Scaling games from multiplayer to MMO

[zoombapup]

I've been thinking into the future about games we are going to do. Its pretty clear to me that we want to go down a route similar in some ways to the guys at three rings (creators of puzzle pirates).

Mainly by this, I mean we want to go down the turn-based online mini-mo style of game.

So I'm thinking, what kind of design issues will we see as we go from multiplayer game to MMO.

One thing thats obvious to me, is that it is best to essentially have a game eco-system that plays itself without any players being required. Essentially all of the economy, different conflicts, development etc need to go on without player intervention.

The reason is that when you do an indie MMMO, you have to make sure there is something for players to do all the time. So making the game as "singleplayer friendly" as possible is a good thing.

This means you actually need to think of the game more as a singleplayer game that scales seamlessly with other players.

So what things are going to be really important in this sitation?

1) The player should have decisions to make, outside of interacting with other players. This could be things like trade, combat, creation etc.

2) The player should be able to discover parts of the game by themselves. So nothing should block them from actually seeing the world. No requiring other players to continue (unless you can give them something to do if they cant get other players involved)

3) The player should be able to have short play sessions and not have to invest too much time. This encourages them not to sit and wait online, which helps to mitigate against the lack of players.

I think also, its kind of useful to not give players a list of other players. Especially if its going to be empty. Look at Xbox Live Arcade for this kind of thing.

I'll post more as I think about it more.. Just wondered if anyone else had some insights.

[cliffski]

let me make an impact. Even a small one. Too many MMO games ignore this. I dont care that I have got x zillion points, or level 9000, I care that I am affecting other peoples lives, that I have a 'presence' or 'reputation' in the online world.
Second life does this well, because you can make any kind of structure you want, but even the ability to name structures, or items that have been created by you is important.
The main thing is that my impact on the world is visible when I am NOT playing. I want 'cliffskis' bar to be running 24/7 in an online game. Thats what the massively multiplayer thing means to me.

[jefferytitan]

let me make an impact. Even a small one. Too many MMO games ignore this. I dont care that I have got x zillion points, or level 9000, I care that I am affecting other peoples lives, that I have a 'presence' or 'reputation' in the online world.
Second life does this well, because you can make any kind of structure you want, but even the ability to name structures, or items that have been created by you is important.
The main thing is that my impact on the world is visible when I am NOT playing. I want 'cliffskis' bar to be running 24/7 in an online game. Thats what the massively multiplayer thing means to me.

On a larger scale, you want the chance for lasting in-game fame. "OMG, look, he's the guy who killed Lord Slythe/built the colosseum/cut off the portal that the demons were invading through!". That's what offends me about WoW... that EVERYBODY gets a chance to kill every monster and they just pop right up again like weeds. I'd like to see an MMORPG where not only can you do things which affect other people, but also events happen which affect everybody, such as an outside invasion and a group of you can be the people who defended the mountain pass and saved everybody.

[zoombapup]

Cliffy.. I agree about the persistance thing. Although it could get very dull if you had a huge battle and everything was killed off and it stayed killed off :)

What it really needs is a layered approach.

The layers would go something roughly like:


Top level economy - Balances out resources and conflicts
Mid level zone economy - Does as above, but for a local area
Low level economy and conflict delivery - actually handles the spawning/prices/availability


Each level would report back to and take its instructions from the level above. Allowing someone at the high level to interact with it in such a way that it can shift gameplay somewhat over time. (i.e. introducing a new problem, say a global shortage of X).

Economy btw means everything from materials to prices to recovery rates for things.

The problem is that you dont want everything to be unique. As an indie there is no way your going to afford unique stuff constantly. So it has to be either iconic or data driven. So for instance, you might purchase an item that allows you faster speed. It doesnt physically have any artifacts beyond an icon. But it does have an effect on your data.

I can see that scenario working, where most things are iconic in nature. Its where you start actually having to create new content that things fall apart.

[Anthony Flack]

Second life does this well, because you can make any kind of structure you want, but even the ability to name structures, or items that have been created by you is important.
The main thing is that my impact on the world is visible when I am NOT playing. I want 'cliffskis' bar to be running 24/7 in an online game. Thats what the massively multiplayer thing means to me.

Not only would this be very satisfying for the player, but it also makes the game more interesting for other players, and takes some of the pressure off you for content creation.

But I guess the problem of content creation gets replaced with another problem of policing other people's creations...

[cliffski]

this is exactly what spore is aiming at, and to some extent what I try to do with my games. There are a number of extra countries and policies for Democracy that were done by players of the game, and I know drod and Lux have a similar setup. Its a different situation with MMO games, because you have all the idiot script kiddies trying to break the game for everyone. (god knows why, as they pay for the privelidge of wrecking their own fun)

jesus how do you spell privelidge?

[zoombapup]

beats me :) use the spellchecker? (its at the top right with the little tickmark)

Well, the problem I guess is policing these things. But you can always delegate that to players you trust.

The main thing for me, is to consider the interactions and the amount of effort that is required for each of them.

If some of this stuff can be procedurally controlled, then all to the good really. I like the idea of having an world which does its own thing and the players are part of a larger ecosystem. That gives a sense of scale that appeals to me.

Besides that, having a method of updating the world with new content without any downtime and being able to quickly author content I see as big factors.

[MikeRozak]

It's taken me a few years to get my head around MMORPGs, and I still don't have all the concepts grasped. One important issue is that is soon as you bring in players, you have an ecosystem of players that arises, and you must keep it balanced (as with any ecosystem) or it turns into a desert.

I have written up many random thoughts about this on http://www.mxac.com.au/drt. Although my ideas are almost certainly flawed, they might help you produce you own insights. One writeup, in particular, is relevent to how a single-player game changes when it become MMO: http://www.mxac.com.au/drt/PlayerPyramid.htm

[Aldacron]

For discussions of MMOG design, the MMO Round Table forums (http://www.mmoroundtable.com/forums/) is a great place to go. Pose your questions there and you're likely to get essays in reply (people who love to discuss MMOG design tend to be long winded for some reason), but there are sure to be some good ideas amongst it all. It's a real privilege to discuss the topic with those guys. ;)

[Pyabo]

Second life does this well, because you can make any kind of structure you want, but even the ability to name structures, or items that have been created by you is important.

This is so true... But one reason it works so well in Second Life is because there *isn't* a built-in reputation or fame system... it relies on real-world communication and interaction. Players, structures, areas, and games become popular in the same way people, structures, areas, and games become popular outside Second Life: word of mouth, marketing, etc. Trying to fake this in a game system is probably a mistake.

[zppz]

I have written up many random thoughts about this on http://www.mxac.com.au/drt. ...Thanks, I enjoyed that.

[cliffski]

yes absolutely, I dont mean a fame system where you have fame points, thats just levelling up renamed. I want people to say to each other that "theres usually a ferengi in the bar called cliffski who will sell you guns" or whatever :D

[Ste Pickford]

Kind of obvious, but an important point for an indie, is that you've got to make a game that works - that makes sense - if there are no other players.

EQ / WoW etc *need* the rest of the player base to function. The game dies when server populations drop. You can't afford to assume a high player population, or even any player population, if you are doing this on a small scale. You don't want to have to rely on a critical mass of players signing up and playing *before* the game starts to work as intended, as it will probably never happen.

You need to design a game which works as a single player game, even if you are changing a persistant world on a server somewhere, shared with other players. Interacting with other players should enhance the experience somehow, but it shouldn't feel like a second rate experience if nobody else is around.

So I think you should start with a single player game, and work out how to turn this into a MMO game, rather than stating with a multiplayer game and turning that into a MMO.

edit - hmm, I've just really repeated your own thoughts in your original post! Sorry, I guess I've added nothing useful here :)

[electronicStar]

I think that whatever MMO system one tries to set up, it will be "perverted" by the fact that it is being played by hundreds or thousands of people simultaneously.
These people are going to form a "society" and like all society, they are going to set up their own rules and social interactions. And they will try by all means possible to curb the ruleset or to take advantage of it. It's just nature in action.

That's why IMHO the best bet is to give your players enough tools for them to be able to set their own rules and to have fun in a coherent setting (fantasy or other), but not to try to enforce rigid rules on them because most players won't content themselves of roleplaying an elf or something.

That's what I'd do if I was to design an MMOG

[zoombapup]

I think one of the main aspects of it, is to make it so that there is a consistant method to the rules created in the world. When I say consistant, I mainly mean that logic should dictate.

For instance, it should be logical that players get to create things. This means that somewhere, somehow, they need to pay for things (the concept of work=money=stuff is consistant with real life).

So for instance, in my game, I might have player owned ships. Only you dont automatically own a ship. You might have to actually get one built. Which means that you need to gather enough funds to buy the materials and pay a shipwright to build your ship. You also need a designer to actually design the ship.

I think keeping as much as possible logically related to real world concepts will make the player transition a lot simpler. They will instinctively understand the rules of trade, rules of aquisition etc.

Hmm, its an interesting undertaking. I wonder how much of this kind of thing can be done iteratively. My default method for designing and building things, is iterative in nature.

I guess its something we will prototype after shipping Air Ace.