Artificial Restrictions

[catmorbid]

The topic has been discussed every now and then, but I don't think we have one dedicated for it. I wasn't sure where to put this thread, so it went here. It's also probably my longest post so far, and I'm sorry for that, if it troubles you.

To the point:

I would like to ask you, especially the MO devs, what's your take on artificial restrictions in a mmorpg. Are they necessary, and if so, why?

In case you're quite not following what I mean by Artificial Restrictions in a mmorpg, here's a clue: Levels. Levels are by far the biggest artificial restriction ever introduced in rpgs. Funny enough, they're kinda like the biggest thing rpg's generally are known for, and also the biggest artificial restriction.

Some things cannot be represented realistically without adding some artifical restrictions, but they can sure be masked pretty well. For example, any open world game in general always has borders somwhere. Take Oblivion e.g., you had these invisible walls at some point, and you just got a text saying "you can't go this way!" etc. if you tried - another major example of an artificial restriction. Many games try masking this restriction, by using a natural restriction, like an unpassable mountain area. That's a lot better already, but if you have a "rather large" area which is clearly inside a fence made of impassable mountains, it also seems pretty annoying.

I understand most of those restrictions, which are due to technical issues, such as, you cannot dive in a game, because it would've taken too much time to add the feature - and there wasn't underwater content planned. Ok, sad, but not a big loss. However, when you find a place surrounded with a tiny little moat, which you could walk through, but you can't because it's water, and apparently swimming wasn't on the feature list, it gets a little annoying.

Basically, while the above mentioned restrictions and similar are annoying, i'm happy to say that they are becoming the rarity, and instead you see very believable worlds today. However, what bugs me the most are artificial restrictions that are not technical, as in graphical or world-related, but gameplay related. These restrictions ruin the fun for me, most of the time.

A simple example: An iron broadsword requires strength of 10 and skill 10 to wield, while a steel broadsword magically requires strength of 15 and skill of 15. I.e. restricting content and/or "balancing" the content according to how powerful the character is - regardless of if you use levels or not. Anyone with even a quarter brain lobe working should realize how dumb that is. I know similar approach has been the norm for who knows how long, and I know exactly why it has been made so: Having an equipment-centralized approach with the idea that you must gather more and more powerful equipment which deal more and more damage so you can bash more and more powerful creatures (which magically are only so much more powerful than you compared to your level).

So while restricting where your character can go, and if can he dive or not, is due to technical reasons, having those same reasons in gameplay mechanics actually has no valid reasons at all. I honestly believe that we could get rid of 95% of the artificial gameplay restrictions and still have a good game which would feel balanced.

Most artificial restrictions are applied because of introducing artificial game mechanics that need such restrictions to make them actually work (in balance with other features). For instance, the beforementioned level/stat requirements for equipment are needed only because the equipment get increasingly and significantly more powerful. This means that while you can barely kill a rat with you shoddy iron shortsword, you can easily slay a troll with your über sword of leetness (rats can't even damage you at that point, and they're BIG rats you know).

Instead of having 10 000% damage difference, the two weapons could only have a rather minor difference in damage, some stat requirements based on weapon size/weight, not their überness, and maybe the most significant effect could be the durability. This said, a good quality weapon would last longer than a shoddy one, hence making it more valuable in combat. And of course, when you introduce character skill affecting how well you can swing the weapon, plus player skill, it wouldn't make a big difference even if someone gave a newbie a good quality sword - you'd most likely just get your ass kicked and your nice sword stolen.

I'm under the impression, that MO intends to take a similar approach to equipment, like I just described, which I truly, honestly hope. But this isn't just about items, it's about every single restriction you can find in a game: -You can only drink a potion x every 30 seconds - Why?
-You can only climb ladder type y with skill level 30 - Why?!
-You're unable to draw a weapon in a city - WHY?!!

Those are very simple and minor things, yet they're all huge artificial restrictions. Instead of artificial restrictions presented, you could try something like this:
-Alchemical potions are poisonous, so if you drink them too often, you'll risk an overdose, which is bad.
-Your chances of falling is 5% and your climbing rate is pretty slow with ladder y at skill 30, but sure, give it a go!.
-You can draw a weapon in a city, but it's a criminal offense, hence you risk getting punished if you do so.

The effect is equally the same, but the restriction is no longer artificial, but an integral and logical part of the game. There's a valid reason for it, other than "this just needs to be like this, so it's balanced... uknow"!

So with a little bit more work, could it be possible to get rid of most of gameplay related artificial restrictions. Those dependant on hardware issues are a whole another thing, and there isn't much to do about them, but gameplay issues mostly aren't. So what's the problem here? Why not?

Thank you for reading this far. Arigato. Kiitos.

[Doomtrain]

Nice post .
But most developers are lazy and like to copy-past things that worked before.
What we will have in MO ? time will tell we can only hope for best.

[Hereshk]

Read all your post, and I agree. It really enhence the immersion into the game and its true that there's never a big difference to make less artificial.

I dont believe that we can get rid of everything, but major stuff like invisible walls and the ones u said should be doable.

According to what I've read around the forum, I think its the direction the game is taking.

[Rathius]

Well said Catmorbid,
This is one of the things that I really try and push for in a lot of posts dealing with how "unbalanced" things can be or those people that say that something is outright a gamebreaker. It just takes a little thought into the issue to find out how it could feasibly work without saying it -has- to be this way.

I was glad to see your example of the potions, I had actually used that one, hehe.
Another example is the bandaging that so many people want. Yes, you can bandage, but why in the world would you be able to do it while engaged in active combat? You have clothing and armor in the way, you need some time to get to the wound and apply the bandage. If you need instant healing, use something magical or alchemical like a potion.

[ccoa]

Originally Posted by Rathius

Another example is the bandaging that so many people want. Yes, you can bandage, but why in the world would you be able to do it while engaged in active combat? You have clothing and armor in the way, you need some time to get to the wound and apply the bandage. If you need instant healing, use something magical or alchemical like a potion.

Also the debuff WoW gave you when you bandaged yourself.

But I really like your post. But I guess the real question is where would you say those things. Like the ladder for example, where would it say that you have a high chance of falling and you're not that good at climbing but give it a shot? on a sign next to the ladder? At first I was thinking maybe a thought bubble appears on your screen but then again I though, why do I have to think? Why can't I just act? The potion is a different story, you could simply put it in the tooltip.

[Traceur]

very interesting choice of topic catmorbid.

firs off, let's define artificial restrictions. most people do not gravity as an artificial restriction, even if it's coded, though they may see it as such if their avatar has wings and they couldn't counter affect gravity. so artificial has nothing to do with code or the fact everything in a software is technically artificial:
a restriction feels artificial when we don't expect it to be there.

it is not even our freedom that we demand - while less artifical restrictions give us more freedom to have a chance of breaking them, in fact the same rule can also be applied towards the positive - nobody complains about flying in a sci-fi space opera game with spaceships, we'd expect it, but being able to walk in the air in mount & blade would be seeing as an exploit:
an advantage feels like an exploit when we don't expect it to be there.

it is those things which break your expectations and remind you that "this is just a game", your expectations of it as a world shouldn't be followed, that make us cry "artificial" or "bug exploit". if you think about it, most game companies are just more honest. this is just a game, and their throwing it right in our faces: so what? why should you expect otherwise? do you complain you can't pick fruits from a panting of a tree?

here's the catch though:
just like human avatars have an uncanny valley when they start to resamble too much 'real humans' graphically and we start to notice all the little differences, so can gaming environmnets aproach their own uncany valley in terms of reliability, and this doesn't need to have anything to do with graphics:

how do we normally convince ourselves something is real in real life? while avoiding the deep philosophical discussion over it's legitimacy, the most common answer is public aproval & repeatition: we know it's real because other people see it too. so in our mind, when we share an expirience with others, and we can close our eyes, open them, and it will stil be there. we become much more confident about it being real. our logic tells us it isn't real, but this very instinct in us tells us it is.

the result is that MMOs are by their very essance as multiplayer persistent worlds are inhabitants of the environmental uncanny valley, and where so from the age of MUDS. we share our expiriences in them with others, we can log off and log on, and the world would still be there.
this triggers our instincts that this might very well be real, and conflicts with our knowledge telling us that it isn't: we want to solve that internal conflict, we want it to be real.

and it's a vicious unforgiving circle, because as we push on the uncanny valley of environments, more and more things disturb us. the more realistic it gets, the more realism we demand, the less forgiving we become.

we very comfortably put things on a scale between "emulation" and "simulation": emulation replicates the phenomena, simulation replicates the circumstances. for example not being able to pull a weapon in cities is emulation, guards forcing you to put it back is more of a simulation. but then we'd find guards "mind control" over our characters even more immersion breaking, and ask for a guard warning/threatening/fighting us to do so. we'd find guards instant knowledge that we took out a weapon even more immersion breaking, and ask for a witness and patrol system, and eventually we'd dig into the immersion breaking of their bad AI compared to our human mind. in truth there is no clear line which defines a difference between emulation and simulation: it is an endless dig into the chains of cause and affect, and with each step we'd take more simulations for granted and call it emulation, and want the causes of those circumstances to be simulated, again and again. do not underastimate the extant of human intiution to detect inconsistencies beyond the sensual perception: there is no finale MMO which would give us an "eternal bliss" of satisfaction, the more realism we eat the more hungry we get, and reality itself is one thing a game can never be.

does that mean immersion is a fool's errend? possibly, but it doesn't have to be:
immersion might very well be a balancing act, and we who demand it right now know only one factor (realism) and want it in the extreme, without knowing against what factor should it need to be balanced. IMO we are lacking something basic in our equasion, something we haven't realized or thought of yet. it clearly isn't "game", because any course of gameplay or game style could be lead my immersionist systems - for example even leveled items could make sense if items where sunctioned by ruling factions and your reputation with them, classes could make sense in a world where local guilds enforced a monopoly over their trade and tried to kill those who broke it... it might become harder, but you can push any gameplay formula into any level of immersion based systems.
so if it isn't against gameplay, then what is it? we just don't know. but without that balance, peace & satisfaction in the uncanny valley will never be found.

[Mats Persson]

I get what you are saying, catmorbid, but I can only guess what kind of answer or elaboration you are looking for. You are giving most answers yourself and yet don't seem to realize where they take you

I'll run them through in split-personality-mode, just for the fun of it:

Levels are by far the biggest artificial restriction ever introduced in rpgs.

Me: Yes, and by most designers and most players the one regarded as the biggest driving-factor in a game. Let me introduce my alter ego, Benny, straight from the depths of the worlds you are talking about.

Hey, Benny, what do you think of levels? A MMO without levels?

Benny: What? No levels? Ffs, how would I know how 1337-skilled I am without Levels? What would I aim for? How would I know which monsters to attack? Which quests I can take? Come on!

For example, any open world game in general always has borders somwhere. Take Oblivion e.g., you had these invisible walls at some point, and you just got a text saying "you can't go this way!" etc. if you tried - another major example of an artificial restriction.

Me:Would it be better with no walls at all, letting you see the actual edges of the heightmap where everything is really ugly, walk off the edge of the map and fall forever, or die?
Some games "repeat" the map, making you enter from left when going right. Are you saying every game must "repeat" in this way, which of course will have severe impact on the entire layout of the game map?
Or should the whole terrain engine be redesigned, making a spherical heightmap solution (that would need looots of work) to form a confined planet (that would need looots of work), not to mention a lot of custom inhouse-tools for editing (that would need loots of work)?

Benny: Hey, look! I found this weird bug over here. It's like a big glitch in the ground and I'm like almost stuck. Cool. Hey? Where did that mob go? Wtf am I doing here out in nowhere? Better run back.

Many games try masking this restriction, by using a natural restriction, like an unpassable mountain area. That's a lot better already, but if you have a "rather large" area which is clearly inside a fence made of impassable mountains, it also seems pretty annoying.

Me: The alternative being.. ?

Benny: Yeah, sure would be cool to see what's behind those mountains, but there's a 60+ cave over here with rare spawns. gtg.

However, when you find a place surrounded with a tiny little moat, which you could walk through, but you can't because it's water, and apparently swimming wasn't on the feature list, it gets a little annoying.

Me: So what you say is no swimming = no water at all? Or to keep the unswimmable water, that is annoying cause you know you can't swim in it, but just not use it as a moat? As it kind of reminds you that you cannot swim in it?

Benny:?

A simple example: An iron broadsword requires strength of 10 and skill 10 to wield, while a steel broadsword magically requires strength of 15 and skill of 15. I.e. restricting content and/or "balancing" the content according to how powerful the character is - regardless of if you use levels or not. Anyone with even a quarter brain lobe working should realize how dumb that is. I know similar approach has been the norm for who knows how long, and I know exactly why it has been made so: Having an equipment-centralized approach with the idea that you must gather more and more powerful equipment which deal more and more damage so you can bash more and more powerful creatures (which magically are only so much more powerful than you compared to your level).

Me: I couldn't have given a better explanation myself, so why do you ask? This is by many designers and players regarded as the system as it's insanely addictive, constantly lets you fight for, and get, new gear and the feeling of being rewarded for your efforts. Whether you or I like it or not doesn't matter, as many millions of other players are more than happy to pay for it.

Benny: I actually agree with you Camorri, I would like to be able to use any sword whenever I want.. Like I found this lvl 80 sword the other day but had to put it on AH as I'm Paladin-Ranger and cannot use it. That sucks.

So while restricting where your character can go, and if can he dive or not, is due to technical reasons, having those same reasons in gameplay mechanics actually has no valid reasons at all.

Me: Yes, as you and I have just proven, it has: it keeps the game entertaining, simple and addictive for the vast majority of players out there and is very easy to balance.

Benny: Ha lol noob, run to mommy and commplain I ganked you lilltle lvl 30 lowbe wimp. roflmao.
..what?

I honestly believe that we could get rid of 95% of the artificial gameplay restrictions and still have a good game which would feel balanced.

Me: Yes, I believe so too, but then we are looking at a totally different genre of games, coming much closer to a simulator or virtual world.

Benny: I've played Fligh Stimulator, but it was buggy and the plane couldn't take off.

Instead of having 10 000% damage difference, the two weapons could only have a rather minor difference in damage, some stat requirements based on weapon size/weight, not their überness, and maybe the most significant effect could be the durability. This said, a good quality weapon would last longer than a shoddy one, hence making it more valuable in combat. And of course, when you introduce character skill affecting how well you can swing the weapon, plus player skill, it wouldn't make a big difference even if someone gave a newbie a good quality sword - you'd most likely just get your ass kicked and your nice sword stolen.

Me: You are describing a much more balanced system, close to MO. But you do realize that this system seems extremely boring to most players?

Benny: lol Why choose to play a game with a dull steel brodsword doing 12.5 damage cause it's crafted by some "mastersmith" (yeah, right) whan you can play this fancy game where you get the 4.5 meter, neon-glowing Godslayer of Hitpoints +50k DMG?

I'm under the impression, that MO intends to take a similar approach to equipment, like I just described, which I truly, honestly hope. But this isn't just about items, it's about every single restriction you can find in a game: -You can only drink a potion x every 30 seconds - Why?

Me: Simple game-mechanic. You cannot stack up on Ultimate Healing Potions and go for the Boss you're not supposed to be able to kill 20 levels later.

Benny: Sux

-You can only climb ladder type y with skill level 30 - Why?!

Me: Much easier to implement and control in that way. Also, people would get tired to death by having to climb the same stupid ladder 50 times before giving up and see it as a bug.

Benny: How do i do petticion?

-You're unable to draw a weapon in a city - WHY?!!

Me: Otherwise you would have to implement a complicated and unecessary guard-system, and people would have a reason to stay in the cities causing lag. Enabling combat would require even more bandwidth causing yet more lag, and by totally removing this possibility you save up a lot of bandwidth. It's a quick and smart solution that players find themselves in and it avoids breaking the game. Why should you be able to draw a weapon in the city? Cities are for getting quests and buy stuff. Didn't you know the fun is outside! :P

Benny: Ye I find that frustrating too but you get used to it.

Those are very simple and minor things, yet they're all huge artificial restrictions. Instead of artificial restrictions presented, you could try something like this:
-Alchemical potions are poisonous, so if you drink them too often, you'll risk an overdose, which is bad.

Benny: No dont make me have to keep track on how many stupid potions I've been drinking. That sounds like a bug. And it's stupid. Why would I want that when I have this clock showing me when I can drink my next? That other game also has it, are you too lazy to do it?

-

-Your chances of falling is 5% and your climbing rate is pretty slow with ladder y at skill 30, but sure, give it a go!.

Benny: As I said, no way. Why would I have to take chanses on a stupid ladder?

-You can draw a weapon in a city, but it's a criminal offense, hence you risk getting punished if you do so.

So now i have to keep track on where I can draw my sword and not, too? If I'm not allowed to, don't let me be able to do it. Much easier that way.

The effect is equally the same, but the restriction is no longer artificial, but an integral and logical part of the game. There's a valid reason for it, other than "this just needs to be like this, so it's balanced... uknow"!

Benny: Logical part of game? Artifical restrictions? Why do I care. gtg. cu
OOC: lfg TI grind lvl75 tank just bosses btw wts epic 66 [Unhallowed Bloodzombie Claymore] /tell

Why not?

Me: You know why not. We've quickly become a minority. Some, not knowing better, even say a dying species.

[catmorbid]

Originally Posted by ccoa

But I really like your post. But I guess the real question is where would you say those things. Like the ladder for example, where would it say that you have a high chance of falling and you're not that good at climbing but give it a shot? on a sign next to the ladder? At first I was thinking maybe a thought bubble appears on your screen but then again I though, why do I have to think? Why can't I just act? The potion is a different story, you could simply put it in the tooltip.

Oh there are ways, like explaining your skill proficiency when clicking the skill etc. or introducing some sort of difficulty level which you see on mouseover.

Originally Posted by Traceur

...
does that mean immersion is a fool's errend? possibly, but it doesn't have to be:
immersion might very well be a balancing act, and we who demand it right now know only one factor (realism) and want it in the extreme, without knowing against what factor should it need to be balanced. IMO we are lacking something basic in our equasion, something we haven't realized or thought of yet. it clearly isn't "game", because any course of gameplay or game style could be lead my immersionist systems - for example even leveled items could make sense if items where sunctioned by ruling factions and your reputation with them, classes could make sense in a world where local guilds enforced a monopoly over their trade and tried to kill those who broke it... it might become harder, but you can push any gameplay formula into any level of immersion based systems.
so if it isn't against gameplay, then what is it? we just don't know. but without that balance, peace & satisfaction in the uncanny valley will never be found.

Good post overall, and I agree that you'd probably get only more hungry the more you eat, but if that's your cake, I say go for it The thing is, at some point you have to realize where the line between obsession and practicality is (a difficult thing at times), and draw that line, understanding how far technical limitations allow you to go. But I also say, that as long as the technical limitations allow, one should never stop.

Originally Posted by Mats Persson

I get what you are saying, catmorbid, but I can only guess what kind of answer or elaboration you are looking for. You are giving most answers yourself and yet don't seem to realize where they take you

...
some good stuff here
...

You're absolutely right. The majority probably does think like that, but still, I can't but help feel that so many are only led to think like that, and they would actually think otherwise if they were given the chance to do so. Benny probably wouldn't - or who knows - but Johnny might.

Originally Posted by Mats Persson

Me: You know why not. We've quickly become a minority. Some, not knowing better, even say a dying species.

Well, I say we go and buy ourselves an island and plot a plan for world domination. We'd probably be plotting forever, but hey it's fun!

[Lachrymose]

i couldn't agree with you more. i just don't like anything artificial being added to games where it doesn't absolutely need to be. which is the main reason i'm against something like random crits.

as far as geographical restrictions go, something about the invisible walls just takes away a lot from the immersion and realism from a game. here's a solution: instead of creating an invisible boundary or natural boundary (like a mountain range), if the world is basically on an island, just put a huge creature way out in the ocean, and if anyone attempts to go that far to see what's out there, one of these creatures will spawn and it can just insta-kill him. after the first time, they'll learn to just not go out that far anymore.

as for the weapons. i agree that it's dumb for certain weapons/armor to have level requirements. anyone should be able to use a sword, but if they aren't strong enough to use it, maybe they could hold it, but they couldn't swing it at all. instead of requiring a skill to use certain weapons, the uber sword of leetness should just do minimal damage at an insufficient skill level. sure, it will still do slightly more damage than a normal weapon, but in the hands of a noob it won't reach it's full potential. then as your skill increases, the damage done by the uber sword of leetness will reach that potential, and it will be well beyond the damage done by the noober sword of lameness.

your other suggestions are great too. you should be able to drink 10 potions in a row if you want to, but either they won't be effective after the first one, or you'll OD and die. same thing with harvesting resources. you should be able to at least attempt to harvest anything you want. in UO you could mine anywhere, but if your skill was low, you wouldn't be successful.

i think since MO has done away with levels, that's a huge step in the right direction. although, i'm afraid some artificialness probably just can't be taken out without causing some other bigger problems.

[Divinius]

Its good to see Mats is still alive. I haven't seen him here in like a year, which is very interesting because these forums haven't been around for a year.

[LightsabeR]

Great thread catmorbid and valid points made by all.

Mats, I think that while Benny does represent quite a big part of the MMO players, I feel there's also a lot of players who think Benny's rather clueless.

Now whether SV decides to go after Benny and his friends or cater more to the "dying species", is of course up to you.

Originally Posted by catmorbid

You're absolutely right. The majority probably does think like that, but still, I can't but help feel that so many are only led to think like that, and they would actually think otherwise if they were given the chance to do so. Benny probably wouldn't - or who knows - but Johnny might.

Definitely agree with this. I think many new MMO players just don't know any better and go with what the game developers have been feeding them.

[lokius]

I agree, catmorbid did a great job with this topic. Though I think it may be possible to put some restrictions ( not that I want them ) without breaking immersion. What do I mean is all in all we are talking mostly about games in fantasy settings, so who says that the world of such game couldn't be flat supported by few giant turtles, there would be an edge of such world where you can actually fall off.

[catmorbid]

I personally completely understand and accept every restriction, albeit artificial ones that are due to technical reasons to make the game more fluent and allow for better playability. But if the end product is an over-simplified crap, I'm not liking it... So compromises are acceptable, and even obligatory. But the more one would be able to hide, mask or remove any artificial restrictions, the better. But, total absence of any artificial restrictions, should be a goal, and I still believe that when technical reasons are put aside, it's a realistic one.

[holo4ever]

I like Benny ... reminds me of too many people )

OT:

Yes, having no restrictions would be _THE_ ultimate game. But...as Mats said, that would be a virtual world simulator more than a fantasy game tbh. And.... for it to work the technology would have to be a little better, not by much, even with this engine they could do it, but as they said, it would take a lot. Maybe, UT4 engine when it comes out(if) will make it possible, who knows ?

again... nice one mats with benny

[Traceur]

what's wrong with virtual fantasy world simulators? people say this like it's a bad thing, like "it would not be a game so it won't be fun", and that's BS IMO:
it includes games within it: battles are games. crafting can be a game. negotiation and maneuvering in the player market could be a game. that Atzec/Maia game with bowling balls being thrown like basketballs could be a game. but all the games would be emergent from the simulator.

[lazyasian224]

Originally Posted by catmorbid

But, total absence of any artificial restrictions, should be a goal, and I still believe that when technical reasons are put aside, it's a realistic one.

Agreed. I think as long as the devs do their best to try to improve immersion past the level of the other MMO's out there, we are moving towards the goal of complete realism. Just because we may never get there doesn't mean we can't try.

[catmorbid]

Originally Posted by Traceur

what's wrong with virtual fantasy world simulators? people say this like it's a bad thing, like "it would not be a game so it won't be fun", and that's BS IMO:
it includes games within it: battles are games. crafting can be a game. negotiation and maneuvering in the player market could be a game. that Atzec/Maia game with bowling balls being thrown like basketballs could be a game. but all the games would be emergent from the simulator.

Weren't they using decapitated humans' heads in that games?

Anyway, there's nothing bad with virtual fantasy world simulators. I'd certainly play such

[Manorothh]

I´m totally agree with the first post, and althought there´s a lot of Bennys in the world (of warcraft), i really think that there´s a lots of people that don´t have started to play any mmorpg because of they don´t have found a game that gives them what they really want: feel free and alive in that world.
So , i think that a game with those kind of concepts and ideas will atract lots off people, like me.

[Victor]

As I pointed out in another thread, there are more FPSers and Action/Rpgers out there than there is MMOers.

The devs should not be afraid to try to aim for more realism, immersion etc... Look what happened to AoC, they dumbed it down to an WoW clone, cry and dismay emerged on the beta forums, they banned many of their beta players that strongly opposed their changes and shortly after they released their game... their unfinished game let me add.

Nonetheless, if I were a MMO dev, I would stay the hell away from generic MMO concepts and implement more features that can be found in FPS' and Action/RPGs. Because there is a larger market out there, and to be honest, if you can still appeal to the MMOers and also the larger gaming crowds, then you have a win win scenario.

To be perfectly honest, I believe Benny is in the minority.

[Mats Persson]

Originally Posted by Victor

Nonetheless, if I were a MMO dev, I would stay the hell away from generic MMO concepts and implement more features that can be found in FPS' and Action/RPGs. Because there is a larger market out there, and to be honest, if you can still appeal to the MMOers and also the larger gaming crowds, then you have a win win scenario.

Time will tell. Our aim is not to make Mortal Online something for everybody, rather we want it to be everything to some.

Also, regarding the virtual world/simulator discussion, I really don't mean that it's a negative thing for MO. (I just mean that the most successful mmo's so far have moved in the opposite direction.)

Our goal really is a free game, much more like a virtual world, but we have chosen to start at the "Game" end, and as more and more of the core "Game" gets completed, move towards the "Virtual World/Simulator". Time is the most limiting factor here, and if we have to choose between being able to properly fight on mounts or actually cutting down the trees you are "woodcutting", the choice is simple. What's most important now is to build the world in such a way that it's open for adding stuff later on, to let the game be able to get even more free and "sandboxy" over time without breaking built-in rules.

[catmorbid]

I also think you have taken exactly right approach there.

[Zenir]

Looks like the devs really know what they are doing, you could say that's rare these days.

Go on with the good work :P

[Victor]

Originally Posted by Mats Persson

Time will tell. Our aim is not to make Mortal Online something for everybody, rather we want it to be everything to some.

Also, regarding the virtual world/simulator discussion, I really don't mean that it's a negative thing for MO. (I just mean that the most successful mmo's so far have moved in the opposite direction.)

Our goal really is a free game, much more like a virtual world, but we have chosen to start at the "Game" end, and as more and more of the core "Game" gets completed, move towards the "Virtual World/Simulator". Time is the most limiting factor here, and if we have to choose between being able to properly fight on mounts or actually cutting down the trees you are "woodcutting", the choice is simple. What's most important now is to build the world in such a way that it's open for adding stuff later on, to let the game be able to get even more free and "sandboxy" over time without breaking built-in rules.

I hope you don't listen to Benny too much, rather listen to us, and more importantly to yourself...

I will point towards the thread I made yesterday; a reply from you there would be most welcome. Some sort of confirmation, that MO is leaning towards that game-play I tried to convey or not would be appreciated. To be perfectly honest, I don't want to waste more "years" on forums pitching ideas discussing features, if it's just going to be another artless mmo on the market.

Yes, years of let down, have shaped me into a cold forum vistor, and I don't hold MMO developers high in this regard, I enjoy communicating and be part of gaming developing in a much smaller scale nowadays, because those devs actually listen to what you have say. And I am sorry for that, but a simple yes or no will suffice, concerning your vision and goal for game-play, especially combat since that's what the players do 70% of the time online. Certainly you already have a build up and running at the office.

Are "no health-bars", "don't tell, show", "no-insta deaths", "realistic fantasy healing", "not displaying numbers" and "completely full-loot" even being reviewed during this development?

Here's a thread: http://www.mortalonline.com/forums/2...-what-not.html

Needless to say, I have high hopes in Star Vault, otherwise I wouldn’t be here. So far so good I say, a big plus you are fellow country men from Scania, and good work with communicating to the community concerning the game you develop, but I am not holding my breath, not just yet.

[Traceur]

another restriction issue in "game vs. world" comes regarding the RPG aspect of it:
the more control over the avatar you put in the hands of the players, and the more variables you put in the hand of the simulation, the less room you have to put character progression variables into the formula determining the result of most actions.

it's not that complicated: control schemes allowing more player input (player skills) and simulation factors determining all add more variables to the formula: so how do you leave in the RPG variables which once determined the results alone?

combat example: if you create a combat system in which the body motion is largely determined by the player, if you calculate location damage, direction, penetration levels, acceleration and impact, if you simulate a health system affected by such damage realistically, if you calculate for object strength and sharpness based on the properties of a weapon and the defending armor and their material...

if you calculate all these numbers, then where do you put in the RPG variable? the skill system? the impact of the progression scheme get lost in the math.

[Shinzon]

Don't forget that games are games. Video games are no different than what we did as children when we made up different rules and then ran after eachother gleefully. Thats all a video game is, a collection of rules that everyone follows. As soon as you approach the thought that the removal of those rules and guidlines will make a better game, you start to loose focus of what a game really is.

To me it is not about getting rid of the "Restrictions" and "Limitations" but how to creativley implement into the game rule set so that they make logical and intuative sense instead of just being a block message saying "You Can't Do that". The high mountains is an example of that, instead of placing an invisible wall, the developers organicly defined the area that you are allowed to play in; like the walls of a sandbox.

[catmorbid]

Originally Posted by Shinzon

Don't forget that games are games. Video games are no different than what we did as children when we made up different rules and then ran after eachother gleefully. Thats all a video game is, a collection of rules that everyone follows. As soon as you approach the thought that the removal of those rules and guidlines will make a better game, you start to loose focus of what a game really is.

To me it is not about getting rid of the "Restrictions" and "Limitations" but how to creativley implement into the game rule set so that they make logical and intuative sense instead of just being a block message saying "You Can't Do that". The high mountains is an example of that, instead of placing an invisible wall, the developers organicly defined the area that you are allowed to play in; like the walls of a sandbox.

Ah, but that's exactly it. Instead of Artificial Restrictions, there should be Organic Restrictions. Sure, childrens' games are a lot of fun, at least when you are one, but since growing up happens, you'd expect that the games grow up as well...

[Mats Persson]

Originally Posted by Victor

Are "no health-bars", "don't tell, show", "no-insta deaths", "realistic fantasy healing", "not displaying numbers" and "completely full-loot" even being reviewed during this development?

Here's a thread: http://www.mortalonline.com/forums/2...-what-not.html

Jotted down some quick answers to those

[Vanndal]

I have to say I've been at lost of words lately as to what to post with all the great discussions.

I also never knew traceur could be so philosophical :P.

However this is a very interesting topic, and I have to agree with majority of you on what has been said already.

However I have a take or idea on how to deal with weapons that require a specific skill level.

Say Sword A is a weapon that just about anyone can use, but Sword B is a finely crafted weapon of the same type but with a material that is extremely heavy and requires more strength. Then there is a Sword C that is completely different then any conventional sword you've ever seen and requires a specific level of skill along with attribute to use.

How do we make it so that a player who don't qualify for strength requirement to utilize the Sword B? and how do we make it so that Sword C can also be used by the same player who does not qualify for it's requirements?

For Sword B, If you have a strength # that is only around 25% of the required strength, then bluntly inform the player, "This sword is too heavy for you to wield in combat". However if the player has around 50% of the required strength to wield the weapon, then you could allow the player to use the weapon in combat, however it would drain a stamina gauge tremendously to swing the sword, and that the damage dealt with the weapon would only be 50% of what is possible. This is both realistically explainable to players and would most likely make players not want to use the weapon until they have somewhat finesse with the weapon. When the player has 75% of the required strength, then the same approach as 50%, however it would only drain a less amount of stamina to swing the weapon, and they could deal around 75% of the damage the weapon could offer. With 100% allowing the bare minimum stamina drain and maximum damage, while 200% strength, allowing half stamina drain and somewhere around 150% damage (theoretical number or percentage).

Mathematical formula for additional damage for strength score = 100% + 1/2(additional % above 100%)

By now I have to explain what the stamina I have in mind is for, since I've been stating it without explaining what pros and cons it can have.
Simply put, if you have stamina you can run at maximum speed, attack at maximum interval, and all sorts of other physical activities. If you run out of stamina, you move at 50% speed, can not attack at all or cast spells (until you recover some stamina), and various other physical activities.

In a main sense, it would be quite the fun reducer, but it could be increased along with constitution attribute, which almost everyone will be guaranteed to try to increase, including spell casters. However it should be considered that the stamina bar is not something that would deplete in a few seconds or over a few minutes.

I got this idea from Diablo 2, where at first it makes a difference, but as you gain more levels, it starts to become nearly obsolete. However it shows the difference between a really strong character to a really weak character.

-----

As for how to make the Sword C usable to someone who doesn't have the required amount of skill. I will explain it similarly to how I explained the Sword B with 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%, and 200% meeting the requirements.

- 25%: You are so confused with how this weapon is used, you have a close to... 75% chance of dealing half the damage to yourself due to improper use of the weapon.
- 50%: You have relatively more knowledge on how this weapon is used, but you are still unsure, and have 50% chance of dealing half the damage to yourself.
- 75%: You have studied the sword for a long time, and have enough knowledge on how to use to this sword, but not actual practice. 25% chance of dealing half damage to yourself.
- 100%: You have enough mastery over this type of sword, that you have no chance of injuring yourself while using this weapon.
- 200%: You have gained profound knowledge of the swords, and a weapon of this caliber is so easily used that you gain an additional 25% damage while using this weapon, and use 25% less stamina while wielding this weapon.

If you pair this up with having 200% strength requirement and skill requirement, then you'll effectively use only 75% stamina at all while using this weapon.

Formula for Additional Damage for skill level = 100% + 1/4(additional % above 100%)
Formula for stamina reduction = 100% + 1/4(additional % above 100%)

Of course the limiting factor to this is that you can never gain over 100% additional damage and 75% stamina usage reduction. That way people will have to eventually get better weapons, then abuse the weaker weapons that they can deal great amount of damage with.

-----

However if a weapon already deals more then 200% of their current weapon, and they have 100% proficiency with the weapon, then they might as well change weapon :P. Especially useful at higher levels, when they have a larger stamina pool, and they can afford to use weapons that use more stamina.

[lazyasian224]

Originally Posted by Vanndal

....

sorry since its rite there i just wanted people to know i referencing you...

personally i really like the idea of just explaining things to the player. Instead of trying to use a sword and getting some dude yelling, "I CANT USE THAT!" it would be a lot easier if some little red text just warned me: Your physical ability is not capable of fully wielding the true power of this weapon... or something along those lines but not so crappily stated... >.<
i also like scaling it up as you get closer and closer to the suggested requirements, so u dont have to keep a random spare around just until u become strong enuff to use soemthing.

200% damage might be a little much... but im just nitpicking at ur stuff

[Traceur]

i actually really don't like the idea of skills progressing by allowing you to use better gear - it's not only the realism (in reality a better crafted more balanced blade means it takes less skills to wield it), but also the annoying "you just can't use it until you reach level/skill-level X"... so as a solution for the skill progression i say no.

however i do like the idea that if you over extant yourself beyond your physical attributes capabilities then it's somehow implemented into the game. though rather then a message, i would like to have gameplay affects: for example if you wield any object who's weight is beyond your strength capabilities then your going to have a natural resistance mechanism pulling the object downwards as your lifting it or puling you with the object's swing and movements, taking your avatar out of balance. you'd sort of really feel like a child taking a much too heavy object.

[lazyasian224]

well i mean arent you saying the same thing as Vanndal except the deciding factor in yours is strength as opposed to weapon skill? I mean the major point i was trying to emphasize, and i might not have explained it the rite way, was that based on whatever factor SV decides, instead of just flat out saying "you cant use that," warn me that i cant use the weapon at full power if i dont fulfill the requirements, and if i still want to use it, the weapon would be debuffed until ive reached the minimum requirements. and if i over exceed the requirements, maybe give my weapon a small increase in power but not so much as to double it.

[catmorbid]

Originally Posted by lazyasian224

well i mean arent you saying the same thing as Vanndal except the deciding factor in yours is strength as opposed to weapon skill? I mean the major point i was trying to emphasize, and i might not have explained it the rite way, was that based on whatever factor SV decides, instead of just flat out saying "you cant use that," warn me that i cant use the weapon at full power if i dont fulfill the requirements, and if i still want to use it, the weapon would be debuffed until ive reached the minimum requirements. and if i over exceed the requirements, maybe give my weapon a small increase in power but not so much as to double it.

I agree. Except that having a skill as a restriction is context-wise wrong, unless we are talking about... say a technological gadget which would require previous knowledge on similar gadget in order to be able to use them. All a sword would require is knowing how to grab a big stick and swing it, and the strength to wield the weapon.

[auutumn]

A good post and for myself, there has to be a priority list of features that have to be included in a game in order to be successful. The other *nice* things are slowly making their way into some games as time goes on. Perhaps by building them from the ground up or using 3rd party software. There's also the limitation on the devs PCs and those of the players.

We have to be able to focus on the main aspects of the game in terms of playability and then later follow up on areas which could draw attention towards immersion.

[catmorbid]

Originally Posted by auutumn

A good post and for myself, there has to be a priority list of features that have to be included in a game in order to be successful. The other *nice* things are slowly making their way into some games as time goes on. Perhaps by building them from the ground up or using 3rd party software. There's also the limitation on the devs PCs and those of the players.

We have to be able to focus on the main aspects of the game in terms of playability and then later follow up on areas which could draw attention towards immersion.

When talking about artificial restrictions and getting rid of them, many of them are such that are due to decisions made very early in the game. So basically, if you had a game that was badly designed from start, trust me, it would be very difficult to suddenly add the immersion - you'd pretty much have to re-design the whole thing.

So basically, this thread is more about a way of thinking, rather than simply adding immersion. If more and more developers would adopt this kind of way of thinking, i'm promoting here, they would perhaps design the games differently right from the start.

But you are of course correct in that not everything can, nor should be attempted to add in the first time round. It's simply smart to keep the feature list focused and cut on the immersion factor every now and then, just enough to keep things simple enough to be manageable in a tight schedule.

[Vanndal]

Well... hmmm... I guess you guys are right about the skill restriction on weapon.

Keeping the strength debuff and buff idea I posted earlier. How about we take a seemingly WoW approach with weapon skills. Once you get a trainer to teach you how to use a sword, you can use basically all swords, however certain maneuvers are not unlocked until you reach a certain skill level with swords.

I'm pretty sure this was the original idea, however there are a few weapons I can name off the bat that without proper training with it, you'll never figure out how to use it, and they are very much anarchic weaponry and not some future gadget. Just to name off one, ninchuks, you'll hit yourself a billion times (exaggerated don't take it literally) before you figure out how to use it properly.

[lazyasian224]

maybe take sword fighting lessons?? haha nah it would be cool tho if when you first log into the game, there was an actual dude that teaches you all the controls and stuff by sparring with you.

i mean maybe u actually could have sword fighting lessons, just like a short couple of minute thing for each type of weapon you want to train. After that though, how would you base restrictions? If we are all for getting rid of stats and such, wouldnt Sword skill or strength actually in the end, just be a stat? unless strength only indirectly effects combat, like what kind of sword you can use, how much u can carry, and doesnt directly effect how much your damage output is...