and he wants people to believe him - they'll just check and see if he is and then kill him when they find out he isn't - its futile fake-roleplaying but its perfect for real earned-roleplaying.. its just an inherent part of the game. If you wanna succeed well, then you've got to advance through positions in a ways that can only force you to roleplay - eg getting allies, connections - voted into office etc. So your swordmaster guy who wants to beat the system - or get to the top the quickest will be forced to roleplay. Its not like its a bad thing for him - he was macro hitting rocks 24/7 - he couldn't care less - whatever it takes.

Of course, without playing the game I cannot know to what extent and how well this is implemented, but I haven't been swerved in my notions that its the next big change which all mmorpgs need to think about - appealling to everyone.

Hobbes

I still don't see how this varies from current games?

Ok if I say I am a Master Combat person in AO? How is that different then being a Master swordsman? Both require work.

If I create a guild in EQ or UO I can buy a stone or I can just get a few people together?

So being a Vampire in UO is fake-roleplaying. That isn't a problem with the game?

Gaining ranks in AO won't require forced roleplay. You just have to follow the built in system. Someone who stays 100% in character is going to get votes, but to the powergamers he's just going to be "gay" and they will probably spend thier vote AzZMaZtA because he gets them good porn.



[This message has been edited by Hobbes (edited 01-11-2000).]

Greenbean

"So being a Vampire in UO is fake-roleplaying. That isn't a problem with the game?"

Well it is, because the person doesn't have any real outlet to roleplay in, one that really lets them be a notable character with power, so they make one up.

The whole point is that if someone is 100% in character they will be playing the game well - they will be creating alliances, keeping people happy, helping people advance. You suggested outside influences (like porn) might be a better barter than anything the person can offer them in-game; I say AO should (and hopefully will) make sure in-game influences, like kitting up a newbie and providing training grounds - offering chance of promotion; nepotism for friends, should be more powerfull than outside barter.

Jak

They're will always be abuse of these games.

AO seems to be creating the perfect system to abuse. No work really required so long as you know someone with power.

This could make some people very unhappy with the title.

I work for weeks to get a rank and some status, then some guy fresh onto the server who either knows some guy in RL or else paid for votes on Ebay .. turns up and becomes instantly a superior to me.

Although there is powerleveling and twinking in EQ, you are still obliged to work through the levels ... and that takes time regardless.

No real point to my comment ..

JAK.

ps- PvP teams server in EQ is likely the best MMORPG I've seen. Global warfare .. nowhere safe .. and a whole lot of raids and events.

LoLth

Just a quick question about AO,

If, for example, I join the military guys and roleplay a character that is an evil user. ie: takes advantage of his "allies" to further his own goals. I play perfectly as a diplomat and a cunning politician and I screw over people as I rise in power....

Question 1: Two people know each other outside the game but not in the game, they share information and they talk about the game etc, but their characters never have any contact. Person X is screwed by me. He tells person Y, who I happen to meet soon after. Will the game force roleplaying to succeed? Can Y actually have his opinion coloured by X's stories even though their characters have never met? -personally I'd love a game that forced a distinction between character and player knowledge by limiting the actions of the character until the necessary knowledge is gained.

Now, my character manages to screw over Y, and becomes more powerful. Being a cunning diplomat, a person higher up the social order hears of him and checks his progress. He discovers evidence that my character is sneaky and best put out of the way. So, the character is sent to an outpost near the tribes where... he manages to cut a deal. Gathering some followers he forms a splinter group and wishes to leave the military side to form his own faction. A renegade clan offer to help and they claim some land for themselves and want to build a stronghold. My character consequently has the leader of the clan rebels assassainated so that he is now the sole ruler of the new stronghold.

Question: Can this be done? Never mind feasible, is it actually possible for a player to have his character split off and start his own society? Perform an "evil" act - such as the PKing.

What happens to characters who die? (actually I am assuming you can die). I found the "wander as ghost get ressed quick enough, no harm no foul" UO approach too .. easy.

Are there actual stats for the characters?
If there are, I can guarantee a level of min/max ing. Is there a character limit?

I'm off to read their website but if you can answer here, please do.

Greenbean

I dont think in mmorpgs it ever makes sense to kill anyone, since its not permanent - but in AO it would be ideal to "de-rank" someone as a sort of death - bad mouth them, challenge them in combat, out perform them or something.

I don't think theres ever an answer to stopping people communicating in real-life, real-life always encapsulates the game. Perhaps people would want to protect their character so much they would avoid revealing anything unnecessary - but thats when reality is starting to fade and turn into the game

Although you can use real-life to help your cause, for the average player the game will take place without much outside interaction. Perhaps/probably there would be so many people to appeal to in-game that you couldn't possibly connect with them all outside the game.

I'm dying to see if the scenario Lolth decribed will be common place occurances in AO, the developers promised as much; I've got a dictaphone tape of a conversation - I must convert it to mp3 and stick it on the boards here.

Hobbes

Now that Jak mentions it, I would be more annoyed if they sell thier characters on eBay.

Another thing, I really doubt in game RP'ing will help you advance in the slightest.

If a guy is going for a position where he has 20 friends from his gaming days vs another guy who has roleplayed all the time. The first guy is going to get 20 votes. The barter for porn was just an example. Your going to find people forcing for power who have thier power based outside of the game.

Also for the average off the street Joe this kinds of screws them, as they will never aspire for anything really great.

btw, Being a vampire in UO is fake roleplaying by your defination. The game is set so you only ever play a human. If you can't be a vampire then it's not the games fault. Why can't I be a spaceman in UO?

LoLth

One way to stop outside influences would be to limit actions.

ie: I can't say, I want to kill Bob because I feel like it. The option to have Bob removed would only be there if I had met or heard of Bob *in the game*. Perhaps each person you meet has a list of contacts that they are willing to share. You meet someone, you know of their contacts but you can't add them to your contacts until you actually meet them. THat way you'd get a scenario of
"you know a little runt called bob"
"no, but I know someone who does..."

As for killing in Roleplaying games. I can't see why not! After all, it's not real. If you want an evil character who murders people to advance their own aims. Perhaps assassains whose main weapon is their extensive list of contacts which gives them an ability to find people... oooh, I managed to tie in the last paragraph with this one!... then PLayer killing is an excellent idea! (as well as being somewhat necessary). From another point of view,
Bob steals my truck/tank/jet or whatever, and the last of teh ammo leaving me stranded in hostile territory. I manage to survive. I can't do anything to Bob??? Nooooo! Kill the scumbag!

Permanent character death would be quite nice *if* it was difficult to do.
ie: it would have to be plotted and planned and at least be original.

Think of the fun a player would have when he hears other players talking about an assassaination they heard about. A daring knife man entering a hi-tech stronghold, undetected, killing a politician and leaving behind a red piece of cloth... the cloth used by the politician's main rival party for their ceremonial robes... the rivals are desperate to find out who's trying to frame them... There you go, one example why character death would be good. It would drive storylines and create a depth of experience in the game (badly phrased.. sorry!).

Wars would have "real" casualties. Actions and maneauvers would be more cautious and more thought out. Heros would be the guys who act bravely and do heroic things, not the guy who goes "it's taken me 500 hours to get this far.. I don't want to lead the last desperate charge.. I'm going to log off now... good luck!"

LoLth

I don't think the "vampire character" is an example of fake roleplaying.. I think it's an example of bad roleplaying.

Or perhaps great roleplaying in the wrong setting would be more accurate.

Same explaination applies to the spaceman argument.

The world you are playing a character in has rules and regulations, not just those imposed by the Real world law and ethics but more those imposed by the creator of the world when he wrote it. If he had wanted vampires in it, he'd have put them in. If the game wanted players to play vampires, htey'd have put them in. To play a vampire when oyu know damn well that the setting does not allow for vampires, is not really good roleplaying. You aren't portraying a character that belongs to the setting in question, you are playing something unique.. yes.. but it's not unique through your own skill at playing, it's unique because you have deliberately gone against the world's rules of .. ehh. atmosphere (hey! that really suits the spaceman!!).

For example: An actor well known for his portrayal of a vampire... evil eyes, cloak up about the face, always walks as if supernatural.. gets a part in a drama set in WWII. He still wears a cloak and holds it up about his face, walks the same and has the evil expression.. even though he's playing the hero! To me, that's not a good actor. He may be a good vampire, and a great actor in horror films when playing a vampire role but not when he is moved to another setting.

gah! Mind not working right! Rambling around point! staggering! must sleep...

Greenbean

Yea ok the vampire is also out of context, but its not as though theres ANY positions of power even with humans and UO and EQ are made with humans in mind. Theres no such thing as become a city barracks officer and gain access to select skills, become city barracks chief and have ability to close the city gates. Real, game changing, power. Why someone would roleplay Lord this or that in UO or roleplay a vampire is because theres no real positions to enjoy. I mean it shouldn't be that being a Lord in a medevil setting is only able by fake-roleplaying - wheres the opportunity. Theres alot of people dying to roleplay but theres no positions available, having to resort to fake-roleplaying is just too much effort, when some guy increases his stats twice as quick by macroing.

UO doesn't let you be a vampire, true and I wouldn't expect it to, but UO doesn't let you be anything - thats the problem.

The point is to make advancing through positions of power one of the limits on advancing - the other being building up suitable stats for that position.

I don't particularly blame UO, its an old game - a pioneering one; but its time for something a little more advanced and clever; enter AO.

Greenbean

Love your idea Lolth on limiting players on their in-game contacts; thats the dog's ******!! Tis well cool.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Greenbean:
Theres no such thing as become a city barracks officer and gain access to select skills

Funny you should mention that. Actually UO is supposed to be releasing Factions for UO. This is where you fight to control and hold towns and certain people can be voted to town positions. So you can have a leader (controls resources), a sheriff (controls the type of guards in town and what's whackable) and a treasuer (who can put special vendors down in the city). Also faction members get special abilities depending on thier skills, plus some other stuff (like certain monsters will help you or auto kill you).

Of course at this stage it's so late from when they orginally said they would release it I'm skeptical it's actually going to be released.