Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Role Playing (Games) Games

ArenaNet's MMO Design Manifesto 178

Posted by Soulskill
from the not-the-crazy-person-kind dept.
An anonymous reader writes "ArenaNet studio head Mike O'Brien has posted his vision for a new type of MMORPG, which they used in developing Guild Wars 2. Quoting: 'MMOs are social games. So why do they sometimes seem to work so hard to punish you for playing with other players? If I'm out hunting and another player walks by, shouldn't I welcome his help, rather than worrying that he's going to steal my kills or consume all the mobs I wanted to kill? ... [In Guild Wars 2], when someone kills a monster, not just that player's party but everyone who was seriously involved in the fight gets 100% of the XP and loot for the kill. When an event is happening in the world – when the bandits are terrorizing a village – everyone in the area has the same motivation, and when the event ends, everyone gets rewarded.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

ArenaNet's MMO Design Manifesto

Comments Filter:
  • Yeah, but.... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by phantomfive (622387)
    Yeah, but he doesn't realize how fun it is to kill someone. Take out that possibility and you take away some fun. I can see adding consequences to killing someone (or even taking it out of some games), but to say it should NEVER happen in any game is silly.
    • Re:Yeah, but.... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Wildclaw (15718) on Wednesday April 28, 2010 @03:36AM (#32011216)

      Yeah, but he doesn't realize how fun it is to kill someone. Take out that possibility and you take away some fun.

      Only a small minority thinks it is fun to kill people in uncontrolled world PvP. And game developers generally don't care about that minority, as they cause other customers (the ones gang banged) to stop playing their game.

      PvP is much better done as optional addon in controlled environments where all sides are fighting on even and clear terms. The idea of free world PvP is an antique that only ever satisfied griefers and the occasional masochist.

      • Re:Yeah, but.... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Barny (103770) <bakadamage-slashdot@yahoo.com> on Wednesday April 28, 2010 @03:47AM (#32011290) Homepage Journal

        The idea of free world PvP is an antique that only ever satisfied griefers and the occasional masochist.

        Yeah, you just summed up the entire eve player base very very succinctly :)

        • Re:Yeah, but.... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Wildclaw (15718) on Wednesday April 28, 2010 @04:12AM (#32011452)

          Yeah, you just summed up the entire eve player base very very succinctly :)

          And the reason for the success of EVE is exactly because it aims to satisfy a very specific minority. :)

          So using the word antique in my original post was perhaps an exaggeration. It is more a matter of what client group you aim at. I would however be very surprised to see any new high value production aimed at world PvP. At least any western production. I know that Asia seems to have a generally different mindset around the whole PvP subject.

          • The what of Even? (Score:4, Interesting)

            by SmallFurryCreature (593017) on Wednesday April 28, 2010 @05:37AM (#32011926) Journal

            Eve is tiny, on any chart it rides the bottom. Oh, it gets a LOT of attention but that is in no relation to its financial success.

            Most MMO's aspire to higher subscription ratings with 1 million being considered the line between success and an "also ran".

            I always find it amusing to see PK and PvP and twitch fans scream that their genre's are OH SO POPULAR and yet not a single game that gives them what they want is a success. Odd that. Why are PK and PvP and Twitch fans not playing the games aimed at them?

            Meanwhile, the closest to WoW is Lotro and that is a distinct PvE game of the old mold.

            It is like saying people LOVE FPS, when Quake sells 10 copies. The figures would not support the claims.

            • by thoth (7907)

              I always find it amusing to see PK and PvP and twitch fans scream that their genre's are OH SO POPULAR and yet not a single game that gives them what they want is a success. Odd that

              No kidding... you'd think, if PvP was so hugely popular, there would be more games catering specifically to it. Instead we have what, Darkfall? Shadowbane (now defunct)? EVE Online? Maybe Warhammer? Guild Wars itself has the "fairest" PvP system, but it is only in controlled environments, not world.

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              Most MMO's aspire to higher subscription ratings with 1 million being considered the line between success and an "also ran".

              That's where EVE played it differently and were still very successful. They didn't NEED a million subscribers to make a good profit off of supporting their product for a lengthy period of time. They just built their market around the ability to buy additional time codes and sell them in game for in game money.

              Essentially, they've diverted the money that would be flooded to chinese farmers back into their own pockets.

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by drsquare (530038)

              Most MMO's aspire to higher subscription ratings with 1 million being considered the line between success and an "also ran".

              There are not half a dozen MMOs out of hundreds with that number of paying subscribers. Lineage, Warcraft, and I can't think of any others other than those free web ones. Most have maybe six figures if they're lucky.

              I always find it amusing to see PK and PvP and twitch fans scream that their genre's are OH SO POPULAR and yet not a single game that gives them what they want is a succes

              • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                by Phrogman (80473)

                Every PvP focused MMO that I can think of has died. As vocal as PvPers are, the majority of players who will subscribe to an MMO don't enjoy getting gang-ganked by assholes who play 16 hours a day. Here are the ones I can think of:

                * Shadowbane - tried it, it sucked, it died.
                * Pirates of the Burning Sea - at first it had tremendous potential, then the ganker assholes got ahold of it and the game became unfun for anyone who wasn't willing to play like a dickhead. Down to a few servers I believe
                * Age of Conan

                • by Barny (103770)

                  Actually, no, in eve you can be attacked anywhere, even high sec.

                  There are rules and consequences, the gankers just work around the first and balance the second.

                  For instance, say your a "hardcore miner" in high sec, you get the best ship you can, the hulk, you deck it out with the best mining gear and go to work in a high sec zone. A person in a cheap setup battleship can pop that ship in about 3 volleys and have enough insurance that they will not be out of pocket at all when their ship gets destroyed by t

        • EVE did it right insofar as it gave you ample techniques to avoid unwanted PvP. When I was still playing, I was dwelling in deep 0.0, but did only engage in PvP about once per month tops. I usually hauled stuff around making my life as a trader. Carefully played, the chance that you get ganked is very low. I actually liked the threat of PvP and the measures I had to take to get around safely, while not being particularily fond of PvP itself.
        • by Calinous (985536)

          EvE is not free world PvP - you can stay in high security space and be pretty certain that nobody will attack you (if you stay in 1.0 security space, help is coming in seconds). You might still die, but there's little chance of someone camping you

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by justinlee37 (993373)

        Free world PVP also satisfied social gamers. Part of the game is generating and organizing a large social network. If you want to be safe from attack, you need to be bigger and more organized than the next guy. You need military equipment, training and organization. This is how warfare works in the real world and when it works that way in an MMO, it can be fun.

        When you have "arena" PVP where the teams are automatically generated by the game itself, it removes the social part of the game. The part of the gam

        • by Bakkster (1529253)

          When you have "arena" PVP where the teams are automatically generated by the game itself, it removes the social part of the game.

          In this case, Guild Wars had random arenas (no need to form a team), team arenas (form a group of 4), faction arenas (form a group of 4, team up with two other groups for 12v12), and guild combat (8v8 guild teams).

        • Personally, I love the freedom of free world PVP. In fact, I'd love to play a game with free world PVP and permanent character death ... hardcore Diablo 2 on battle.net was one of the most satisfying experiences ever.

          That is somewhat entertaining, but Diablo 2 suffers from the typical problem plaguing these kinds of games: Invulnerability.

          If you're a high enough level, you are essentially invulnerable to anything below a certain level. That's boring and quite frankly silly.

          While you can find that in modern

        • by IBBoard (1128019)

          Part of the game is generating and organizing a large social network. If you want to be safe from attack, you need to be bigger and more organized than the next guy.

          That sounds a bit like school yard bullying (and, worryingly, international diplomacy). "The only way to be safe is to spend time ganging up against everyone else, and you need to watch your back the whole time". Or you could, you know, go for fun and entertainment without the "I may be in the strongest group, but what if they turn against me?"

          • I like socializing, engaging in intelligence and counter-intelligence operations, and organizing networks of allies and battle groups from time to time ... but then again I study psychology and economics at university because that's what I find interesting, and I'm a big chess player. Maybe we just have a different idea of what fun and entertainment is ;-)

            The truth is, I enjoy lots of different games. MMO's are fun and I like the social meta-game but they tend to take up too much of my time (which would be

      • My way of putting it is that some people are dumb enough to want an MMO to be a war simulation, overlooking the facts that: (1) War is generally anything but fun; and (2) any game has to have sufficient motivation for the losers to keep playing, or it will eventually end.

      • Only a small minority thinks it is fun to kill people in uncontrolled world PvP.

        But why is that?

        Because they implemented PvP wrong.

        Being invaded and killed could have been a thrilling experience. What makes it utterly dull for most people is that your options seems to be:
        A) Respawn and die again.
        B) Log out.

        Imagine a game where lowlevel players that are killed in their home areas would be conscripted as local militia and set to control siege-like defensive installations. Instead of being spawnraped, the lowlevels getting killed would be given immense power - but limited in time and only

        • by Moraelin (679338) on Wednesday April 28, 2010 @06:59AM (#32012434) Journal

          The fact is that nevertheless some of us don't want to have anything to do with PvP at all. It's not a question of feeling stronger or weaker, it's simply a question of it not being what I want to do in a game. Conscripting me into some group that _has_ to do PvP is just going to piss me off more and make me cancel the subscription.

          That's the kind of solution that presumes that everyone else too is a complexed idiot who's just there to feel powerful by ganking someone weaker. Some of us play for entirely different goals and reasons, though.

          • So if you play WoW, play on a PvE server. There are probably not 10 things between lvl 1 to 80 that will force you to PvP flag, and they are all voluntary. What sucks about WoW is that I have to PvE if I want BiS items. Most PvE gear is better than PvP gear. I don't gank except on Cho'Gall. There the rule is red = dead. On the PvE servers, unless you are bothering me and are flagged, I ignore lowbies, excepting horde lowbies bothering Alliance lowbies.
            • by Moraelin (679338)

              Oh, nothing against the way WoW implemented it. What I was ranting against was the whole idea of being shanghaied into a PvP minigame, as advocated by the post I was answering to.

              • What if the aforementioned minigame was optional?

                Instead of releasing or waiting, you occasionally get an option to be the "defender" depending on the circumstances in which you were killed. If you want to keep on questing, you can just go about your business--but if you want to extract your revenge, you can come back as a short term town guard of sorts.

                Of course I sold my WoW account years ago and will probably never play another MMORPG (at least not to the extent equivalent to having a best-on-server

                • by Moraelin (679338)

                  Well, you have to remember (or scroll a bit up) that said remedy was supposed to make it fun for those being ganked in their home areas. And more specifically in a context boiling down to, basically, "how to make uncontrolled PvP ok for the victims."

                  The option to at least not be shanghaied into more PvP would of course be better than making it mandatory to take it. But refusing it still won't do anything to remedy the fact that I was ganked in my home area, when I didn't want to take part into PvP at all in

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Aceticon (140883)

          I think the issue that the GP pointed was uncontrolled PvP environment.

          What you describe is actually a controlled PvP environment.

        • by edremy (36408) on Wednesday April 28, 2010 @08:19AM (#32013210) Journal
          Actually, the PvP issue is a lot more fundamental than you think.

          Why does ganking exist? Because the penalties for losing are so *low*. Unrestricted PvP works in Eve (and I'd argue, pretty much only in EvE) because there are serious penalties. Lose a major ship, lose training time- it can take a while for things to get back to where you were. Even the gankers realize this, and avoid combat unless they know they are going to win, and they realize the guy may well be back with friends to stomp them into the ground.

          Compare this to something like WoW. What's the penalty for dying? Running back to your corpse. Even in something like Darkfall with full looting you just have people run around naked, since there's no real penalty for dying otherwise.

          Imagine a PVP game where dying killed your character dead. No resurrection. Of if that's too harsh, perhaps losing 5 levels as well as giving the keys to your bank to your slayer, or having the character lock out for a month. Or perhaps having every guard in every town on the continent kill you on sight? You think people would randomly attack strangers? Ganking would vanish in a heartbeat. You'd probably end up with a feudal system very quickly, where everyone was in one of a few massive guilds that would issue kill on sight orders for anyone that harmed one of their own- this may not be what the designers/players want, but it would work. Make losing hurt and the ganking issue solves itself

          • Imagine a PVP game where dying killed your character dead. No resurrection. Of if that's too harsh, perhaps losing 5 levels as well as giving the keys to your bank to your slayer, or having the character lock out for a month. Or perhaps having every guard in every town on the continent kill you on sight? You think people would randomly attack strangers? Ganking would vanish in a heartbeat. You'd probably end up with a feudal system very quickly, where everyone was in one of a few massive guilds that would issue kill on sight orders for anyone that harmed one of their own- this may not be what the designers/players want, but it would work. Make losing hurt and the ganking issue solves itself

            And you can also imagine that this game will be just as destitute in players as Darkfall. The vast majority of people aren't going to want to play that.

          • Imagine a PVP game where dying killed your character dead. No resurrection. Of if that's too harsh, perhaps losing 5 levels as well as giving the keys to your bank to your slayer, or having the character lock out for a month. Or perhaps having every guard in every town on the continent kill you on sight? You think people would randomly attack strangers? Ganking would vanish in a heartbeat.

            Those would also effectively kill PvP in your PvP game.

          • by ps_inkling (525251) on Wednesday April 28, 2010 @12:09PM (#32017464)

            Or perhaps having every guard in every town on the continent kill you on sight? You think people would randomly attack strangers? Ganking would vanish in a heartbeat. You'd probably end up with a feudal system very quickly, where everyone was in one of a few massive guilds that would issue kill on sight orders for anyone that harmed one of their own- this may not be what the designers/players want, but it would work. Make losing hurt and the ganking issue solves itself

            What you are describing was implemented in Ultima Online. Kill a player, all the guards in cities mark you KoS (kill on sight). The solution was to not go to cities anymore. No banking, but there's plenty of killed player corpses to loot.

            So, roving gangs of PKers hang out at the load points between areas, and kill your character while your computer is loading the next area's graphics. The solution for a while was the formation of anti PKers, who would descend in mass and swarm a PK group. But, now their characters were also flagged as PKers.

            So yes, it ended up as a feudal system. Unfortunately, it was a world where the PK eventually won.

          • by Prien715 (251944)

            Why does ganking exist? Because the penalties for losing are so *low*. [In a world without ganking, players] avoid combat unless they know they are going to win.

            Sounds like ganking to me. I actually enjoy PvP with people close to my skill level and see no point in penalizing anyone for entering into a fair fight. If anything, penalize players for be dishonorable by entering into a not fair fight (maybe losing honor/arena points in WoW).

            But hey, that's my whole issue with the vast majority of RPGs and RTSs

          • by Darinbob (1142669)
            Penalty for being ganked over and over in WoW? Not being able to play that day. And not being able to sell or turn in quests to dead NPCs. I consider denial of service to be a major drawback. And yes, you can get flagged pvp without intending it, it is very easy to do, until you're more experienced and learn to never invite anyone with a pvp flag to your group and never to do a drive by heal or buff or rez without checking if they're flagged or not.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by brkello (642429)
          Eh, all these ideas that people throw out on solving PvP are always dumb. If you get to be powerful after you die, then people will just purposely die to become more powerful.

          PvP in MMOs is not popular for a lot of different reasons. Some people don't like PvP. Generally, one person has a huge advantage over another based on gear. For Eve, it is that there are fairly harsh consequences to death that encourages people to stack the deck so that a normal player doesn't even have a chance as they warp in t
        • by Darinbob (1142669)
          The drawback is that the low level player is forced to do a certain thing here. I they log in and decide that today they're going to work on their crafting, but then some moron decides this is the day to raid the crafting center, the low level player is still stuck with bad choices: respawn and die again, be conscripted into some idiotic pvp thing, or log out.

          PvP is competition. Many players want nothing to do with competition. PvP should always be consensual without any exceptions. If someone has a te
      • by loufoque (1400831)

        Only a small minority thinks it is fun to kill people in uncontrolled world PvP.

        It's not a matter of fun.
        The rules of the world should be the same for every entity in the world: be them players, monsters or NPCs. If players are different from the rest of the world, then they're not really part of it.

        You should be able to kill a player just as well as a monster. To avoid bullying, you just need to have some kind of police force (probably NPCs, note they should still be killable) that maintains order and that

        • The problems with this are:

          1. level separation. There is no way for a bunch of lower level players to kill a higher level player (if the separation is enough, say 10 or 15 levels). Outside of a city where the NPCs are, the only defense is to group up, and after a couple levels, it just doesn't matter. So the higher level ganker is immune to any attack and the lower levels can either log out or continue dying.

          2. No long term negative effect of ganking. A high level character that goes around and
          • by Darinbob (1142669)
            You need skill separation too. Many players can not defeat another player of the same level, or even lower levels. It's not about gear, it's about playing like it's a twitch game or fps. Circle-strafe, run through the player and turn 180 instantly, etc. Many players can not do this, and it's still ganking if one player kills another of the same level while never being hit once in return.

            Long term negative effects should apply to the player who is ganked too! Let them turn off their accidental PVP flag
        • by Jer (18391)

          It's not a matter of fun.

          It's a game. It's ALWAYS about fun.

          The rules of the world should be the same for every entity in the world: be them players, monsters or NPCs.

          Not every player is a simulationist. I'd imagine that quite a few players would rank "This game is fun to play" above "This game implements a realistic simulation of a world" in their scale of "things worth paying a monthly subscription fee for".

          • by loufoque (1400831)

            Immersion is what make people addicted to a MMORPG. If you don't feel like you're really part of the world, then there is no point playing.
            And that applies whether you're aware of it or not.

      • by thoth (7907)

        Only a small minority thinks it is fun to kill people in uncontrolled world PvP.

        I've never understood world PvP (uncontrolled) in an MMORPG. You have level imbalances (one side might be significantly higher level than the other), class imbalances (always an issue in one-on-one or small groups), gear/equipment imbalances (a staple of these games is the loot), and numbers imbalances (one side significantly outnumbers the other side). Mix this in a cauldron and you get crap stew for gameplay.

        I can see controlled PvP, along the lines of WoW's battlegrounds, or GW's alliance battles. At

      • by lymond01 (314120)

        Only a small minority thinks it is fun to kill people in uncontrolled world PvP.

        People think PvP is niche gameplay but the reality is that it's niche in the MMORPG world. In FPS, it's the most popular multiplayer game model running. Guild Wars came close to an MMORPG with PvP because it took so many of the elements of FPS and tossed it into a relatively open world. Like Quake with swords and spells and a touch of character advancement.

        I'm not a big PvP fan other than, in general, computer AI sucks in MMO

      • It reminds me of a discussion about griefing that I read about a few months ago on some internet forum. Naturally, the "real" players were mocking the "carebears" and the latter was levying the usual futile appeal to empathy.

        Q: But don't you feel bad that you've just ruining someone else's experience?
        A: Why should I feel bad?

        Naturally, the "griefers" just couldn't understand this appeal to empathy. There's a reason for that. One of these "griefers" went on to try and reverse the appeal, arguing along the

        • by Slider451 (514881)

          That's a great observation. Maybe they're not psychopaths in real life, but choosing to portray them in-game certainly raises the question.

    • To each their own (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Moraelin (679338) on Wednesday April 28, 2010 @04:32AM (#32011576) Journal

      To each their own. I realize that some people thrive on ganking and being an ass, but then a lot of people don't. And each game can choose their own niche, and decide if they want to cater to one category at the expense of losing another.

      The griefer segment is kind of an easy choice, though, since you mention taking it to the point where you're trying to get people out of the game. A single unchecked griefer can lose them a hundred subscription of other people, so basically they're actually losing money by catering to those. They're not any sleep if you leave for lack of that kind of fun.

      But, at any rate, each dev team and publisher ultimately makes choices to cater to market A at the expense of market B. E.g., Blizzard chose to cater to the medieval fantasy fans, at the expense of being less fun for some of us who'd have preferred a good SF MMO. (Say, World Of Starcraft;) E.g., they chose to have guns and explosives and helicopters, which actually was at the expense of losing some purists who'd have preferred a more Dark Ages kinda setting where the highest tech is maybe a crossbow. (Heck, much as I'm otherwise for SF, I'd prefer to keep medieval stuff medieval, if it had to be medieval in the first place.) E.g., they chose to have no xp penalty for death, even though that made some people cry bloody murder. E.g., they chose to have cartoonish graphics, even though for some people it causes them to cancel the subscription. Heck, it's still the #1 stated reason for not playing WoW. E.g., they chose to have separate servers, which some of us like, but then it made the fans of a more Guild Wars style instancing say it sucks. Etc.

      Ultimately you can't please everyone. To make player group X happier, you have to make player group Y unhappier. You get to choose which group you want more.

      E.g., to make medieval fantasy fans happier, you have to make strictly SF fans a lot less interested in the game. And, again, you can't please everyone. You can't make a game that's high fantasy with elves and horses _and_ SF with warp drives and tricorders, because you'll just annoy both groups instead of catering to both. (Though using SF as a backstory for a medieval game sometimes works.)

      To some extent you can try to give group Y something else to do. But sometimes it's not easy to reconcile. You can't give griefers something else to do, because they need those unwilling victims. At some point you just have to just let go of group Y.

      • You don't have to cater to one or the other. It is possible to design a game that appeals to both. The obvious solution is to turn griefing behaviour from a liability into a boon.

        Allowing griefers to play as outlaw characters at a certain cost (that cost being whatever it takes to make sure that it remains a minority activity, and ought to vary according to supply and demand) and providing incentives for law abiding players to hunt them down gives both parties what they want. The griefer gets to annoy peopl

        • Still doesn't work (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Moraelin (679338) on Wednesday April 28, 2010 @05:39AM (#32011932) Journal

          The obvious problem is that if everyone else actually liked hunting someone down in PvP, they'd already be on a PvP server anyway. You're proposing a system which basically asks some people to play the game how they don't like it, and not pursue the goals _they_ want, just to give some sad loser the attention he craves.

          I suggest you start with reading Bartle's paper.

          The achiever segment (those who'll just have to have more gold and reputation) and the killer segment are actually very distinct categories and natural enemies. They like different things in a game, play for different goals, and both tend to despise each other. Asking an achiever to play a killer role in that pose isn't giving him fun stuff to do, it's trying to convince him to do unfun (for him) stuff and ultimately conclude that the game sucks (he hasn't been doing what he likes, after all) and leave. It's akin to trying to make some gazelles hunt lions. Even if they could, they're not going to enjoy it.

          It also does nothing whatsoever for the other categories. The socializers aren't even going to be motivated by that gold and fame to take a role they despise. The explorers won't find anything to discover in it either.

          So essentially all that would happen is that some killers might be convinced to play with other killers... but that's something that's not much fun for them. Unwilling victims are where their fun is at.

          And in the process you gave both free hand to ruin everyone else's fun.

          Besides, the "player run justice" idiocy has been done to death before, and never worked. Letting the players deal with "bandits" so you don't have to, has been not just tried and failed on UO, it's been the holy grail on MUDs too and it failed abjectly there each time. As Benjamin Franklin once said, "Madness is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result." I fail to see why an experiment which failed every single time before, should be hailed as _the_ solution that'll work this time.

          And finally, well, I've heard the "provide some colour" excuse before. And the "I can't RP if I can't gank" and the "it's unrealistic" and "without someone ganking them those players will lack a challenge and leave in droves!!!!11eleventeen" In my brief days of coding for a MUD, you'd be surprised how many people felt a need to whine about why they should be allowed to drive others off the game, and how limited a repertoire of excuses they had.

          In the end it's a non-sequitur. What matters isn't "colour" for its own sake. Nor "realism", nor "challenge", nor "RP" for their own sakes, for that matter. What matters is whether enough players like it or not. If the larger mass doesn't, well, take your colour somewhere else, really.

        • by Chris Burke (6130)

          Allowing griefers to play as outlaw characters at a certain cost (that cost being whatever it takes to make sure that it remains a minority activity, and ought to vary according to supply and demand) and providing incentives for law abiding players to hunt them down gives both parties what they want. The griefer gets to annoy people and gain a reputation as a badass. Everyone else gets to hunt him down for fun and money.

          Yeah, they already tried that, it was called "UO", and it ultimately didn't work. Why n

    • is that why uo has never took off ? is that why wow has been such a success ?
  • Warhammer Online (Score:3, Informative)

    by eeCyaJ (881578) on Wednesday April 28, 2010 @03:09AM (#32011078)
    Sounds sort of like the open quests from Warhammer online. Show up in area, help out, get loot bag. True, there's a ranking system which means if your efforts weren't good enough you won't get anything immediate, but you still earn points which raise your rank in the chapter and (eventually) enable you to pick up useful, class-specific equipment.
  • You're asking for communism?
    • You're asking for communism?

      Only the paranoid still used that word. The new word(s) is "caring and civilized society." It's kind of a mouthful, but you get a warm feeling when saying it.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by DNS-and-BIND (461968)
      No, that would be when the developers hoard all of the items and gold for themselves and distribute just barely enough for the paying customers to survive. Despite the five-year plan that showed that treasure distribution was occurring on paper, lower level admins and moderators would hoard resources for themselves for sale on ebay and taobao. Gold farming and profit-making would be illegal, and grounds for banishment. The manifesto by O'Brien would be worshipped as a sacred document, studied in universi
  • Hopefully... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sstamps (39313) on Wednesday April 28, 2010 @03:22AM (#32011146) Homepage

    It won't follow the existing model of Guild Wars 1.. a few short months of "experiencing the story", followed by years of title grinding for a bronze wall plaque in the sequel.

    • by Nemyst (1383049)
      See it this way: you're paying for a few months of entertainment. This is an MMO without the monthly fee, so even getting only 60 hours of gameplay means you'd be happy with it if it weren't called an MMO.

      Think about it, Guild Wars is probably one of the best bang for your buck you can get as far as RPGs go, if you forget for a second that it's a MMO on top of that.
      • by kalirion (728907)

        Think about it, Guild Wars is probably one of the best bang for your buck you can get as far as RPGs go, if you forget for a second that it's a MMO on top of that.

        Unless you count games with plenty of free mods available :)

  • What about pooled experience + extra experience, as I noticed used in 'Valthirian Arc':

    50% of the experience gained is put into the shared pool (equal amount to all contributors), and the rest is distributed around based on proportional contributions.

    e.g. two PCs, PC1 does a very small amount of damage, PC2 does almost all damage: PC1: 25% total experience, PC2: 75% total experience

    • by Bakkster (1529253)

      Because this still violates their principle. Even then, if someone joins the fight part-way through, those who were there from the beginning get less experience.

  • Thank you for the insightful article that quite a few people on this site have actually read. I know all the comments so far don't indicate that.. and you really shouldn't hold out hope for some interesting comments. Guild Wars 2 looks like it will be awesome. I look forward to reading more articles about it, and will probably buy the game when it comes out.

  • by Andtalath (1074376) on Wednesday April 28, 2010 @05:34AM (#32011910)

    Dungeons and dragons online already does this.
    All XP and rewards you get are based around how you as a group finish the instance (you do get penalties and bonuses depending on how many times you die though, and if you left the dungeon), you always run around with a group and no other characters are visible outside of the cities and all characters in the cities interact with you as if you are on of the few heroes helping it.

    No collecting wolves tails there, you help people from level 1 and forward with actual questing which feels like it's helping someone.

    Otoh, the game started breaking at around level 8 or so when I played it, especially due to haven essentially eternal gold and quite simply too large monsters which made claustrophobic dungeons pretty much impossible.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Splab (574204)

      You missed out on a lot then, the later dungeons where absolutely awesome. What kept me playing DDO for years was the teamplaying aspect, was (and still am) bored with WoW kids acting like spoiled brats.

      In DDO, no co-op and coordination == wipe, all quests are done easily if you work together, if your tank just rushes off and burns the clerics mana you are dead.
      Well it used to be like that, but after level 16 and crafting got introduced the game got too easy (weapons and players where way too powerfull) so

      • I lost interest back when the level cap was 10 and my 4 ranger/6 fighter couldn't hit anything because I wasn't a pure fighter with the +10 to hit perk. Then my level 10 wizard went into the top end raid at the time and saw nothing but saves from every spell I cast, to the point that all I could do was magic missile my way through the game and occasionally buff people with resists. Then my level 10 paladin ran into the same missing thing my ranger hit.

        Essentially, the house rules they tacked on to 3.5 to ma

  • Sounds like a great idea, and I wonder if they push it all the way through. Does rare loot also spawn for everyone? Or does everyone get their own "chest" with their own drop? Could be intresting but what are mobs going to be like that might be attacked by 500 low levels at once? There is a reason most games don't encourage grouping like this, it upsets the game balance. 500 lvl 1's could team up to defeat a lvl 10 monster and all get lvl 10 drops?

    Mind you, I don't see that as a problem, that is smart thin

  • by Millennium (2451) on Wednesday April 28, 2010 @06:38AM (#32012280) Homepage

    This is how MMO gaming should be, with nothing coming at the expense of another player. Unfortunately, there is a portion of the MMO population that will not be satisfied unless they can have their domination and bullying fantasies, and even though they ruin gaming for everyone else, they're big enough that few game makers have the guts to take them on.

  • by unity100 (970058) on Wednesday April 28, 2010 @10:06AM (#32015074) Homepage Journal
    indeed others should be a welcome sight, not something unwanted in mmo games. after all, what's the point of playing a mmo, if you are going to limit your social circle to some limited number of people in your play group or your guild ? LAN play already offers such gameplay, or games that have limited server capacity.

    A mmo should aim for MASSIVE multiplayer. that is the whole point of it. it shouldnt encourage seclusion, isolation, animosity in between players.
  • FTA:

    When you play an RPG, you want to experience a compelling and memorable storyline.

    No. Common new-school mistake.

    http://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]

"Never ascribe to malice that which is caused by greed and ignorance." -- Cal Keegan

Working...