Richard Garriott on MMORPGs - very interesting

I think you hit the nail on the head with this one, Darkmoon. I've touched upon this in some other thread and mentioned that there is a dichotomy between the what the Single Player Offline game offers the player and what Online experiences offer the player. In an offline game, I'm of the opinion that the story and quests should be directed towards how the player affects the game world and events, i.e. the protagonist is the great hero or villain that will affect an outcome that brings closure to that part of the story, does not have many repeatable quests, has permadeath for NPCs and bosses, and, optionally, has companions with meaningful companion interactions.

For the online mode, the player is just another person in the world that could not possibly affect the same level of change especially when so many others are following the same story quest, e.g., just how many times can 'X' item be missing from 'Y' NPC that it requires a multitude of people to fetch it over and over again? What is the point of killing a boss or clearing a dungeon if it never stays cleared? Is the only motivation the fact that the treasure at the end randomly regenerates? Or would that futility explain why NPCs don't do anything about these threats? I mean look at our skill trainers; most know something from every skill tree. Why aren't they the great heroes?

It would make sense if the quest was more tailored to an NPC that requires materials for some Sisyphean task that may or may not have a definite outcome. In this manner, the player effectively has the illusion of contributing to the shaping of the world but does not necessarily achieve that outcome [which goes to my argument that Single-player Online mode needs to be dismantled in favor of the Single Player Offline and Selective Multi-player (multi-player and friends only) modes only]. In this manner, the multi-player character can then use these sort of quests to build experience and work on developing skills to further develop the character in order to interact with others through grouping for tasks, bragging rights, contributing to the player-based economy, creating player-made quests, and other activities that promotes interaction among other players that cannot affect a closure-forcing outcome but rather affects an online experience that is shared. In other words, a single-player mode player is trying to leave the world and its story while creating consequences ultimately whereas a multiplayer-mode player is trying to exist in the world with other players.





@Time Lord Now you've got me doing it with these type of videos

 

That was the plan, then the vocal community, in particular the vocal community in Dev+, decided they'd rather play UO 2.0 so the Devs caved and backtracked on their original statements. Remember how you used to be able to respec? Remember how you used to be able to just fight in combat and not worry about properly cycling your skill use so as to evenly level your skills? Remember how you didn't have to victory dance to improve new skills? Yeah, the vocal minority decided that if powering up didn't involve mindlessly grinding for weeks, they weren't interested, so now we have UO 2.0 instead of the game described in the original Kickstarter campaign.

 

From my point of view it seems that it is the offline quests that are being showcased in the online mode which do not support the suspension of disbelief that comes with playing an RPG which, to me, shows that the offline-type quests do not belong in the online mode if they are coupled with consequence.

This is why I like @Pikegirl Flash Quest ideas and perhaps what you intend to do with The Fellowship, @Time Lord , when it comes to player-driven quests and content in the multi-player setting because they work well in that multiplayer online mode because they are tailored for it.

I don't know what the process is for @Lum the Mad and @FireLotus to create story quest content. Do they have to straddle the line between both modes in order to save time when cobbling something together? Does it create a diluted end result to do so?

Personally, with what time I've put in the game, I've avoided the virtue quests because nothing is compelling me to be engaged in that manner. When the content does develop that will, perhaps I'll revisit the story. In the meantime, I just play the way and with the mindset that @2112Starman is playing in that I set some goal for my character for the play period and try to complete it and move on to the next goal I set for my character.

 

Personally, I've played Ultima extensively to a fault, and Ultima 7 sparingly (due to my computer not being robust enough at that time.)

But I remembered being so into the "Answer Questions and Create your Character" gimmick, all its reagent fluff
and beautifully crafted magic and music.

Ultima's world, lore and storyline are its strongest points, easily sucking a player into what it is trying to convey.
My DM style and gaming content has been heavily influenced by it ever since then.
(I don't enjoy theme-park rail-road MMOs for example.)

One day, I plan to revisit Ultima 7, with @Time Lord advocating it to me so often that I feel guilty knowing the game
but not playing it that much so far.

@Kambrius Thanks for supporting Flash Quest, and your previous post referring to how a multiplayer world can
come in to shape a fixed Quest with variable endings is exactly what I want the project to do.

I want SotA to be our sandbox, where no other games can say that it did what we did or attempted,
because their model and community base just does not thrive on it, but ours has potential to.

 

Mine just had an outhouse for a short while... (I placed my first lot in Aerie so I had nothing to put in my POT but my outhouse... was cramped living there...)

 

~Our New Britannia's Got Talent~!'


Our New Britannia has a wealth of talented people in so many different areas of gaming! And Lord @Kambrius , I agree, our @Pikegirl is one of the finest flash quest writers that our SOTA has! @2112Starman is not alone in our game when it comes to wanting more to our gaming than just hack and slash.

Currently within The Fellowship Project, I've been searching out every means possible that will help support our own artists with their very talented endeavors. Much of the time, we have the necessary talent for the main body of quests and mysterious events, yet we lack what could bring out their "full flavor" that could aide them in becoming even more than what they are. We are currently in negotiations with some "major international talents" which could offer us that more grand impact to all our efforts... and I say "we" because it's not just "me" within this community effort. Yet I can say that we are getting closer to agreements being made for those talents to provide us what they will. Our Portalaium may even need to get it's wallet ready after seeing who we do bring and what they can do for our game.

Much of our discussion groups have gone silent because we are gathering what's needed to help support such talent within our PM groups. This is because many times we need to enable our talented players with more ways and means to "hallmark" their artistic efforts.

When something is planned well; then it leaves few holes to become cracks and places to get attacked from, it provides failsafe guards where what is accomplished can become a stable presentation that can last and even be re-used. We have an entire series to make ready for in as many ways as it can be "actually presented". It's hoped that, just as a Swiss Army Knife, it can be extremely versatile and able to attach many other quests and events to.
Then when it's framework is solid enough, we can begin to host all our New Britannia's talents onto it's stage.

Everyone can even shun the project and it will still go off without a hitch or glitch, yet we surely hope that our New Britannia looks past any reason prejudices and come join us all on their stage
Oh, and Lord @Kambrius , now I have even more to watch and learn from thanks to you Sir !'
~Time Lord~

 

That's because killing things is practically the only thing we can do at this point in time.

There's a quest in SotA that involves fetching a key in an abandoned house. No combat involved. While the quest can just stop there, there's more to it than merely giving the key to the NPC.

 

Let me guess, the key respawns every time you enter the scene and every other player does find this exact same key and can give it to the NPC

 

The scene and/or key can be phased/instanced. The tech is in SotA right now.

 

I think compromises must be made in order to blend single-player and multiplayer.
I see single-players having to accept multiplayer elements, such as respawns in some scenes.
I hope single-player scenes that include story elements can retain changes and not have respawns.
If, in the distant future, Portalarium intends to give us the ability to reset our virtue and story flags, that implies some single-player elements will be permanent.

 

Lets assume that instancing is technically impossible:

GameObjects are spawned by the server. Clients can still change the GameObject's properties; they just won't have any effect on the server and any other clients. It takes more effort to tell clients to share the same things than it is not to.

That's how Unity handles GameObjects in multi-player.

Upon scene entry, client can do a "if (player.quest == completed)" or "if (player.looted == true)" check and display that related GameObjects in the scene. You can accomplish that by locally turning "off" any rendering and collision (in the case of SotA, the server authenticates collision but it's already doing something similar with LOT ownership).

If you had previously killed a (named) character, if a client did a "if (player.killed)" check, you wouldn't want to have other players fighting invisible (to your client) foes, so you'd have your client replace the graphic/dialogue for that NPC for someone generic so that, to you, it looks like the other players are just fighting some regular joe.... killing that NPC "again" would just require that the client explain to the server that this NPC wasn't the real NPC, but a generic version.

So none of that "oh but multi-player means we have respawns and quests are repeated and etc, etc" nonsense.

 

I can't help myself but I got the impression that those compromises are mostly done at the expense of the single player mode. Ultimately this will lead to a inferior single player experience that probably many won't enjoy. The devs would have the ability to create a really great offline mode without all of those compromises but I doubt that they will do this as this would mean a lot of additional work. I hope to be wrong but right now it this is the Impression I got from the development of the game.

 

An issue is that most single-player fans do not visit the forums and make their voices heard.
When Portalarium is sorting priorities, the single-player group must seem insignificantly small.
The vocal majority rules.
I also keep hoping that there is light at the end of the tunnel.

 

Another one of these posts... Really dude? It's already been said but let's say it again. It's a really simple concept. THINGS CHANGE. That's what's happened here, just accept it for what it is and move on. These weekly posts beating the same dead horse isn't going to change anything.

 

And then there are the MMO people that want to silence the single-players entirely.

 

There were many single player fans present during the Kickstarter campaign. Richard Garriott himself said that there were about 50 percent people wanting a single player RPG and 50 percent wanting UO 2. But it seems that most SP fans have given up hope and left...

1. This thread wasn't intended as "another one of these posts". Actually the intention was to show that the MMO mode has changed from what RG said back in 2014.

2. Yes, things can change BUT if you charge money up front for a certain vision and then change it without even telling the backers outright this leaves a very bitter aftertaste and leads to many disappointed and angry players - just take a look at what is happening with No Man's Sky right now. The game that was released is significantly different from the game that was announced but the devs didn' tell the players about those changes and now the game is ripped to pieces by the players and the press.

 

I think it's premature to complain about single player story. I just don't think it's implemented. If someone tells, me "it's done", then I agree that it's no good. It sort of felt like:
1) talk to 3 people
2) ???
3) Raid a 5 skull area

I don't really see multi-player content either. If there's something like battlegrounds or dungeon finders or dynamic scaleable encounters, I haven't found it. It's really wolves, wolves, wolves.

 

~The Companion Connection~
One of the things that I'm hoping Portalarium takes advantage of, are the "companions" of the off line game. I feel that if these characters can add the filer to the off line story, then the online version may seem less the the off live counterpart.

The way I see the online game's questing, it's a shell which has no effects outside of it's storylines which are only accessible through the individual NPCs that make all the connections possible. Yet if the companions of the off line game have within them, elements of that same shell with hints, links and added questing content, then this would truly be a very different enhanced version of the narrative. Many times Richard has eluded to the fact that it's now possible to do so much more with NPCs than ever before. This leads me to think that what I've just described could be extremely possible.

Think about it... "would you tip your hand during a poker match before it's splash value?"
I think we should hope that what Richard has said many times before about the amazing things NPCs can now do, or could be done can come true.
Many of the same subjects have come up during The Fellowship Project on how we as player could enhance the online Portalarium questing content of our game. Seeing such holes where it could become possible, leads me to believe that these holes we have found needed filling, yet couldn't be done by online NPCs, yet could be filled by the off line companions.
~Time Lord~

 

Come on man we all know your agenda at this point it certainly IS another one of these posts. Twist it or disguise it however you want it isn't fooling anyone. The things you are complaining you paid for ARE currently in game and have been provided they just aren't up to "your" snuff but that's you not the community. Not to mention I don't believe cities need to burn or npcs need to die to tell a compelling story. Let it go...

 

I hope that you are right but the companions are another example: Instead of implementing a real companion system in which we could also manage their gear, inventory and skills we get talking pets which we can summon with our whistle... I had such high hopes for the companion system and was so disappointed by how it is implemented. His would have been a way to show how dedicated the team is in terms of creating a really great and "real" single Player offline game. But instead we get an updated pet system in which pets are substituted with talking NPCs...

Then what about the announced sieges of cities? During the Kickstarter campaign we even saw a video of this...
I will let it go once there is an official announcement that SotA no longer is the game that was announced during the Kickstarter campaign.