[font=Arial, sans-serif]I am both a 'end content' player as well as a'story-driven' player. With 'end content' player I mean a player that strivesto experience all of the end content given in the game. For World of Warcraftfor example that would be 'raiding' seeing all that content and experiencingit. As a story driven-player I enjoy well placed and written lore and I will goout of my way especially for that one little quest that has such a beautifulstory. Though of the latter there aren't that many, most are of the first kind.

[size=2]

[size=2]However, it is my believe that many players whoplay MMORPG's, like myself, are a mix of several types of players. They aremotivated by many kinds of aspect within the game. However, the biggest driveforce in the most popular MMOs would be: competition. Humans love to competeand games thrive on this. In MMORPGs like World of Warcraft that competitionwould be about ranking and getting to a certain point in the end content first;getting that World first kill.

[size=2]

[size=2]Of course there are 'games' like Second Life, but Ican't talk about those types of MMOs since I never played tham and they aren'tmy field of interest. Though I think personal gain in wealth is a driving forcehere and social interaction.

[size=2]

[size=2]

[size=2]Now there are people who love collecting vanity elementsin the game as a secondary goal in their gaming experience; but it doesn'tdrive them to keep on playing (and paying). With all actions you have to ask:Why?

[size=2]

[size=2]"Why will I travel across the game world tocreate item X?"

[size=2]

[size=2]If the answer is a vanity item with no purposewhatsoever beside being visual pleasing, people will not really like to dothis; especially if this is core business in your game. Vanity, thusshowing off, is a drive force, but if vanity is the only reward many playerswill think the reward is unrewarding. Most rewards must give somethingextra beside looks and/or vanity; they have to improve your character in oneway or another beyond looks.

[size=2]

[size=2]I'm sorry for derailing your topic so far; forgive me.

[font="Arial, sans-serif"]


[size=2]Though I'm still a fan of the Hanzeatic setting forthe story; it would fit your needs quite well...If I were not busy writing outa game design document for my target game; I would probably expand a bit moreon it. Maybe I'll write a bit more on that for you later today or tomorrow.

[size=2]Hopefully not annoying,

[size=2]Tyberthia

It's fine I like to hear about different people's perspectives as gamers, and different games I haven't played. I can see why you have a different perspective on what motivates people than I do. I'm not a very competitive person and I don't like raiding (too social, too complicated, too much time commitment, too stressful). But I will spend all my playtime for a week working to earn something I think looks awesome, so I can wear it or otherwise show it off to others. I had a few main goals while playing WoW: earn the different shapeshifts for my druid character, obtain a mount (I went around and farmed orgrimar rep so I could have a wolf for my tauren instead of a kodo), complete every available quest that did not involve a dungeon, solo each of the low level dungeons, and earn a flying mount. At one point I also collected a set of pure white gear and wore it - I was frustrated that game has no way to wear one thing for stats and a different thing for looks, cause many mmos do. So as a player I'm a completist/collector and a customizer, and so appearance customizations and collecting are my two major motivations to play.

I don't know if you're familiar with games like NeoPets and GaiaOnline, but I think they're very interesting examples of games where there is no combat or leveling (well Gaia added a monster/combat/quest subsection a year or two ago but it was a popular game before that). Gaia's major area of gameplay for a long time was character customization - you earned money to buy clothing and stuff to dress up your avatar. Your avatar appeared by all your forum posts, so that was the main way people saw you. People spent real money to do this too. NeoPets didn't have avatar customization much, instead they had collecting - every player had an in-game shop, you could expand it as much as you could afford, and you could set an item to cost an infinitely high amount of money, which turned your shop into a gallery displaying your collection. There were guilds dedicated to the different types of thing you could collect, and newbies to the guild would get gifts of cheap starter collectibles. So, whether it's understandable or seems like an alien mindset, there's numerical evidence people will play hardcore and spend money in a game's cash shop for motivations of customization and collecting.

So, whether it's understandable or seems like an alien mindset, there's numerical evidence people will play hardcore and spend money in a game's cash shop for motivations of customization and collecting.

Now you make me sound like a hardcore gamer, which I am not. I was never in the competition in any game. I wanted to be in the end content, but at my own pace (and that of my guild) Though what hardcore and casual is, is open to debate.

Personally I did not know of these games, but the fact remains those games are quite smaller than the big boys like WoW. However, you did prove that there certainly is a market for what you aim for. I learned something new.

Perosnally I think those games then thrived on a social aspect, rather then just collecting things, but that is just my mindset. I can be very wrong of course.

Tyberthia

It's true that hardcore is a word people disagree about the meaning of. I might define hardcore playing as spending at least half your freetime for more than a week on one game. But some people think it's about the difficulty of the game, and some people think it's about having a harsh attitude.

WoW is really off the top of the scale compared to anything an indie team could possibly create. But if you look at a WoW-clone like Perfect World or Runes of Magic which is funded by a cash shop, they probably generate roughly the same annual income as a game like GaiaOnline. Gaia has 30k people online at non-peak times.

HanseaticLeague is where our story is set in. For more information about the HanseaticLeague, please visit the Wikipedia.org URL:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanse.

This is about a person whose father recentlydied, leaving him a small fortune witch which he decides to start his own business.This means he bought a small ship and a small house and workshop. Now theplayer will have to decide which profession in which he will specialize; hisclass or primary profession. This profession creates luxury products, the mostexpensive and elaborate products found in the Hanse. It is thus the player tobecome a true master of his craft. Though this is not all that player can andshould do. He should explore the entire hanseatic League in search of knowledgerare materials and fortune.

However, the player will not be limited to justprimary profession. During his many journeys throughout the Hanse he will learnsecondary and even tertiary profession. A player can learn up to 3 (this is at randomchosen at the moment since I have no clue how many products this game shouldhave) secondary professions. These all produce products of various quality,some are just humble materials, others slightly more luxurious, though most areneeded materials or products in the primary or secondary professions. Of thetertiary the player can learn all and are known as survival skills: first aid,fishing, cooking, construction and hunting.

Another thing players will have to chose beforestarting is their home town. In this hometown they can be elected member of thecity council to even major. All of which are titles that can be earned/lost. Thetitles are given by popular vote by the players who live in the same town eachmonth. These people do have some responsibilities as they have to organize thedefense of the town (pirates can attack the down) and set the prices of variousgoods. Should they fail, NPC citizens might revolt.

But the true dream of every trader is to becomechairman of the Hanseatic league, who is chosen by all the city council membersand mayors of all the cities in the league among themselves. This is truly avanity title.




This is a short setting for an MMO to your requirments without caring about technical limitations though. I chose limitations on primary and secondary professions, because I do love it that people can be diffirintiated by their skills (professions). It also allows for profession specific story-lines which I adore! This all will also be a driving force for many players to create multiple characters, increasing the re-play-abiltiy of this game. This is something most designs try to strive for re-play-ability, which is certainly the case for MMOs the longer players play without loosing interest the better!




I hope this is helpful to your real question!

Personally I don't like classes, professions, and specializations much. They're stereotypes - prescriptive rigid, and limiting. I really prefer to see a player able to customize which spells and skills they want to use from the entire pool of available ones, like building a deck of cards for a CCG, which might them be fit into a 'descriptive class' like the deck archetypes observable in Magic the Gathering. In a game where a lot of appearance customizations are available players should be recognizable by their appearance, not to mention any titles, guild info, faction ranks, etc.

It's also up for debate whether it's really the best idea to encourage players to make multiple characters. Undeniably it is an inexpensive way to create replayability, but it interferes with the player's mental immersion into the story to be switching between characters.

However, it is my believe that many players whoplay MMORPG's, like myself, are a mix of several types of players.
Yup. And different type of MMORPG attract different type of players.
Maybe you already know it, otherwise I think it could interest you: Ricard Bartle wrote a famous essay about players (in MUDS, but I think it could be generalized), categorizing them in 4 main types: socializers, explorers, achievers and killers.
Here's the article.

It's also up for debate whether it's really the best idea to encourage players to make multiple characters. Undeniably it is an inexpensive way to create replayability, but it interferes with the player's mental immersion into the story to be switching between characters.

Well, my view is that a character that can undoubtly learn everything in the game world and master them. He can be a master weaver, he can be a master blacksmith, he can be a master... the list goes on. This would end up a ridiculous, don't you believe, plus it would end up with every long played character being just that, with everything 'max'ed'. It is actually one the greatest grievance I have with Runescape! There is not a single limitation, which is a bit unrealistic and I feel that for the MMO you are striving for realism should be one of its trademarks.

And you talked about immersion in a story. Most characters in a story are limited to what they are capable of. Not every one could cast spells in Lord of the Rings, only Gandalf could. Limitations are that what helps in making the story customized. If everyone is a master blacksmith, everyone will have the same experience. However, with one character you'll have a well developed story, specially designed to suit the master blacksmith and one specially designed to suit the master weaver.

In real life you can't master everything, if everyone could we wouldn't have art and the likes.

Maybe, I'm just rigid and clinging to some sense of preserving old values... But that is just my view and views come in a dozen.

Now you have one.

Tyberthia.


To Dr. Jack,

might give it a read today!

PS: I was also a role-player in World of Warcraft and one of my greatest annoyance was that everyone RP'ed as a major heary whose mear footsteps would crush his enemies. If everyone is a hero, the world becomes bland.

That's why I'm not going to do any MMO designing until I loose my idealism with expectations that are just impossible to implement.

I think that the heavy reliance on warrior-mentality is simply a reflection of the human tendency to compete, be it with other people or digitally created monsters. The players get to test "themselves" through their avatar's abilities (which they can choose and develop as they like), although it's always been my feeling that there is not an overabundance of player skill in MMOs, but rather an investment of time and effort to modify your avatar's stats to the point that clicking on Monster X becomes effective. That's not to say that there aren't skilled players, but that gameplay unfolds in largely the same way for the vast majority of in-game experiences. A player may develop a combination of avatar skills that are more or less effective than other combinations, and equipment may exist that can enhance those skills, but in the end players are really playing an excel spreadsheet. You cannot directly control an avatar's aim, but you can adjust its accuracy statistic.


MMOs then produce as much content as possible that adds any variety to the game, in the hopes that players will enjoy making their investment of time (which is the only player contribution in an MMO that really matters). Exciting and interesting environments can be worth exploring just to see them, for example. PvP provides direct competition, in which lets people show off the time they've invested and demonstrate their understanding of the relationships between avatar abilities. Dynamic marketplaces provide another arena for competition. Social organization is highly encouraged. Stories are present, although they tend to be somewhat weak and lack impact, as thousands of other players have accomplished the same tasks for the same NPC in the same instance of the world.

My point is that action is not such a big factor in an MMO as in other types of games, but management, planning, and time investment are major focuses. Even the epic-ness of a player's experience is diluted by the weakness of the story. These factors should all allow for a great MMO about something other than combat. It's just a matter of finding a way to import the type of content above that adds some spice to spending time fiddling with numbers.

The biggest concern, in my mind, is thinking of places to go. If your avatar has a lab or workshop or foundry or whatever, that's probably where they're going to be applying most of the skills that they develop. Where will they go for materials? Heading over to the market isn't a very exciting trip, and there isn't much to see along the way. And, if the avatar's skills are all directed towards crafting, there probably won't be much to do along the way either. Crafting usually boils down to obtaining resources, since once you've developed a crafting skill you have it forever, but resources are consumed with each item produced. If you don't want combat to become the focus of the game, then I think that the traditional combat-for-drops mechanism will be very difficult to use.

Another potential issue is that there isn't a whole lot to the crafting process itself. It may be immediate, or it may take several hours, and it will either succeed or not. You mentioned that you'd like real-time sim crafting activities, but those sound ominously like mini-games to me. There's nothing wrong with mini-games, but if crafting is the central focus of the game then you might end up with an online WarioWare: fun, but lacking in depth and therefore not likely to garner the time investment that MMOs require of their players. There are certainly solutions to these, I'm just pointing out some pitfalls that come to mind.

Something that I've always thought was interesting in games was social simulation. Perhaps players are all aligned (at least broadly) with some larger group, like a company or a kingdom or guild. Each of these groups has a need for lots of different types of products, to keep running or to gain an edge (military or economic) over other groups. Within each group you could have competition for resources between players who can band together to pitch a new crafting idea to the higher-ups or slander rivals to ensure that precious investment doesn't flow to them. A player's aim could be to rise through the ranks and gain access to better materials and facilities, allowing for more and better items to be crafted. A strong story could fit well with this too, with changing world-conditions producing new incentives for different specializations at different times.

My posts tend to ramble, so I hope you'll forgive me if anything above is unclear/not at all what you're looking for.

Sorry I don't have time to read most of the other replies, but I wanted to chime in and say that this idea is actually more realistic than the warrior thing. Strong warriors don'tr save the world because you can't normally save the world by punching someone in the face.

No, the world is saved by engineers. Challenges are met when engineers can design power plants, water filtration systems, modes of transport.

You can start out in a poor village. Most RPGs would have you fighting rats, but a poor village wouldn't really have killer rats -- it would have problems keeping enough electricity going. It would have problems getting water. You as a "craft person" could solve those problems. Then when you've seriously improved the lives of that village, someone in a bigger city hears about you and you go there to help solve those problems. You don't kill trogs for loot, you build useful things in exchange for money or other items.

Makes perfect sense to me, and it could be just as epic as any "punch the bad guy in the face" scenario.