Movie Round-Up no more…

On March 27th, 2009, I posted my first Movie Round-Up.  I had posted movie reviews before, but I adopted the once a week format to give myself structure and to avoid having multiple movie review posts per week.  I have enjoyed doing them, even more since I added the Photoshop amalgam poster a few months back, but as time went on and I attended less and less screenings, the posts turned into mostly reviews of trailers and hype.

While I think there is value in that sort of review, and I may start doing that in the future (and if so it would get a new name), for now this particular format is coming to an end.  I hope you enjoyed it while it lasted, and I hope you stick around for whatever else I happen to write.

Removing Grouping – Conclusions

At the end of this, having now gone through the five elements of what a player gets, technically, from a group structure, it appears that grouping itself needs to stay unless the games are completely redesigned.  For example, in playing Wizard 101 I have been a part of a group many times without forming an actual group because the game is built around “casual grouping”.  If a player is in combat, to join them you need only step into the combat circle.  All combat is contained within a temporary group, four slots for your side and four slots for the enemy, and when combat is done the group is dissolved.  But it is turn based card/deck played combat, and not the real-time hack and slash spell casting of the traditional Diku model.

Also, as brought up by many of the people I discussed this with, grouping does bring a social element with it, a sense of belonging and direction.  There is just something about being invited to a group and joining that group that bands people together in ways that a random collection of people doesn’t have.

Anyway, I hope you have enjoyed this exercise.

Removing Grouping – Part IV

Communications and status updates were easy problems, relatively.  Especially compared with the mine field of the reward structure.  The next element I want to look at is content gating.

Many games implement areas where only one group can enter.  Or two groups, or five groups, etc.  When the designers put a cap on the number of people that can enter, it allows them to more reasonably design content.  If group size is 5 and you limit the dungeon to a single group, you can make content and then test it with varying groups of 5 characters much more easily than trying to design content to scale in challenge as the number of people increases.  Something that is challenging for a group of 5 might be trivial to a group of 10.  Of course, a formal group structure isn’t required for this, as the number of players within an instance can be maintained by the instance itself.  You could even place a UI element called “People in Instance” that would provide you a list of the players in the instance for easy selection and pinning to your UI.

After a long look, it actually seems that the main benefit of groups to content gating is actually in getting people who intend to play together into the same instance do they can play together.  Getting around this winds up being overly complicated with solutions like having one player enter the instance and then inviting each other player to join him.  That first player being designated the instance “leader”, a job he will pass off to someone else if he quits playing.  Then you have issues of players wipes, when everyone gets killed.  How does the game keep track of who belongs to this instance?  Is it because you have a dead body in there to recover?  If you get frustrated and log off for the night, is the group now permanently down a player because you left your body in the instance so the game holds your place?  Again, it looks like if you wished to remove the group mechanic from the game, like with reward sharing, you wind up needing to examine the entire game from the ground up and make changes all over in places where the group mechanic was either planned on or taken for granted.

Removing Grouping – Part III

Now that communications and combat status updates are out of the way, what else does a group provide?  Loot!  Or, more generically, reward sharing.

Personally, one aspect of design I’m eager to change is level based progression, but that’s a separate issue.  Reward sharing actually comes in two forms. The first I’m going to call inherent. These rewards are things like experience points or deed flags where simple membership in the group (and proximity to the event in most games) garners you a share.  The main reason for this sort of structure is to prevent exclusion of “support classes” from rewards.  If your group is fighting a group of monsters and you are the healer and during the entire kill of one of them you cast no spells, the group structure ensures you get a share.  Obviously, more complicated “cast spell on person who fought” award trees could work most of the time, but I specified “cast no spells” for a reason.  You are a vital part of the group, they need you, but it just so happens that for sixty seconds during one fight no one was hurt enough to require healing, so you didn’t.  I suppose you could get even more complicated and add to the award tree anyone who cast a spell on someone who engages the monster within the last X minutes, but that could easily bog down the system with keeping track.  A better solution is actually to remove rewards from the act of defeating a monster, at least for experience and move it to quests/tasks.  A number of games, most notably World of Warcraft, have already begun moving in this direction where grinding experience points fighting monsters is far less rewarding that fighting monsters that contribute to a quest that will yield a large chunk of experience as a reward.  Even though, group membership is still used to assign the quest flag (the kill of a rat for a “kill ten rats” quest).

At this point, we could start looking into different methods of awarding flags, such as the award being an area effect so that any player character within range gets the flag whether they contributed or not.  Each of them valid, and each can be done, but every method, even grouping, has exploitable elements, so the issue becomes which exploitability are you more comfortable with and to begin looking into ways to combat it -like logging out people who are AFK too long and trying to eliminate users who “macro”.  Of course, the main reason some people don’t participate in combat is because combat design around things like the holy trinity (tank/healer/dps) encourage it, but that is a separate issue.

Its beginning to look like the current design of the reward structure, how players progress, and how combat functions in many MMOs (primarily the Diku style ones) are very dependent on the group structure and trying to remove that group element is going to require thinking the whole thing over from the ground up.

Building the World

So, I have finally begun my first furtive steps in building my Zombie MMO.  It will be web based, because that’s easier for me since I’m a webpage and database guy, not a graphics engine and client/server guy.  I could get some guys, but I couldn’t pay them, and I’d rather keep my game to myself for now.

Anyway… The first piece I’m working on is how to build the world, the structure upon which everything else is going to stand.  And I think I actually have the bulk of it worked out, if not all the details, many of which won’t become solid until other decisions have been made.

In the meantime, I’m taking a look around the internet at other web games to see what I like and what I don’t like.  To that end, do you have suggestions?  What are some web games worth looking at?  Which ones are well done and which ones are complete crap?  I actually want to see both varieties because understanding why something is complete crap can often be more beneficial than trying to figure out why something works well.