What makes an MMOG fun?

Would guilds, clans, and other groupings of players working together count as 'player + player vs. computer'? Almost all online games feature some form of 'player vs. player' and 'player/players vs computer' combat - but I see what you mean. The focus would likely be on the second form of combat. I could see that as being a very enjoyable game. Who knows? Maybe, in the far future, one of the Galactic Civilizations universe could be done Not that likely, at least right now, but ...

There would definitely be grouping among players. I am still thinking about whether the "normal game universe" allows players to fight each other or if it's everyone against the invading aliens. Of course, there is the option to allow diplomacy between factions of humanity and various aliens for more dynamic gameplay. GalCiv 2 benefits greatly from more complex diplomatic interactions than most games of its kind.

In order to prevent disruption of the normal game, I thought about making PvP a separate module. For example, our ships duke it out in a "holographic simulation" that behaves like normal combat. This could be for fun or to test out ship designs (and players could use alien ships to!). Furthermore, anyone could run a "fleet battle" with dozens of ships on each side just for pure enjoyment.

The main game would be designed to appeal to those who already enjoy 4x games but have no suitable MMOG to play (if in fact they wanted to). That means if you like building, then you manage colonies with most of your time. If you like combat, then you join or command a fleet. So whatever part of strategy the player enjoys is available to sort of "specialize in". Logistics. Trade. Economics. Engineering. Building. Combat. Mining. Exploration. Diplomacy. And anything else that people enjoy doing that would be appropriate to a space game.

Some of the features I thought of were:

* Continuous universe with no "shards" and no "jumpgate" mechanisms (that is how Eve Online boasts one shard; it splits it up into star systems so it can split the load on its server clusters). You could fly from any x,y,z location to any other within reasonable time, except that objects in space make the warp go slower (and other defensive modules too) so that you can explore empty areas rapidly but it takes some time to invade a crowded area (they have time to organize a defense).

* You can actually land on planets that are full-scale. As in, they occupy real space rather than a separate "zone". The planet's surface and space are integrated.

* Less time waiting for things to happen such as traveling, so you have more time to actually manage your resources/planets/fleets.

* Resource sharing to some degree, so players can quickly get into the action in a new specialization or organization.

* Major decisions are done diplomatically, so everyone has the option to vote. More distributed player power.

Sid Meier (creator of a little game called Civilization, among others) was asked what made a good game.

He replied, "Interesting choices".

This, to me, is the most important thing about game design.

A game has to provide me with meaningful, significant choices on a regular basis that lead towards a desireable result. Whether that result is winning, or gaining, or helping others isn't as important as the frequency and significance of the choices.

It's the steady stream of interesting choices that keep people coming back.

So a game like Galciv2 is great! There are tons of interesting choices to make every turn. Nevertheless, eventually the player will determine every weakness of the AI, figure out every strategy that works, and every sequence of moves that leads to a loss. Then the game doesn't have any interesting choices anymore.

Add other players to the mix, and it's a whole different situation.

I'm reminded of a Sierra games advertisement in an old computer magazine in the late 1980's.

It had a picture of a computer chip, with the caption, "This opponent wants to defeat you in battle."

Then it had another picture of this really wild, crazy looking guy, and the caption read "This opponent wants to rip your lungs out."

When you add a human dimension, the gameplay expands dramatically. The range of choices expands dramatically.

THAT'S why MMORPG's are so popular.

When you find a MMORPG with choices that are interesting enough to you, you'll play it until you starve to death in front of the keyboard.

Maybe you could have generals that were other human players. You could have 1 guy doing planetary management/tec research, a few people managing your fleets, someone designing ships etc.

Could be some neat dynamics, like if everyone else is impressed with you, you get more stuff to control. Could also do it like mini-empires, where each general had his own planets, ships styles ect. (shared tec and money)

I think nothing is as important as a true sense of place. Players will forgive the grinding, minor problems in the game, etc., so long as they are immersed and interacting with other players in a "real" environment. As an extension of that, I think the game has to have history and continuity in order to really establish "place".

I haven't played Everquest now in two years. Not looked at it. I can, though, close my eyes and run from Qeynos to the pirate dock in the northern desert of Ro, imagine myself taking the barge to Velious, and then running across Iceclad to the huge dragon bridge, then across the Eastern Wasts to visit Thurgadin in the Great Divide, or to kill giants in Kael Drakkal, or orcs in teh mines in Crystal Caverns. Maybe I'd run on even farther to Cobalt Scar and hunt for pelts to sell.

I can picture in my mind dozens of such trips, and those are before they added the Planes with the books you could click to travel instantly. It used to take an hour or more to get where you were going, and over the time that I spent traveling the world it became real; my mind began to deal with it spatially instead of just as a game.

I the end I think if you give players a world that is real to them, that they are interested in being in, and where their interaction is such that they can enjoy it, the rest falls where it may. People talk a lot about the carrot, and how long the stick is, etc., but I think the place you are chasing the carrot through is what really makes it bearable.

I am aiming at giving the player lots of choices for managing resources and information in the game without having to micromanage everything. Someone who is new to the game isn't penalized really for not knowing all the game mechanics, but someone who learns them well can do things more efficiently. That's just a way of saying "easy to learn, but hard to master". As long as there are many choices for interacting with the environment, resources, and other players, I suppose it retains a lot of its appeal. I would rather do this with emersion than with complexity. The player is in charge of what level of detail is desired to enjoy the experience instead of all the game mechanics being forced. However, there is more information and resource than one person could deal with, forcing everyone to work together and communicate higher-level goals.

MMOG are pretty fun but i wouldnt pay any kind of monthly fee for them. There is a limit to what i would spend on any game but player co-operation on a large scale would be quite fun

1. Social Interaction. Chatting. The IRC aspect gives it some social interaction, at least on the scale of say blogging, internet forums, etc... The emotes can be annoying, but add a big chunk of easy ways to have a complex interaction with someone in an RP setting adds to the role playing.


2. Role-playing. Definable characters that are very distinct from each other. The cosmetic aspects should help reflect that visually / audibly, but there should be more in the way the game is played that helps define characters from each other. It may not be truly deep role-playing, but if there's a good degree of thought put into it, then its satisfying.


3. Story / background. There needs to be a believable 'world' to adventure in, with a history that has lots of details. It may amount to lots of bland Foozle* characters, but as long as its consistent, it provides some framework. *Foozle from the idea that most quests in CRPGs are of the Kill Foozle variety (where Foozle is some named evil doer). The questing and other player activities should intermix with the background. Character development should intermix with the background as well.


4. Near fractal complexity in the world layout and design. Things should be very distinct. If the world feels like a plain desert, regardless if its forest, seas, mountains, etc... then it's a turn off. The world should surprise with lots of complex details.


5. Interesting player interactions. PvP for one, but also complex, detailed economy is another way to interact. A tale in the desert is a really good example of a strong economy in a MMOG. Guilding and social hierarchy and order is also interesting.


6. An interesting RPG mechanic. I think this is one that is not common enough in MMOGs. Many games tend to spoon off the most populist, simplistic systems, and fail to come up with a nicely thought out, customizable, and balanced system.


7. Relatively low technical overhead. If it can run nicely on a cheap PC system as well as a nice one, and logging in and out is smooth, then it will be more popular over all.

8. Relatively Cheap. Free or under $20 to start playing, and about half that to continue monthly, with no limits on # of hours played. The way I see it, 4-5 months of play should equal buying a new game. Pretty much if the MMOG is high quality, its the only game the user will play or want to play, then that's equal to buying 3 games a year or so.

WoW does most of these pretty well, though definitely not perfectly.