Something new for MMOG

jcdf

Over the course of the past decade I have whiled away some of my time playing various multiplayer online games and a few massive multiplayer games as well. A few examples of these games would include Weewar, Warnet, Astro Empires, Ogame and Nation States. I come to see some common short comings that they and perhaps all such games share.

For example:

Obviously artificial barriers to game play. Some examples of this include not being able to attack newbies and making the overall conquest of the game world by a single participant is not actually possible. I think that it should be possible just extremely difficult. Conversely it should be possible to lose, to see the 'game over' screen but again very difficult.

The excessive use of logarithmic growth to diminish the power of continuous gaming participants is another problem. A power balance system is definitely required to do this, I just think that better ones could be devised. I will give a few examples later.

Game play is too mechanistic. Consequences of actions taken are always very linear and predictable. This makes game play boring. I think a degree of uncertainty, within certain boundaries, is desirable.

Excessive use of in-game logic to limit complexity. In most MMO games players can join alliances. It should be possible the be a member of two or more alliances at the same time. Allow for conflicts of interests to arise and force the actual players to resolve them rather than rely on in-game logic to do it. Players should be able to engage in blatant hypocrisy or deception. Think of it as the politicizing of the MMOG.

The information time relationship. Without exception, information on the state of the game world is reported in real time, something happens and you are told about it instantly. This removes the need for long-term with respect to uncertainties. Something integral to political strategy. The time space relationship is something that should be expanded upon. Creating a game in which information is an object to be moved across distances over time. This assumes that the player is not god like but has a limited perspective on the flow of information through the world.

I am thinking of creating an original MMO game or at least a template for an MMO game to be shaped by these ideas. I would be interested to hear the forum users thought and opinions on this.

jcdf

First lets elaborate a bit on what we might want from the alliance system.

The Alliance system is a common feature of MMOGs but one that is rarely implemented well. The system's social interactions are far too rigid and game world consequences of the Alliance are too insignificant. It very often feels as though it was just something added as an after thought.

An alliance is by definition a formal agreement or treaty between two or more parties to cooperate for specific purposes. This contravenes what we find in many MMOGs, a massive number of one player alliances! Not only do these MMOGs allow the continued existence of alliances after all but one of their members have left, they also leave the creation of new alliances to single players alone with only other members being permitted to join at the founding player's discretion. In the real world this would never happen. The fundamentals of the alliance system in MMOGs need to be redone.

Individual players should be allowed to be a member of more than one alliance at the same time. Should two alliances who share a common member go to war then it might seem pretty obvious that they should be kicked from one of the alliances. This should not be implemented through in-game logic but left to the discretion of the two alliance's other members.

An alliance must have a leadership system. In most MMOGs a despotic or clique are the only options. The founding member can admit and kick whoever he wants. The leader can also assign alliance privileges to other members. As the alliance in most games does little other than facilitate dialogue and disperse information between members the despotic/oligarchic nature of the system does not adversely infringe on the main game being played. If we wanted an allaince system that was intrigral to the fundamental dtnamics of play then a more democratic representative system would have to be devised.

So a new alliance leadership system then. I can think of two ways an alliance can work. Pure democracy – where each member gets one vote and changes to the composition of the alliance are periodically voted upon. Proportional democracy – where each member gets a proportional numbers of votes according to some criteria (like the players rank points or something) and changes to the composition of the alliance are periodically voted upon.

The veto system. Certain players within the alliance receive a veto. They can use this instrument to block changes proposed by others but not mandate changes of their own volition. Initially at the founding of a new alliance the founders will perhaps have a veto.

The alliance should be able to establish ties or links with other alliances and lone players, for sharing of information and trade and commerce. Most alliances in the real world are open and transparent, in that others know that they exist and what they are all about. A closed and opaque alliance should however be theoretically be possible depending on the game world. If set around a bunch of nations in a contemporary world setting then it should be impossible but amongst a group of interstellar civilizations it might be possible.

For an alliance to be meaningful to the game it has to provide distinct benefits and responsibilities or liabilities upon it's members that are influential to the events of the game and have a lasting impact. One way that could be achieved is through the creation of communal alliance assets derived from individual player assets. These new alliance assets (cities or planets or whatever else they might be) would create increased revenue for the player and alliance but they would undergo a changed designation from the individual player ownership to alliance ownership. A potential consequence (and liability to the player in question) of this to the original owning player is that hey might lose them altogether if they leave the alliance. This gives such a player a real motivation to join, a vested interest in the alliance and a price to be paid for leaving it.

For each player the alliance should be about balancing benefits and liabilities and weighing up them up.