Sierra Kilo

tuebit over at World IV posted a chart from Parks Associates showing a classification of “gamer types” and their numbers. Slashdot has it, too.

It shows that there is a segment called “Dormant Gamers” who “love gaming but spend little time because of family, work, or school. They like to play with friends and family and prefer complex and challenging games.” Mix in a little “Social Gamer” and that’s me. What’s interesting, though, is that there is no “Potential Gamer” category. That’s a gamer who wants to play games, just can’t find any that are worthy of their time. I think I’d also fit into that category.

Anyway, I’ve been ranting for a while that games need to include several play styles and a system of rules that is conducive to all of them. Almost all of my MMO ideas seem to stem from the fact that I could only dedicate a maximum of 2 hours per day to a game. That’s assuming I sleep about an hour less each night. That’s where my “Auxiliary Pervasive Gameplay” idea comes into it. If I could “play” for 5 minutes during a short break at work, I might get my game fix. With a baby on the way, I doubt I’ll be able to sit and play for more than 30 minutes at a time. So, a truly universal MMO would need to accomodate 10-30 minute game chunks easily as well as the hardcore 4-6 hour game sessions.

What are some ways this could be accomplished? Well, a departure from the main two quest types would be a start. The “kill ten rats” quest type and the “Fed Ex” quest type are easy to implement, but to be rewarding for a player, you often have to “kill ten rats” about 50 times or deliver an item to the other side of the world. Star Wars Galaxies was pretty bad about those missions back when I was playing. We’d hit a mission terminal, get the maximum (3?) “kill ten rats” missions (we’d look for ones close together), do the missions, return to the terminal, get our reward, and get more missions. Since I was a Combat Medic, I rarely killed anything, just shared the kills from the group, because my time was filled by constantly healing the combat guys. Anyway, the point is that those kinds of quests/missions are time consuming and offer little challenge or reward. Other quest types include the “craft 50 bracers” where you have to go collect materials, then sit and either macro or click a series of buttons to put together a leather bracer. Rinse, repeat 49 more times. How is that fun? Come up with something different. Something that can be done in 30 minutes or 4 hours.

Another way to accomodate different player types is to make the Virtual World first, then enhance it with different game types. If you’ve got the economy, ecology, and geology done, you can make games out of how they all interact. Auctions are a game type. Believe it or not, farming is a game type. Exploring is a game type, too. Have several different actions that can be done with your core systems that allows players to leave a mark in your game. All of that can be done without combat. Once you’ve got the world done, and different ways to interact with the world, then add combat. I’m not talking about just killing creatures. That would actually be included in the actions related to the ecology (see UO’s design). I’m talking about structured combat. Something like the Galactic Civil War in SWG, Realm vs. Realm (Guild Wars, DAoC, Warhammer, etc), or even raids like WoW. Give combat a purpose, but don’t make it the center of your game. Again, I’m reminded of my favorite class in D&D, the thief. The thief has skills that make him unique, yet almost all MMORPGs out there today distill the class into nothing more than an assassin. D&D Online actually incorporated alot of the skills fairly well, but my experience in the Beta showed that the thief can’t solo. There has to be a way for a player to play by himself without being bored. Encourage social interaction, but don’t punish the player with boredom if he’s not with a group.

Anyway, that’s enough of that…until my next rant.

http://channels.lockergnome.com/game/archives/20060829_stargate_worlds_mmorpg_to_employ_unreal_engine_3.phtml

The Stargate MMORPG (Stargate Worlds) is going to use Unreal Engine 3. Why don’t they just buy the assets from the other failed Stargate game? They used a modified version of Unreal Engine 2.5, and surely it wouldn’t be difficult to upgrade those modifications to version 3. Plus, they’ve got all of that art. At least buy that.

I’m skeptical about the future of Stargate Worlds. I’m a fan of SG1, but the last few seasons weren’t all that great and now that the show is ending, there’s less of a reference point. It’s time the show ended and I bet the license will go down with it. That, I think, is part of the problem with developing a game based on a current TV show. It takes a while to complete the game and by that time, several seasons have gone by. The 24 game took you back in time, which isn’t such a good thing, especially for that show. It came out around the time that you saw several of the main characters dead (in the last season). SG1 - The Alliance was set back around season 7 right before the show took a left turn. That screwed the project.

When working with a license, it’s good to have a plan in place with the producers/writers/actors so that you can A) set your game timeline 2 or 3 seasons ahead, B) reference “back” to events that might have taken place in your game should you set it in the past, C) know what events will transpire so that you don’t make yourself obsolete, and D) not be dead in the water from the start.

I think it’s the hard drive. It kept asking me to connect to verify registration, then started skipping while playing live TV. The drive is making funny noises, so I assume that’s what it is.

What sucks more is that I’m 2 months past the 1-year warranty. If I was in the warranty window, it would just cost $50 to fix (or replace). Curses.

So, I’m going to try to gank the drive and replace it with a 200GB from my PC to see if that’s the problem. If so, I’ll probably get another 300GB (it’s a 320 hour ReplayTV, so I think it’s got a 300GB drive) to replace it. The fine people at RTVPatch and ReplayFAQs have the best information when it comes to this.

There is some mention that you can have 2 drives. I’m not sure what that’s all about, but if so, I might get 2 drives and just keep my collection on there Unfortunately, I might lose all of the shows on the current drive. There were alot. Some will be missed, others won’t. Either way, it still sucks.

It gets me thinking. In this world of technology where almost everything has a microchip of some kind, why are warranties so short? Not only that, but are there enough people trained to repair these devices? My Lexus has plastic panels covering the engine. Seriously. You open the hood and all you see are plastic panels, the top of the engine block, and the caps for the fluids. It’s not Bob’s Auto Care that handles breakdowns anymore, it’s little guys in white labcoats in clean rooms. What happened to big block V8s that you could strip and rebuild yourself? Bore the cylinders for more power, etc. Now, you have to put a chip in and somebody has to build the chip. Ugh.

Technology is great when it works. When one little thing goes wrong, the whole device is a freakin’ brick! Dad’s PC power supply went out this weekend, so we replaced it. Such a core piece should not be prone to random failure. What’s the core of a ReplayTV box? The hard drive, evidently.

On a side-note, this almost makes me want to get my HTPC setup going. Almost. Since my office is going to become the baby’s room, I wouldn’t mind having my PC hooked up downstairs to a 50-inch monitor. It’ll probably be easier just to replace a hard drive, though, since I’ve been trying to find the best HTPC solution for 3+ years now.

Damion, Raph, Lum, Moorgard, and Nerfbat made it to Slashdot this afternoon on the class vs. skill-based character system discussion that’s been making the rounds. Does that mean I made Slashdot by association? Anyway, I had a couple more thoughts that I wanted to get down as well as my “official” stance on the subject, so here it goes…

Raph said, “class systems and skill systems are the same thing.” This is completely true. Classes are nothing more than a collection of skills. The difference comes when certain skills are exclusive. Using the D&D model as an example, spellcasting is exclusive to mages, prayers are exclusive to priests/clerics (with the exception of Rangers and Paladins, but they’re limited), picking locks is exclusive to thieves, and exceptional strength (i.e. 18/68%) is exclusive to warriors, etc. So, with that in mind, skill-based systems and class-based systems are the same. The difference is exclusivity.

My official stance on the subject is that class-based systems work because they clearly define boundaries. Again, like Raph said, each class has a specific job they are suited for and they’re restricted in other jobs to keep those boundaries in place. Those boundaries make it easier for the developer to “balance” because it defines the rules and “keeps it fair” for everybody. No matter how you slice it, rock beats scissors, paper beats rock, scissors beats paper.

However, class-based systems have been done. It is time for a change. Star Wars Galaxies tried to bring about this change. I loved Galaxies for about the first 9 months. It was fresh and different. The more things that got nerfed, the more it started moving toward what it is today: a class-based system. Even Galaxies was thinking class-based, though. Skill trees and experience pools were an interesting hybrid of a skill-based system and a class-based system.

So, what is the ultimate RPG character system? I don’t know. As I said, it would take far too much time for me to flesh one out. What features would it include? That’s easier. It would include the freedom to change. It might include some kind of atrophy system or simply a “sale” of current skills to buy others. The game world would need be rich enough to accomodate each skill equally. In other words, if swordsmanship and lock picking are equal in the eyes of the system, there should be equal opportunity for each skill to be used. In the extreme, there would need to be one lock to be picked for each creature to be killed. This might not be feasible in some cases (such as this), so each skill would need to be balanced not only against each other, but also against the environment. Skills would be based on your character’s ability scores. Some ability scores could also be trained, as in real life. Sit around pumping iron all day and you’ll build muscle. Muscle might affect the amount of damage you inflict. Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas incorporated this idea. Going to the gym was a mini-game that affected your character in the super-game. If this sounds like I’m modeling real-life, that’s because I am. What better example of a game mechanic than life? If I chose to, I could learn Karate. I would spend a fair amount of time doing it, which means I might neglect other skills, though. So, by learning Karate, I might atrophy my ability to sing. Bad example, but you get the idea.

Maybe this should be brought up on MUD-Dev again? Nick Koranda started up MUD-Dev2 and there’s been some activity today. The problem is that ideas and opinions are a dime-a-dozen. Until we see a graphical MMORPG that does everything for everybody, we’ll always want to change it. Does anybody know a MUD out there that does skill-based systems well? Shadows of Isildur has a very interesting crafting system, but I haven’t played enough to see if it’s a good skill system. If anyone knows of a good skill system, let me know in the comments.

I’ve left my webcam outside for a couple of weeks now. We’ve actually had a little rain (thank the heavens) and it’s held up curiously well. Call me a masochist, but I’m going to leave the bugger out there to see if it’ll hold up.

I sure wish I could figure DirectShow (or my TV card) out enough to put my “home center” idea together. When the bambino comes, L and I will be consolidating our offices and the guest bedroom into one room. Having my PC hooked up to the TV downstairs will help keep that room a bit more open.

I like 2nd Edition AD&D more than 3+ Edition D&D. It’s what I grew up playing. Nostalgia aside, I like the character creation better in 2nd Edition. Maybe it’s a comfort thing, though.

Anyway, the question is…2nd Edition has a more rigid class-based structure than 3+ Edition, yet I feel that MMORPGs should be more skill-based. Is that hypocritical? As a fan of skill-based character systems, shouldn’t I like 3+ Edition more, since it is closer than 2nd Edition? Am I not giving 3+ Edition a fair shake?

Well, it seems that Damion Schubert has rekindled the age-old fires of Classes vs. Skill-based character systems. I doubt that they were ever extinguished, but there’s a fury of articles coming up discussing it. Nerfbat and WorldIV trackback’d my article and even Raph linked me over on his site. My site traffic is probably the highest it’s ever been. Not bad for a place I use to dump my thoughts. Thanks guys.

A couple of comments on the continuing subject of Class vs. Skill-based character systems:

Tuebit at WorldIV said, “It’s as if some massive force of gravity were inexorably drawing all towards some central crushing singularity of sameness.” That’s exactly right. That black hole is World of Warcraft. I’m not saying WoW is bad, merely that it went supernova in popularity and the industry trend is following suit because it’s too costly to be different. Extremely well-said, Tuebit. I’m the refugee of which you speak.

Raph brings his “Theory of Fun” to the table with some interesting points, comparing class-based systems to sports. Every member of the team has a role to play (goalie, forward, etc). If you think of MMORPGs as an organized sport, it makes perfect sense to have rigidly-structured classes. Perhaps the “WoW is the new golf” argument makes alot of sense in this context. My buddies all play together and it’s replaced talk of sports around their watercoolers. Could it be that class-based MMOs do so well because it draws from our deep-seeded love of sports? I still haven’t gotten through Raph’s book yet (Zelda on the Micro travels too easily ;)), but I’m beginning to think that he’s like Neo and he can see through the veil of the Matrix.

Nerfbat’s article hints about ways that a skill-based system could be made to work. If he’s anything like me, he doesn’t reveal them for fear of losing some IP. Not only that, but to fully flesh out those ideas would take a good amount of writing and editing. Those of us who are not paid to do so often have trouble finding the time for it. My question is, though, those who are paid to do so have surely done the footwork, right? I can only imagine the design sessions for UO and SWG. Plus, the MUD-Dev mailing list has probably been over it a thousand times. So why hasn’t there been a good skill-based system developed yet? By good, I mean one that satisfies my selfish needs as a player, of course.

Those selfish needs are probably what keep me from playing games nowadays. I see through the veil of the Matrix and wonder why things were done that way instead of the other way. I’m too critical for my own good, I guess. It makes me wonder how I’ll play with my kid. Will peek-a-boo be too structured? Will I have to reengineer the rules to be more organic? How about I put those needs aside and just have fun? In other words, take the blue pill…

What is it about the 2D Zelda games that captivates me so? I’m still playing Minish Cap on my GBA Micro and I’m addicted. So my question is why is this game so good?

Feature breakdown:
- 2D tile-based graphics = Simple graphics, simple, but fun animations. No need for fancy 3D models when the gameplay is so good.
- RPG elements = The Zelda games are more action-based than roleplay-based, but they still have elements of an RPG: experience/levels in the form of certain items and number of heart containers, item collecting, quests, and puzzles.
- Puzzles = Minish Cap is probably the most puzzle-ridden Zelda game I’ve ever played. Everything involves using one item to get to a place where you use another item to get to a place where you can push certain blocks around to make a path to get to another place to use an item.

The single player game is great. I’ve played about halfway through and got stuck. Well, it turns out that there’s a whole other element to the game that I skimmed past when it was being explained to me in-game. That element is evidently extremely important, since you can’t get to the 3rd dungeon without it. Alot of the people you talk to have Kinstones, which you collect throughout the game. I had about 50 of them in my inventory and didn’t know what to do with them (just like the mysterious shells). Well, I was stuck and decided to look on the internet for a tip. Turns out kinstones are a very fun and important part of the game that open secret passages and chests. Anyway, so now I’m unstuck and have alot more to do.

If you took Minish Cap and added an online sandbox mode, it would be darn near the perfect game. I would love to see an Animal Crossing meets Zelda game for the GBA or DS. Something where you can go out adventuring, then come back to your home town, do a little farming, decorate your house, make friends, craft some items, bid on some auctions, trade, chat, then go back adventuring. Add a random dungeon generator (a’la Rogue, NetHack, Diablo, etc) and you’ve got instanced adventuring. Add a Live Team to it and you’ve got unlimited quests. That’s the way to go. Once a quarter, your Live Team puts together a large event (Zelda’s captured again, etc) and you pick it up the next time you’re online. Micropayments would fit perfectly in this arena. Buy a horse for $.99, buy more land for $1.99, build a castle for $4.99, etc. With the DS, the game could come with the DS cartridge and a GBA cartridge to store downloads (quests, purchases, etc).

Anyway, the Zelda games are timeless (I’m planning on going back and playing the old ones later). The simple graphics allow for great gameplay. What’s needed now are some online elements and sandbox play.

I seem to be linking alot to Damion’s site…the man’s got some good things to say.

One thing I find interesting is this post where he talks about classes being more advantageous than skill-based (or freeform) character building. What I find interesting is that he’s siding with the class-based approach. Not because he’s normally a skill-based guy, but because he’s currently working on Bioware’s MMORPG. Does this mean that their MMORPG will be class-based? Well…

Odds are…Yes. For design simplicity, history shows that having concrete classes and set behavior for each class is easiest to balance, as Damion says. Not only that, but if Bioware is hoping to take some of the market from WoW, they’ll have to easily allow current WoW players to migrate easily.

Personally, I’m hoping that Bioware will ultimately innovate rather than iterate. I’m cool with classes as long as each class not only brings something unique to the table, but also has ample opportunity to use said uniqueness.

Those that know me well enough know that the Rogue class is my absolute favorite. Vanilla AD&D 2nd Edition is probably the best ruleset anywhere for a fantasy setting. 3+ Edition waters it all down, diluting the classes so much that you can have a lock-picking, spell-casting, swordsman tearing through a dungeon solo. Blah. While I believe that combination should be possible, you should never have a fighter casting spells at the same level as a wizard. Spellcasting requires dedicated study of the craft to become anything more than familiar with it. The same goes for swordsmanship and picking locks. If you want to be the best, you must focus. So, for skill-based systems, there should be a limiter.

For example, say there are only 3 skills: swords, spellcasting, and lock picking. You can only be a master of one. The limiter could be a percentage of mastery. With percentages, 100% is a whole, therefore to be a master of one skill, you can have up to 100% in it. Since you can only be a master of one skill, that basically gives you 100% that you can divide out among all 3 skills. If you want to be the jack-of-all-trades, you can have 33% in all skills. If you want to be more advanced in 2 of them, you could have 50% in two and 0% in one. Etc. This rule is easy when there are only 3 skills, but gets way more complicated when you add skills. You could also incorporate skill trees (i.e. fighter, wizard, rogue) and divide the percentage up that way.

Using that example, your balance is achieved in terms of PvP. A lock picker won’t be able to hang in a sword duel with a swordsman, but he could find the best items in the dungeon. PvE is similar, but where you can achieve the best balance is when your PvP (not necessarily combat, just player perception) and PvE offer equal opportunities for the players. If you have an open landscape with thousands of creatures to kill, your swordsmen will have the most fun. What you need to do is offer equal challenge for your lock pickers. On the extreme, for every creature there is to kill with a sword, there should be a lock to be picked. That’s balance. You need to cater to the EAKS as well as the KAES (Bartle Quotient).

SWG’s system (for the first year or so) was very good at balancing for Bartle’s player types. The problem back then was that there was not enough content to keep players entertained. That is one downside for balancing player types. The killers will always have creatures and other players to kill, but the explorers and achievers want just as much content. Socializers are easy to please with a chat feature, so I rarely think of them.

Anyway, back to classes…SWG had an interesting system of skill classes, which grouped skills and allowed you to allocate points where you wanted. This is very close to the basic example I described. Where they went wrong was that the non-combat skills were equally important as the combat skills. This shouldn’t be the case. This is where WoW had a good idea in the secondary skills. Skinning and Leatherworking were not on the same level as swords. In fact, they often require swordplay to be used (i.e. killing a wolf before you skin it). This is where you need to think about having “archetypes” instead of classes.

Boy this is long…

Archetypes are collections of skills that embody the average player type. The Fighter archetype would be, say, 70% swords, 20% spellcasting, and 10% picking locks. Rogue and Wizard would follow the same 70/20/10 rule. This is, of course, a radical example because picking locks and swordplay are not exactly on the same level when it comes to gameplay. Unless the world is populated by as many locked doors as hostile creatures. The key to unlocking the best balance is to think of every use of every skill as the same. When you attack a creature, you “roll” to see if you hit, then to see how much damage you did. If you think of picking a lock like that, you “roll” to see if you were able to trip a tumbler, then to see how many tumblers. Each lock has a defense rating (difficulty/craftsmanship) and hit points (number of tumblers). Apply the same level of thinking to every skill you have (skinning, weaponsmithing, moving silently, etc) and you’ll have a good skill system.

Or you could just go with cookie-cutter classes and not have to worry as much about mechanics and balance. I see both sides of that coin, just haven’t seen Tails as much

Damion mentions the cancellation of SG1 and movie sequels.

I reiterate: Seasons 1-6 were great. Seasons 7 & 8 were the plateau. Seasons 9 & 10 are the decline. Did you see the “special” 200th episode? It was special, all right. It was a continuation of the horrid “Wormhole Xtreme” episodes and did absolutely nothing for the series. 10 seasons is long enough to expect writers to be original while still retaining the same feel to the series.

As for the movies, I loved the original. Devlin sounds like he’s desperate for more money, though. Independence Day’s profits are long gone, Godzilla’s profits were never there. He’s going to use an older Kurt Russell and James Spader and make part 2 12 years in the future. Well, if he’s going to do that, why not incorporate the SG1 continuity that took place in the 12 years between? Whatever. That obviously means they can’t kill off O’Neil and Jackson. That also means no ascention, no marriage, and no Asgard. Blah.

Devlin, just come up with something original instead. If you want to do more Stargate, do a prequel or something else that can exist parallel to the SG1 continuity. Have a new cast. Spader is no longer Daniel Jackson. He’s a tubby lawyer.