Forum: Games
Topic: someone's fucked up MMOG wishlist
started by: Malcolm
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 17 2007,08:41
< & Lum's comments >.
Posted by TheCatt on Jul. 17 2007,11:06
This sounds like TPR's comments.
Posted by TheCatt on Jul. 17 2007,11:08
It's like the person really just wants reality to reset, and then make it a game.
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 17 2007,11:30
Exactly.  I'm not looking to get into the beta for "Avoid Virtual Starvation" or "Sim Build-A-House."
Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 17 2007,12:40
Wait, what?  What sounds like me; Lum, or the crazy guy?
Posted by TheCatt on Jul. 17 2007,17:16

(TPRJones @ Jul. 17 2007,15:40)
QUOTE
Wait, what?  What sounds like me; Lum, or the crazy guy?

The crazy guy... but I made that comment after only reading a few of his points. (no NPC economy, everything should be destructable/buildable, etc)

Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 17 2007,17:25
Is my writing style really that bad?  I never thought I was that disjointed.  :(

I do like some of his ideas, but I agree with all of Lum's points.  The tech just isn't there to handle the perfect MMO yet.  Someday.

And you have to have some NPC economy as a jumping off point, at least.  Ideally as the player economy matures the NPC economy would fade away where it's no longer needed.  That would be cool.
Posted by thibodeaux on Jul. 18 2007,05:37
Who else going to buy all those diseased rat livers?
Posted by Leisher on Jul. 18 2007,07:10
I love that list. It may or may not be true that during MMO design discussions some of the peeps here stood by very similar ideas as to those on the list.

I personally think MMOs have gone downhill since the early years of UO and the changes that have been made a perfect example of our real society's current problems. Like our spoiled brat, gimme gimme, but I don't want to work for it attitude.
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 18 2007,07:14
That list sounds halfway decent.  Till you start to think of all the shit that needs to be done to simulate reality to that fucker's ideal.
Posted by GORDON on Jul. 18 2007,07:16
Yeah, I disagree with 2 or 3 of those ideas, but very much agree with other suggestions.  The one I agree with the most is the one Lum dismissed with the most scorn.... full consequences (looting) for death, and ability to attack anyone, anywhere outside of guard zones.

There is no reward without risk.

A carebear game is nothing more than enabling peoples' OCD.

But other stuff... gotta eat?  You need to keep some elements of "it's a fun game" rather than "it's a chore."
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 18 2007,07:35
I don't recall anything mentioned about guard zone in the proposal.
Posted by Leisher on Jul. 18 2007,07:53
Yeah, the one Lum attacked with the most scorn was the idea that nobody should be protected ever and I agree with Lum 100%. MMOs are a business and business will be very, very bad if you let a new person log on only to get killed 5 minutes later. And 10 minutes later. And 11 minutes later. and so on.

I'm all about the lawless wilderness, but you have GOT to have protected areas where new players can learn and veteran players can do business without worrying about getting PKed.

Beyond that, I've never liked stat loss, but I do agree that when you die, everything on you should be at the mercy of your killer or looters. As Gordon said, without risk there is no reward.

And MMOs with PvPer action, but no consequences in some pointless shit. It's like little league games where they don't keep score.
Posted by TheCatt on Jul. 18 2007,16:18
Give people an arena or battle area where they can "free battle" without consequences, but make the rest of the game vulnerable.

The big problem is the consequences/business aspect.  In reality, I could kill most anyone I wanted, but the consequences are something I don't want.  In games, what fun would it be to have to put your character in jail forever/be executed?  Not much.  On the other hand, without any consequences, what's the point?
Posted by GORDON on Jul. 18 2007,16:23
Why don't we just patent a method to drive a wire into peoples' skulls and stimulate their pleasure center every time they press a buttn?  Fuck building an actual game.
Posted by Leisher on Jul. 18 2007,17:49
QUOTE
Why don't we just patent a method to drive a wire into peoples' skulls and stimulate their pleasure center every time they press a buttn?  Fuck building an actual game.


Drugs?
Posted by GORDON on Jul. 18 2007,17:54
Too random.

People don't want challenge, they want repetitive, safe rat bashing.  It gives them comfort, stability, and joy.  I'm suggesting we bypass that, and directly stimulate the portion of their brain they are paying $15 a month for to stimulate the hard way.

We'll wipe out EQ2 and WoW.
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 18 2007,18:00
If we could invent that, the holodeck, & some methodology to selectively delete memories, we'd be trillionaires.
Posted by GORDON on Jul. 18 2007,18:02
I'm telling ya.  People wouldn't even stop pressing the button in order to eat.  We'd wipe out a significant chunk of the population.
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 18 2007,18:11

(GORDON @ Jul. 18 2007,20:02)
QUOTE
We'd wipe out a significant chunk of the population.

That's probably the best argument I've heard for the development of such a game.  It'd thoroughly annihilate many of the annoying IT archetypes I hate.  & others to boot.
Posted by Leisher on Jul. 18 2007,18:12
QUOTE
People don't want challenge


Like real life these days.
Posted by GORDON on Jul. 18 2007,18:14
Which leads to our second invention.... feeding tubes with 180-day nutrient supplies.
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 18 2007,18:18
I know that they've proven monkeys will pick crack over food, but even human crackheads eat.

In the same vein, there's some people that won't commit passive suicide by pissing away their lives pressing a button.  Quite frankly, it'd feel very strange to me to be happy all the time.  I doubt I could handle it.  But, quite a few suckers would get addicted to it.
Posted by GORDON on Jul. 18 2007,18:20
We'd probably have to make a huge underground network to jack people up, on the down-low.  The government doesn't like peeps horning in on their "control the population" rackets, unless you have really good* lobbyists.

*free with the cash and hookers

Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 18 2007,18:21
There's got to be a good middle ground.  Some way for PKs to do their thing, but also have to dodge some harsh consequences.

Is there some way to simulate forensics, police, jury trials, and all that?  Force the PKs to be smart about how they do the crime or end up being penalized for it.  Probably a silly idea, I guess...
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 18 2007,18:46
I suppose if you hired people to kill the PKs, then you could get cops.  Controlling the behaviour of others is a full-time job.  & as such necessarily requires getting to people at weak points.  Vulnerability in reality is not vulnerability online.  I can't sneak into k3w1d00dZ's four-story tower when he's sleeping at night & slit his throat or arrest him.
Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 18 2007,19:02
Well, hiring cops isn't hard, that's just a questing system.  With good enough rewards, some skilled players will take on the job.
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 18 2007,20:10

(TPRJones @ Jul. 18 2007,21:02)
QUOTE
Well, hiring cops isn't hard, that's just a questing system.  With good enough rewards, some skilled players will take on the job.

Ah, so you propose to hire a mercenary army?  Such a Carthaginian solution.  Hope they never bitch about their pay.  If they do, they'll just turn rogue & start killing for items.

Posted by TheCatt on Jul. 19 2007,04:55
So... when do we hook all the humans up and generate power from them?
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 19 2007,07:22
When it becomes financially viable.  Then we can put all those life w\o parole prisoners to use.

Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 19 2007,07:48

(Malcolm @ Jul. 18 2007,20:10)
QUOTE
Ah, so you propose to hire a mercenary army?  Such a Carthaginian solution.  Hope they never bitch about their pay.  If they do, they'll just turn rogue & start killing for items.

You assume they aren't already playing both sides from the beginning.  :)

Actually, I was thinking more of a bounty hunting system of some sort.
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 19 2007,09:06
Bounties?  Unless you make the penalty for death severe, it'll go along these lines ...

1) Get your bounty up to an astronomical number
2) Have your buddies kill you
3) Collect cash
4) Goto line 1
Posted by thibodeaux on Jul. 19 2007,10:09

(TheCatt @ Jul. 18 2007,19:18)
QUOTE
Give people an arena or battle area where they can "free battle" without consequences, but make the rest of the game vulnerable.

EQ had (has?) that.  It was actually called "the Arena."
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 19 2007,10:20

(thibodeaux @ Jul. 19 2007,12:09)
QUOTE
EQ had (has?) that.  It was actually called "the Arena."

Precisely.  The debate of whether the mass market prefers PvM or PvP was settled long ago.  Right around the time EQ overtook UO in volume.
Posted by Cakedaddy on Jul. 19 2007,10:42
By the time EQ overtook UO, pretty much all PvP had been removed from UO.
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 19 2007,10:47

(Cakedaddy @ Jul. 19 2007,12:42)
QUOTE
By the time EQ overtook UO, pretty much all PvP had been removed from UO.

Partly, I would argue, in response to the growing account volume EQ was boasting.
Posted by Paul on Jul. 19 2007,12:24
I've got another one for the list:

The game makers should design and produce an anatomically correct body suit that allows the player to feel all the sensations that a player in the game would feel.  They can feel the grass under their feet, the wind in their hair, and a slight pangs of pain where they wounded.
Also, um, maybe, uh, the characters should be capable of having sex?
Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 19 2007,12:25

(Malcolm @ Jul. 19 2007,09:06)
QUOTE
Unless you make the penalty for death severe...

Well, yeah, the theory is that the bounty collection is to put the character on trial for crimes of theft and whatnot.  So the penalty would be restitution; maybe have the system take all their gold from the bank and split it among their known victims on a pro-rated basis.  If you want to go all the way, have it return items still in their possession to whomever they were looted from, and maybe even sell off everything else to help with the restitution.

Get caught by the authorities, and your bank gets cleaned out, basically.  Would that be severe enough?
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 19 2007,13:21

(TPRJones @ Jul. 19 2007,14:25)
QUOTE
Get caught by the authorities, and your bank gets cleaned out, basically.  Would that be severe enough?

Only if you can assure that they gotta keep their shit in a bank & not in some player-owned housing somewhere.
Posted by TheCatt on Jul. 19 2007,15:11
So... the super rich could grief less rich by just placing bounties for no reason, wiping out their gold whenever they wanted?  Say, trading bounties with a few other friends so money just revolves?
Posted by Cakedaddy on Jul. 19 2007,17:01

(TheCatt @ Jul. 19 2007,10:11)
QUOTE
So... the super rich could grief less rich by just placing bounties for no reason, wiping out their gold whenever they wanted?  Say, trading bounties with a few other friends so money just revolves?

I would equate that to me hiring you to kill my wife.  If one of us gets caught, we are both going down.  If people are placing unwarrented bounties, it would be illegal, but not impossible.
Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 19 2007,20:50
Check the other thread, I made a clearer post there that would address this problem.
Posted by Vince on Jul. 24 2007,20:05

(GORDON @ Jul. 18 2007,09:16)
QUOTE
Yeah, I disagree with 2 or 3 of those ideas, but very much agree with other suggestions.  The one I agree with the most is the one Lum dismissed with the most scorn.... full consequences (looting) for death, and ability to attack anyone, anywhere outside of guard zones.

There is no reward without risk.

A carebear game is nothing more than enabling peoples' OCD.

But other stuff... gotta eat?  You need to keep some elements of "it's a fun game" rather than "it's a chore."

I agree.  After a while stuff like having to eat just gets tedious.  When you reach a certain point of reality... why not turn off the game and just re-enter the real world?
Posted by TheCatt on Jul. 25 2007,04:21

(Vince @ Jul. 24 2007,23:05)
QUOTE

(GORDON @ Jul. 18 2007,09:16)
QUOTE
Yeah, I disagree with 2 or 3 of those ideas, but very much agree with other suggestions.  The one I agree with the most is the one Lum dismissed with the most scorn.... full consequences (looting) for death, and ability to attack anyone, anywhere outside of guard zones.

There is no reward without risk.

A carebear game is nothing more than enabling peoples' OCD.

But other stuff... gotta eat?  You need to keep some elements of "it's a fun game" rather than "it's a chore."

I agree.  After a while stuff like having to eat just gets tedious.  When you reach a certain point of reality... why not turn off the game and just re-enter the real world?

That's why I don't get The Sims.

A game where I have to brush my teeth, pee, eat, wash my hands, and work?

I think I'm playing that one already.
Posted by Leisher on Jul. 25 2007,05:31
QUOTE
After a while stuff like having to eat just gets tedious.  When you reach a certain point of reality... why not turn off the game and just re-enter the real world?


I'm not being funny when I say this...

It's very simple. In real life, most people aren't happy. Online they're living a totally different life. They're more able to live a life that they want to live in the real world, but can't for whatever reason.

Online a person can change their sex, fashion sense, circle of friends, demeanor, etc. It's an escape. So even though the "realism" might seem tedious to some of us, to others it's a price worth paying and even another level of immersion.
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 25 2007,07:42
Escapism is nothing new.  But before, the most popular options were vids, music, i.e., something individually experienced.  But now, many socially deficient or unhappy people can now congregate w\ all the other socially unhappy people in the world.

That's quite simply more danger potential than just an "escape."
Posted by Vince on Jul. 25 2007,19:05

(TheCatt @ Jul. 25 2007,06:21)
QUOTE
That's why I don't get The Sims.

A game where I have to brush my teeth, pee, eat, wash my hands, and work?

I think I'm playing that one already.

I actually play Sims just because it's a mindless something I can do while watching TV.  I get tired of solitare
Posted by TheCatt on Jul. 26 2007,03:58
I tend to post mindlessly instead.
Powered by Ikonboard 3.1.5 © 2006 Ikonboard