Posted by Stropp on
June 21, 2008
Raph Kosters blog today links to The Uptake Blog which has a summary of a panel Raph was on at the Supernova 2008 conference.
The second point of the summary got me thinking.
Raph: “Humans enjoy transgressive play” and will always try to break free from the game constraints.
One of the problem players that MMO developers have always had to deal with is The Exploiter. This player actively looks for ways to gain an advantage in the game by either:
- Exploiting little known game bugs, or by
- intentionally subverting the game client.
An example of the first might be moving through or hiding in a wall where the collision detection isn’t properly working. A few of the older games allowed players to shoot through closed doors on occasion allowing them to take out mobs on the other side without risk. Some gold duping also occurs due to bugs.
Subverting the game client is also often a trick of the exploiter. The Speedhack tool is a good example. It allows players to somehow move faster than they should (I haven’t looked into its workings) and gives a big advantage over other players. Exploiters also use packet sniffers to inspect the games network traffic, and even graphics tools to expose other players hiding behind walls.
The game developer axiom, never trust the client as it’s in the hands of the enemy has never been truer.
These days game developers even define exploits as doing things that they don’t want players doing. An example of this is in Eve Online. If a player attacks another in high security space, the NPC police, Concord swoop in and destroy the attacker. It’s apparently possible to evade Concord and escape without using game bugs or subverting the client, but CCP defines doing so as an exploit.
Cheating Is Fun
The problem is, as Raph said above, is that humans enjoy transgressive play.
In other words, cheating is fun.
And that’s true. I have fond memories of playing a card game called Cheat. It used a standard deck of playing cards and the object was to rid yourself of all the cards in your hand. There were rules of course which you could follow to the letter. Or you could cheat and get rid of your cards faster. If you were caught you had to pick up the entire discard pile.
It was hilarious fun. We not only lied about the cards in our hand. We hid them when (we thought) no one was looking; in the couch, on our persons, and in a couple of cases on another player. Getting caught was as much fun as winning.
An Exploitable Niche
If, as Raph says, humans enjoy transgressive gaming, then here is an idea for a new MMO Niche. Transgressive Gaming. We’ll imagine a new MMO — Let’s call it Cheat Online.
Like the card game, Cheat, Cheat Online would have two parts. First it would be a standard MMO, fantasy, science fiction, or horror; the genre doesn’t matter. It would have a set of rules analogous to any other MMO on the market. Players would create characters, quest, grind, and do whatever. The one main criteria is that it would be PvP since competition between players is what it is all about.
The second part would be the cheat interface. This would allow the players to creatively bypass the rules. That might be a macro tool, or a LUA API, or something else. What it should do is give the player a means of hiding the cards.
Where all other MMO’s currently ban players who cheat and exploit, Cheat Online would simultaneously punish and reward players caught. Like the card game there has to be a consequence of getting caught — picking up the discard pile — but there also needs to be something to make it fun — a reward. In the card game, the reward is much friendly laughter and hilarity, but that’s missing in a virtual world so there needs to be a reward to make everyone smile.
The important thing to create in a game, whether it’s a game like World of Warcraft or Cheat Online, is a level playing field. When an exploiter cheats in WoW, it’s not level, he’s gaining an advantage over players who aren’t willing to take the risk to cheat. In a game like Cheat Online, everyone can exploit and cheat to their hearts content without risking a banning, so the playing field is leveled out.
Something Different
After reading through what I’ve written above I don’t want you to get the wrong idea. I’m not advocating exploiting or cheating in games where it is against the rules like Age of Conan or World of Warcraft. Cheating in these games often ruins the game experience for others, especially in PvP. Just because it’s fun for some players doesn’t make it right. All I’m doing here is pointing out a possible niche for MMO games.
One of the complaints currently leveled against the entire MMO industry is that it has been heavily WoWified and that there isn’t really all that much difference between one game and the next. And that’s true. While each game has it’s differences, in most cases they’re cosmetic or a small step above what already exists. There’s not much variation in the species.
Let’s Talk
So lets start a discussion. What sorts of gameplay devices would you incorporate in Cheat Online? What sort of world would work best, Science Fiction or Fantasy or something else? And more importantly, would you play a game like this?
Popularity: 11% [?]
Posted by Stropp on
April 25, 2008
Tobold once again has an interesting article up. This time he is asking would mono-games be better than multi-games?
The premise is that since game developers seem to have such a hard time balancing their games between the PvP and PvE modes, why not just focus a game on a single mode. A PvP game wouldn’t need to make sure that characters are balanced and useful for PvE, and vice versa.
I don’t think this would be a very good idea overall.
First of all, we have recently seen the results of a developer focusing solely on PvP as the core of a game. Fury, by Auran, is a PvP game that effectively sent its developer broke. Now maybe that wasn’t caused by the PvP more than it was by the execution of the game, but the message is clear. It is harder to develop a persistent PvP game than it is to develop a persistent PvE game.
As for PvE games; there are more than enough examples of the success of PvE only games. A developer can create a PvE only game and expect some measure of success if it’s a good game. But even here there would be problems adopting a mono-game style. World of Warcraft has been so much of a success that MMORPG players now expect a variety of styles to be available to them.
Don’t feel like spending the next three hours raiding. Do a couple of battlegrounds. Want to take it easy, just complete a couple of quests while chatting to your guildies. Variety, as they say, is the spice of life, and players now expect that.
So what’s the solution?
Instead of creating Mono-Games, how about creating MMORPGs where the player characters have split-personalities?
There are two big impediments to balancing PvE and PvP — class/skill balance and gear.
Let’s address the class/skill balance first. Tobold touches on the problem when he says that:
Class abilities get nerfed to achieve balance in PvP, although that ability might have been perfectly balanced for PvE, and is now underpowered. Abilities and item stats like aggro management end up being useless in solo and PvP play…
How about a system where there is no need to nerf any skills or abilities to make them useful and balanced for one game mode or the other. Here’s where the split personality comes in. Give the player both sets of skills and abilities — a PvP set and a PvE set.
This wouldn’t mean that a player has two completely unique set of skills. The way to do this would be to allow some skills to be used only in PvP and others to be used only in PvE and the rest to be useful on both game modes. A good example of this would be stealth.
There’s recently been a lot of emotion about the Warhammer Online developers decision to include stealth when they previously said that they wouldn’t. A lot of players don’t like the idea of a rogue sneaking up behind them and then stun-locking them to the graveyard. But stealth can be useful in a PvE game. It’s a great way to crowd control in an instance. Just stealth up to the mob, stun it, and then deal with the adds. Getting rid of stealth, hurts the PvE game.
Keeping stealth as a PvE only skill, or reducing its effectiveness just in PvP would be a way around the dilemma. PvE players can keep using it in groups and solo PvE, but not in PvP. A great compromise.
Some attributes can also be dealt with in this way. A class might be terribly overpowered in PvP, but if its attack power was reduced to balance the PvP game, the class might no longer be viable for raiding. Do the same here. Have a PvE/PvP split. One attack power equation for the PvE game and another for the PvP mode.
And since those sorts of attributes are often affected by gear, do the same with each piece of equipment. Just have modifiers that have different effects on the different game modes.
This would allow the developers to balance gear more effectively, and give them the side benefit of specifying equipment for one game mode or the other. Raid gear would no longer, necessarily, overpower PvP play, and equipment gained through PvP arenas or honor points could be directed specifically to the PvP modes of play. At best that chest piece or axe could be used effectively in both PvE and PvP game modes without unbalancing either.
The split personality system could also be extended to other parts of the game. Talent trees for instance. Instead of having players respec when they change between raid mode and PvP mode, they have their permanent raid spec, and their permanent PvP spec. That’s much easier for players to manage.
I’m not saying that this system would be without its problems. There would still be balancing issues within each mode, and players would still demand that someone else’s class be nerfed because it does more damage that their own. Balancing is hard too. It doesn’t matter if the game is mono or multi mode, balancing classes and skills takes time and effort.
However, a split personality system would make the developers life much easier since balancing is between classes, not between classes and modes. Tobold makes the point that Mono-Games would be cheaper to produce too. While split personality system would be more expensive than the mono game system — more content is required for one thing — less time would be required for balancing and that would reduce the overall cost.
Let me know your thoughts.
Popularity: 13% [?]
