One of my biggest complaints about most MMORPGs and their developers is that they incorporate design decisions that are short-sighted and end up harming the game in the long run. When you're making a persistent online world, one of your goals should be for it to be something that can last and continue to draw in new players for many years after it has launched. However, so many teams have intentionally made choices that result in their game worlds becoming less and less appealing, or harder to get into for new players over time. Whether it's setting up their economy so that players joining the game later have to grind a bunch of cash before they can participate, or setting up their content so that players joining later feel compelled to rush through things and try to catch up to everyone else, or even just setting up systems such as name uniqueness or housing so that players who join later are penalized and less able to get invested in the game and the world, this seems to keep happening in game after game after game.
It might be tempting to claim that the advancement of graphics technology means that MMORPGs have a limited lifespan in terms of appeal, but the last 10 years of the industry fly in the face of that assumption. Players value gameplay just as much as they value visuals. Some of the most popular MMOs are games that have been around 10 or more years. Some of the rogue servers out there for "dead" games like City of Heroes or Star Wars: Galaxies are drawing in new players consistently - people that never had the chance to play those games when they were originally available. This isn't just a nostalgia thing - it's proof that virtual worlds *can* last and continue to entice players for years after their creation.
Most of the time, I think Pantheon is making decisions that are good for sustainability. For example, we learned recently that the team took tester feedback to heart and is expanding the scope and scale of the zones in the game. That's important. Bigger zones will add to replay value, giving players more to discover whether they're new or old. They'll give players more reason to come back to old areas instead of just completing things and moving on. But that's only one small aspect, and sometimes I hear Pantheon's supporter community talking about things that get me worried. For example, there are a number of supporters that favor a centralized auction house implementation - and that's one that will disproportionally favor people who start the game on Day 1 vs. people who start the game a few years later. Imagine joining a game you've heard about only to find out that you can't actually afford to buy anything without grinding cash for days, and that no one wants anything you actually make or obtain as a new player? Likewise, a lot of community members are fixated on having name uniqueness only determined by the character's first name (there can only be one "Nephele" on a server, and anyone else has to spell it differently). How many of you out there have tried joining a game years after launch and spent potentially hours trying to get any character name that you like because they're all taken - only to end up with something that's unpronounceable or that no one can actually type correctly? Do we really want to put new players through these kinds of frustrations just because they weren't around at the beginning?
I think it's very important that every design decision in Pantheon be thought through carefully. Ideally, we should want new players to be joining the game 3 or 5 or 8 years after it's launch. We want them to be able to get hooked, and get invested in the world, without feeling like they have to fight against "veteran" players or climb a ladder before they can really play - because new players help keep the game running and growing for everyone. This isn't just about content either, but it includes the economy, character creation and naming, and even the user interface. The bottom line is that if we want Pantheon to succeed long term, it needs to be easy for people who weren't there at launch to jump into it later, with a level playing field, and they need to be able to have just as meaningful and compelling of an experience as those Day 1 veterans did. They shouldn't be at a disadvantage just because they came later.
Part of the issue is always that what some want from an 'old school' MMORPG is different to others.
Taking your naming example, I know some folks don't care at all. They like the MMOG and pretty much skip the RP as 'theme' or 'colour'. They don't have much attachment to their character as an 'individual' in the world.
Also, the economy, some don't much care. They want to hunt for items and find trading a bore. I know quite a lot of players (a big guild) in EQ P99 only get items by hunting/camping so as to better experience the 'real' game, rather than Traderquest.
Now, I say all this just to make the point that what is important to longevity varies player-to-player, just like short-term appeal.
Of course, the devs will work on all these things, just in case, ideally, but what will they prioritise? What can they do later?
Naming, they could expand later, I think. Add surnames or spaces in names or whatnot.
The economy needs to be a built-in, from-the-ground-up concern. Will local auction houses really maintain long-term viability? I think it might need more than that, but it certainly is a concern.
For me, another important thing for long-term appeal, is to not allow guilds and experienced players to monopolise content. If players come in and quickly learn that anything but low level and insignificant content is being permacamped and blocked then they aren't going to hang around. If they feel that unless they become a nobody in a mega-guild they can't do anything, they may well not bother. If they try the mega-guild approach and find that they have 5 years of Dragon-Kill Points to catch up on before they get a chance at any loot, they may well not bother. If they decide to make their own Noobs guild, but find they have to contend with megaguilds for everything and they have no chance, they may well not bother.
Overall, @Nephele, as usual a well thought-out post and definitely worth discussion. What are others' concerns for the future?
1) Level band character saturation
Handling player saturation in specific level bands without resorting to instancing or just creating tons of content for max level play is an issue. Open world content really has an effective limit of the number of players that can utilize content at 100% efficiency at a given time. Over time the level bands that are over saturated will shift around. Over saturation leads to a lot of very toxic and unfun experiences.
There really isn’t a “holy grail” countermeasure for this issue as it will either require content that shifts in level or some form of procedurally generated or instanced content that can scale based on need. The other method though more of a band-aid is to encourage people out of oversaturated level bands which in theory Progeny and Mentoring are intended to do. The highest value play will still likely be at max level so it will be hard to get players to abandon that level band.
2) Unique Lore itemization over templated itemization
Mudflation is one of the biggest drivers in driving what a new player can earn trending towards zero value. Having a very clear mathematical design to all itemization based on probability, availability, and power level is critical to keeping a handle on mudflation. The issue with unique lore itemization also known as Iconic Itemization is that the Rule of Cool often influences item design. You end up with items that were deliberately made desirable without a ton of thought on how it fits into the game world. You also end up creating issues where people fight over specific mobs to get a specific drop, that’s not all bad but it can drive toxicity.
If on the other hand you had templates with attribute values with an item cost you could instead assemble an item an learn its power level based on game statistics. Once the template is determined one could still tie an iconic skin to a specific item drop but the core statistics of the item would be well understood.
3) Slot/weight based inventories vs Volume/Mass inventories
There is a limit to the number of unique items and ingredients that a Slot based inventory can facilitate. As the game increases in complexity you are forced to continually increase the number of average available slots per account to manage the number of expected unique items a character is intended to manage. This drives bags to be insanely important while also leaving a lot of items unlooted reguardless of the size or weight because they are not worth the slot bag space even for a game session. A Volume/Mass system allows for an infinite number of unique items without driving up the realistic capacity of players to gather loot. You will still be limited by both mass and volume to carry items out but you could have your 30 kgs of loot and another kg of a mix of 40 different quest items and valuable trinkets of very small size.
Inevitably, the number of new players joining per time unit will decline over time, so it's imperative that rolling a new character when you hit max level have enough appeal to compete with raiding and other max level activities. Progeny is one answer, supposedly, but I fear it's not enough.
Sorry for stating the obvious and wasting everybody's time.
I agree with the general points Nephele made. Of course someone that has played for years must have quite a few advantages over someone just starting - otherwise what is the point to playing in the first place. A game like Pantheon is focused on improvements in character gear, abilities and the like so characters need to actually improve. Existing players will have far more in-game coin than new players, that is simply the way of it in an MMO.
So what I agree with is the basic point that barriers to entry should be kept managable.
In a game with slow leveling and slow travel and the like - if it takes a year for a "normal" player to hit level-cap - how do you encourage brand new players a year or two down the road? You could give (or sell) them level boosts - that has become sadly common in MMOs. But I prefer starting with a design emphasizing that level 1-10 or 10-20 has as much that is "fun" as level 60. Don't make raids more important than group play - as discussed in other threads leave this as a group game where raids are as much an outlier as solo play. Permitted but not as well rewarded as group play. Alternatively if you want to spend a lot of effort on raids - have them at almost all level ranges. And have a good mentoring system where a level 60 can play with level 8 friends without making the game trivial for them.
Names - I have rarely seen people refuse to play a game because their one desired name was taken. There are so many names and varients of names. Let them choose between the various systems for naming based on what they see as good for the game at release and I suspect that in 2 years it won't affect a thing in terms of new players. Especially since single name systems typically are unique per server so if you don't get "your" name on one server you can try others.
Economy - also something I don't see as a real barrier. Suppose a level-cap often has a billion platinum. If anything this is good for the new character with 5 copper. She can pick up low level collectibles or harvestables or the like and sell them for millions to rich twinks. She will be instantly wealthy beyond any possible dreams of avarice in comparison to the cost of low level items from merchants. Crafted items will be more expensive if there is hyperinflation but there are *always* things a lower level can get that a high level will drop millions on because a million means nothing at all. Not to mention that nice people or guild recruiters will give millions away to genuine newcomers.
So my experience in more than a few MMOs where the economy has gone crazy and there have been many years of names being taken doesn't lead me to conclude these are the issue. This issue is the WoW etc mindset that the game begins at level-cap and raids are more important than groups. Make groups king - or queen - and you have gone a long way to solving the problem which Nephele correctly summarizes.
Nephele said:One of my biggest complaints about most MMORPGs and their developers is that they incorporate design decisions that are short-sighted and end up harming the game in the long run.
I'm a firm believer that if you want you game to last as long as possible you plan, in the beginning, for how you want it to end and when you might expect it to end. You then backfill from your endpoint such that all the steps leading to that are smooth.
It is clear that no real long-term planning was done for EQ1 with respect to player power growth or where new content will appear and how it connects to what came before it, etc. The growth of player power has become unsustainable with items now having 8000HP/Mana, multiple effects, double digit stats plus 'heroic' stats which take you over any stat cap, etc. The world that once felt like an interconnected world is now just is discohesive blob of zones. EQ1 cannot fix that because they did not plan properly.
I'm hoping VR is looking at an estimated lifespan of the game because no game lasts forever. I see nothing wrong with expecting that Pantheon could last 10 years so VR would be smart to start there and ask the question "where do we want players to be in terms of power, and the world to be in terms of depth and breadth and estimate the number of expansion between beginning and end. Then, if VR is lucky and Pantheon is still going after 10 years, set the next end point and repeat.
That is sustainable. Anything less is not.
((I'm a firm believer that if you want you game to last as long as possible you plan, in the beginning, for how you want it to end and when you might expect it to end. You then backfill from your endpoint such that all the steps leading to that are smooth.))
You may be right but I'm not yet persuaded. Suppose, for example, you know at the start that you want attribute numbers to be low and to go up slowly. To use original D&D numbering let us say you have fighters with strength of 3-18 and plan on gear adding plus one by the early middle game, +2 by the late middle game and +3 by the original level-cap. Just to give a framework - I am sure this isn't what Pantheon will do.
Does it change your design in any way if you expect 2 expansions or 5 or 10 before the end? Does it change your design if you expect each expansion to raise the "normal" attribute level with gear by 1 or 2 or 10? For that matter what does it change in your initial design if you expect the third expansion to go insane like EQ2 and raise numbers to the millions or billions? Whatever the future may hold, until the first expansion you still want mobs and quests and gear that matches your original 3-18 +3. Don't you?
I think part of the reason D&D progression worked is because gear didn't actually make a massive difference.
You might have *no* magic items for several levels, then get a +1 sword until level 10, a +2 until level 20, a +3 until level 30, but all that time, the difference between +1 and +3 isn't that improtant.
There was a greater emphasis on 'the game' and not 'the mechanics'.
Weirdly, you played to have fun and the gear progression was less important.
MMORPGs over the years have become all about some kind of race for power, whereas RPG used to mean interesting character development alongside fun adventures.
For me, a BIG big part of 'old school' means the de-emphasising of gear. Not the *removal* of that importance at all, but the de-emphasisng, yes.
There were very few items in EQ classic that made huge differences to your character. Things like the fungi tunic really should have been nerfed (and a lot of others were nerfed) because the detracted from the game. That kind of power just made it too easy and, though that kind of power is fun for a while, it essentially ruins the game for you.
TL;DR: Another for my list to help Pantheon have longevity is to greatly reduce the incline of the power curve and the significance of gear in the curve.
Some suggestions:
Mentor Points:
Something similar to Mastery Points that we can only earn by teaming on a lower level (lower enough to trigger whatever mentoring mechanic is being built). This could be further subdivided into level ranges, so that players want to earn some from each level range (1-10, 11-20, etc). The drop rate for this could be adjusted dynamically to maintain healthy numbers at each level.
Zone Size:
I agree that bigger zones helps the world feel alive and open, but it's only half of what's needed. Zones should have mostly open borders, allowing you to cross at most points. Some MMOs make zones cellular, where it has a few small borders, but they're like tunnels/gates and most of the zone is an impassible terrain border. This creates a feeling of smallness, claustrophobia, and it calls attention to the modular design of zones. We should be able to head off in any direction when exploring, not feeling like a rat in a maze trying to find the one tunnel to the next zone.
Avoid Content Gating:
Requiring quests / gear / etc before players can participate in content makes it harder for new players to find groups (since many are doing locked content). Also, it makes it much more confusing and frustrating for them. If they are overwhelmed, they are much more likely to quit.
End the Need for DKP:
As disposalist mentioned, a new person with zero DKP isn't going to want to stick around long enough to be able to compete with people who've been earning it for years. End the need for it by changing Raid loot to drop shards of the item. Each person can only loot one and when they have enough, they can get it crafted into the super rare item. To keep looting fun, there should still be other interesting items, just not the uber rare items.
Yeah this is a pretty difficult issue that has plagued MMO's since the beginning mainly because there just isn’t one simple answer. From what I have seen, the VR team understands that tackling this issue requires a multi-pronged approach and that even then, these prongs will only really mitigate the negative affects you speak of. I am confident they are going to do a decent job, while also keeping to their vision in terms of risk vs reward. I have not seen anything to make me think otherwise.
With that said, I think some of this actually has to do with players themselves. If a person prioritizes "keeping up with the Joneses" over the alternative, then these issues tend to be on their mind a lot more often. I certainly fell into former category for a good number of years and still do to some extent; though I am now more cognizant of it and make a concerted effort to course correct when necessary.
On a constructive note, I wouldn’t mind seeing a 2nd option to progeny where a player could chose to migrate their end game character at great financial expense (currency sink to combat muddflation) to successively harder servers. Sure this would break up the community to some extent, but it is just one more prong that can be used to try to mitigate some of the issues you raised.
disposalist said:I think part of the reason D&D progression worked is because gear didn't actually make a massive difference.
You might have *no* magic items for several levels, then get a +1 sword until level 10, a +2 until level 20, a +3 until level 30, but all that time, the difference between +1 and +3 isn't that improtant.
There was a greater emphasis on 'the game' and not 'the mechanics'.
Weirdly, you played to have fun and the gear progression was less important.
MMORPGs over the years have become all about some kind of race for power, whereas RPG used to mean interesting character development alongside fun adventures.
For me, a BIG big part of 'old school' means the de-emphasising of gear. Not the *removal* of that importance at all, but the de-emphasisng, yes.
There were very few items in EQ classic that made huge differences to your character. Things like the fungi tunic really should have been nerfed (and a lot of others were nerfed) because the detracted from the game. That kind of power just made it too easy and, though that kind of power is fun for a while, it essentially ruins the game for you.
TL;DR: Another for my list to help Pantheon have longevity is to greatly reduce the incline of the power curve and the significance of gear in the curve.
I cannot stress enough how much I agree with this sentiment. The importance of "gear" should take a back seat to everything else. If the games primary focus becomes about acquring gear, then the game will fail long term. Take EQ2 for example. It is now a well oiled gear treadmill (ok ok, arguably not well oiled these days, sort of rusty if we're being honest). But, a gear treadmill none the less. Everything you do in that game is about acquiring more power through acquiring more powerful gear.
The idea of horizontal leveling should add to the longevity. Having more choices on how to develop your character, where you can't have all skills possible. Designing the world so power leveling will end up with a narrow and weaker level 50, than the player who took advantage of the world and the horizontal leveling system.
Or replay ability of all possible perception pings. if there are specific perception pings for; race, class, crafting and geographical area, that lead to different quests, items, factions, skill and abilities, then replay value will be way up.
The idea that colored magic and how it will interact with atmospheres and climate is another complex system that will add replay ability.
The idea that you can play the same class and race, but have unique experience than the first time maybe possible.
These are my hopes based on the systems they are designing.
Caine said:...power leveling will end up with a narrow and weaker level 50, than the player who took advantage of the world and the horizontal leveling system...
Ooo I like that emphasis, yes. There is an assumption is that level 50 is just level 50, if you get there at lightning speed or not, but if a lot of the potential of a character is in Mastery points (which you don't get many of just by leveling) and collecting acclimation gear and other more 'horizontal' journies then a more 'rounded' level 50 that took their time and experienced the world will be more meaningful.
I think some good examples are already out there. People still play WoW, EQ1, Ultima Online, SWoTR. I think where the point of view to see where these games ended up and what is expected of new players when they jump in; needs the eye of MMO devs that have been in the biz for that long. Making the loss of Aradune poignant in my observation. But there are others just as seasoned, and others still supporting those games and coming up with new stuff, sort of. Looking at it from a broad perspective I think 40pct is content, and 60pct is community, maybe even 30pct content and 70pct community. Looking at it from a player perspective the opposite is true in that then player wants or expects 90pct content and 10pct community. I'm not sure if I am expressing this nuance correctly.
What makes memories is having slogged through the newbie areas and suffered through them, and the nostalgia of going back. To a new player, they may never see those old areas, ever and just rocket to current content. Sure there can be quest designed to force players to visit everywhere but to find an actual newbie? you can only tell by playstylee and if you find a group of newbies, you dont want to disturb them no matter how much you want to drop gear on them that they cannot use for another 100 levels.
I know they have this in mind, my impression at first of horizontal leveling was a pure concept of it, with no levels, just increased skill. So the newbie area could still kill you if you did nothing, but the more travelled and skilled you were would make you able to survive the newbie area more effortlessly. But I understand there is a psychological need to see levels to gauge progression that makes sense.
I think some good examples are already out there. People still play WoW, EQ1, Ultima Online, SWoTR. I think where the point of view to see where these games ended up and what is expected of new players when they jump in; needs the eye of MMO devs that have been in the biz for that long. Making the loss of Aradune poignant in my observation. But there are others just as seasoned, and others still supporting those games and coming up with new stuff, sort of. Looking at it from a broad perspective I think 40pct is content, and 60pct is community, maybe even 30pct content and 70pct community. Looking at it from a player perspective the opposite is true in that then player wants or expects 90pct content and 10pct community. I'm not sure if I am expressing this nuance correctly.
What makes memories is having slogged through the newbie areas and suffered through them, and the nostalgia of going back. To a new player, they may never see those old areas, ever and just rocket to current content. Sure there can be quest designed to force players to visit everywhere but to find an actual newbie? you can only tell by playstylee and if you find a group of newbies, you dont want to disturb them no matter how much you want to drop gear on them that they cannot use for another 100 levels.
I know they have this in mind, my impression at first of horizontal leveling was a pure concept of it, with no levels, just increased skill. So the newbie area could still kill you if you did nothing, but the more travelled and skilled you were would make you able to survive the newbie area more effortlessly. But I understand there is a psychological need to see levels to gauge progression that makes sense.
disposalist said:I think part of the reason D&D progression worked is because gear didn't actually make a massive difference.
You might have *no* magic items for several levels, then get a +1 sword until level 10, a +2 until level 20, a +3 until level 30, but all that time, the difference between +1 and +3 isn't that improtant.
But DnD was not governed and run by an unthinking, uncaring set of equations, random number generators and algorithms. DnD was run by a DM who could change entire encounters on the fly to prevent the adventures from dying. So stats on gear not being hugely important is true, because in the end it did not really matter. Rolls were fudged, decisions altered, and actions were discussed (sometimes at length) before doing anything.
Vandraad said:disposalist said:I think part of the reason D&D progression worked is because gear didn't actually make a massive difference.
You might have *no* magic items for several levels, then get a +1 sword until level 10, a +2 until level 20, a +3 until level 30, but all that time, the difference between +1 and +3 isn't that improtant.
But DnD was not governed and run by an unthinking, uncaring set of equations, random number generators and algorithms. DnD was run by a DM who could change entire encounters on the fly to prevent the adventures from dying. So stats on gear not being hugely important is true, because in the end it did not really matter. Rolls were fudged, decisions altered, and actions were discussed (sometimes at length) before doing anything.
In D&D innovated ideas were rewarded by my DM. If you were able to devise a realistic tatic, the DM weighted the dice from time to time.
I would just like to share a different perspective. I think too many newer MMOs have been designed from the ground up to play the long game of like 10 years. A lot of times this can result in a game that is not fun to play. They stay away from things like class defining abilities or items with unique and impactful effects because they are afraid that 5 years down the road it will be relevant and sought after. So many of these games fail within a year or two because they were afraid to have powerful abilities/items that can result in interesting gameplay.
I haven't seen other games do "clickies" or powerful class abilities as well as EQ and I believe part of that reason is because they weren't concerned with 10 years down the road, but with having a good time.
I realize that it has to be a careful balance between longevity and too much power too early, but the arguement defnitely isn't so cut and dry.