Slashdot Mirror


New Issue Of The Daedalus Project

Nick Yee writes "The Daedalus Project have new findings and a news survey. The Daedalus Project is an ongoing online survey study of MMORPG players that started 5 years ago and has surveyed over 35,000 players. Some highlights of this issue's findings: While the media likes to talk about how "virtual" relationships in MMOs are, about 80% of players actually play with someone they know in real life (a romantic partner, a family member, or a friend). PvP servers attract younger players as well as more men than PvE servers. This has implications for gender-bending rates. On PvP servers, female avatars are much more likely to be played by men. 22% of respondents said that they had purchased virtual gold. On average, these players have spent $135 USD on virtual gold. While older players are more likely to have done so, there were no gender differences."

34 comments

  1. Impersonal Game Masters by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I was thinking the other day, one of the basic things that is missing from a MMORPG that you get with a tabletop RPG is personal touch of a dedicated Game Master. I can remember playing MUDs where I actually had the freedom to change the world because a GM was there to review what I had done and keep things "in check". This is taken to the obvious extreme with tabletop RPGs where you can do anything after negotiating with the GM. Of course, in a MMORPG there's just way too many other players for you to have a relationship with a GM. In fact, it's almost always company policy that GMs remain out of the game, otherwise everyone will want access to them. Personally, I think that's the wrong way to go. Instead of hiding the GMs the company should be offering their interaction for a fee. To really do this well the development team needs to supply the GM with simple but powerful scripting tools. I'd imagine a conversation might go something like this:

    Player: My enchantment resistance is low and I keep losing rolls against Paladins, what can I do?
    GM: Well, you could go see the Enchantrist, she can probably supply you with some boots that will boost your enchantment resistance.
    Player: Where's the Enchantrist?
    GM: Heh! I can't tell you that. But if you ask at the bar in town you're bound to find someone who can.
    Player: alright then!

    The player then runs off in the direction of town. Meanwhile the GM starts writing a script for one of the bar characters which responds to the keyword 'Enchantrist'. If he gets writers block halfway through writing the list of challenges the player is going to have to face to meet the Enchantrist he can always send some ghouls to intercept the player and delay his arrival at the bar.

    Eventually the player gets to the bar and asks around for the Enchantrist. The character planted there by the GM gives the player the instructions and the player sets off on his quest. The quest may have been a pre-existing one or the GM may have coded it up just now. With a library of sufficient content and a simple scripting language, it should be easy for a GM to give the illusion of an exciting dynamic world.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:Impersonal Game Masters by supernovae · · Score: 1

      Although that sounds like a great idea...doesn't that just create an insurmountable amount of work for GM's...in the end wouldn't it just be easier for the GM to either tell the player to "bugger off" or tell them where to go?

    2. Re:Impersonal Game Masters by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      If the customer is paying $25/hr for a personal GM, who cares!

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    3. Re:Impersonal Game Masters by lobsterGun · · Score: 1

      That might work fine for a M.U.D. with 250 players, but EQ has ~450,000. Thats a lot of GMs.

    4. Re:Impersonal Game Masters by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      And how many of those players want to pay $25/hr for a GM? Frankly, if you can make that kind of money off a player you can afford to set up a few thousand terminals in India and train that many GMs.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    5. Re:Impersonal Game Masters by patio11 · · Score: 1
      Doesn't scale, issues with quality control, your GMs are hourly employees who are not competent to make design decisions like "How powerful should a Sword of Foozle Slaying be for a level 12 Paladin?"

      The secret to creating new, exciting content in MMORPGs is to develop systems and practices that either generate content algorithmically or cause people to generate it themselves. One obvious and well-worn path is PVP. Another is giving people guild mechanisms. A third is something like Puzzle Pirates portrait painter, which algorithmically paints a portrait of your character as a luxury item (and, since your character has a fairly unique look and the portrait resembles but doesn't replicate the look, the portraits are experienced almost as well as "real" human-produced art). There are, of course, downsides to all of these, and none is a panacea, but you can have all of them work as well with 1,000 players as with 10,000.

    6. Re:Impersonal Game Masters by patio11 · · Score: 1
      you can afford to set up a few thousand terminals in India

      Is it just me, or does that Enchantrix have a bit of an accent?

    7. Re:Impersonal Game Masters by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      You must be living in some different universe to the rest of us where MMORPGs actually include speech.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    8. Re:Impersonal Game Masters by xgamer04 · · Score: 1

      Just get gamers to do it for free. The Daedalus poll says the average player plays something like 20 hours a week. Some of them would love to do it.

      --
      When you look at the state of the world, how can you not become a radical, liberal anarchist?
    9. Re:Impersonal Game Masters by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Shya. Maybe as an "elder game" but frankly, as a player I want someone I am paying to be my GM.. that way they are doing their job and I don't have to worry about their entertainment as well as mine.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    10. Re:Impersonal Game Masters by Meagermanx · · Score: 1

      They'd have to be paying that much.
      What people don't understand is that GMing is a labor of love. You can pay someone to GM a game, but you have to take into account all the time spent writing the campaign. Even at minimum wage, that's a good 50-80 dollars for a decent one-shot adventure.
       
      Do you realize how much skill it takes to actually GM? More than most people think.
      Then you have to remember that you're talking about hundreds of Game Masters interfering with each other.
      Writing up dungeons on the fly? I've tried that. It doesn't work very well.
      Also, let's face it, your average MMORPGer really want's great equipment. He doesn't want to interact with the barmaids.
       
      While it would be kind of neat, it will never happen in non-text-based or large-scale MMORPGs.

    11. Re:Impersonal Game Masters by Ayaress · · Score: 1

      I played games like this, and I also played more mainstream MMORPGs where GMs had a much greater control over game events.

      The problem in every single one of them came down to GM corruption. In one game, GMs would kill off unpopular players. Out killing spiders, eh? BOOM, level 500 dragon tha normally only appears as part of special events hits you for n+1 damage and you die and gain a status effect that prevents you from reviving until you cure it, and you can't cure it because your dead and can't do anything BUT revive.

      Another one, GMs would give their friends extraordinarily powerful stuff. I knew a player who'd been given a set of armor and a staff named after her that was so powerful it actually rendered her immune to all damage types except one (which she took 10% damage from).

      Another one, GMs only had the power to trigger monster attacks on towns. Town, middle of nowhere, spawn gate in a nice secure spot and a wall that would trap the guards so they couldn't attack the demons the GM creates (which normally "spoils" a mob, so it gives no loot or experience). GM can spawn Demon Spires all day long, and his friends can kill them and get amazing loot. For that matter, the GM himself could kill them in two hits and leave the loot for said friends, but they wouldn't also be able to rack up 25,000,000 exp a night then.

      Furthur: One game, which because of developer shortsight (or rather, their twisted vision of what an MMORPG should be) made grief play not only easy, but almost imossible to advance without doing, ended up having a serious problem. Somebody could stand in a dark passage that was only wide enough for one person to pass, weight down the shift and left keys, and would kill everybody who came through there in three shots - because they had a weapon given to them by a GM which was not intended for player use. The solution was to have GMs hunt down, kill, and loot griefers, which rapidly decayed into GMs hunting down normal PKs who killed their player characters, and even GMs stalking members of opposing guilds and telling their or their friends' guilds where to find them, if the GM didn't feel like just dropping down a barricade around thim and killing thim himself.

      And don't even ask me what the Arcs in Anarchy Online have been known to do. I could cost some of my real life and online frinds their cozy free subscriptions if I said HALF the stuff they do to give people they know a leg up.

      One more, I was a GM, but I was tasked with the unhappy job of GMing the other GMs, tracking their abuses, undoing the damage they did to the game world where possible and handing it over to the devs where it wasn't, and even revoking other GM's powers. This was particularly messy, since due to dev shortsight, this caused them to become visible and mortal (while they're normally invincible and only visible when they need to be) wherever they happen to be. Since they have 1 hp, this almost invariably led to them dying and me having to barricade off sections of towns (usually active towns, since GMs hang around where players do, since they can't do their job otherwise), so players couldn't loot GM tools. Occasionally, people did. I had a real wild goose chase tracking down a Demon Summoner which somehow fell into player hands and was traded accross a dozen accounts. By the time I'd tracked where it went and banned one owner, the next one had already had his fun and sold it. Tracking it down eventually required an emergency reboot, a three hour rollback (which made a lot of people angry, obviously), and a server patch to actually change the functioning of all GM items to ban any user who tried to use them if they weren't a GM. (This also led to a second reboot when a bug caused them to also ban all GMs who used them, but that wasn't the GMs fault)

  2. Thats a painful-shrinky thought. by Richard+Dick+Head · · Score: 0, Troll

    On PvP servers, female avatars are much more likely to be played by men.

    Alright, how would you like to think you hooked up with a hot gamer chick online (hot = has vagina, who gives a shit), and

    Uhghhh.... ok, on the other hand, lets not finish that thought.

    1. Re:Thats a painful-shrinky thought. by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Mostly Men Online Role-Playing Girls.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
  3. Wasn't the goal of the Daedalus Project... by PFritz21 · · Score: 1

    ...to send a ship to Atlantis?

  4. Waitaminute... by Traegorn · · Score: 1, Funny

    On PvP servers, female avatars are much more likely to be played by men.

    Wait a minute... there are female characters *not* played by men on those servers?

    My entire worldview has shattered...

  5. Re:I own a PSP and It has ergonomic issues by Akaihiryuu · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Actually I thought it was more to ensure the security of Earth. The Daedalus being the second ship in the X-303 project. They sent it to Atlantis because of the Wraith attack and because the nifty Asgard tech gave them a chance against the Wraith fleet...the Atlantis expeditition is very important to the security of Earth, because of the advanced Ancient tech there. I don't think they built the ship with the intent to send it to Atlantis...they made the decision to defend Atlantis when they heard of the incoming Wraith fleet. I'm nitpicking, I know. ;P

  6. Naturally. by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

    > On PvP servers, female avatars are much more likely to be played by men.

    Of course: most FBI agents are males.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  7. Re:Impersonal Game Masters (obligs) by xgamer04 · · Score: 1
    --
    When you look at the state of the world, how can you not become a radical, liberal anarchist?
  8. Thoughts on PvP by xgamer04 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think that people who join RPGish MMOs for the PvP (or stay for it) don't really want to play the game. The ones I know IRL are castoffs from other genres (mainly FPSers weaned on Halo, The Abominable) and now play WoW or whatever because they can get a game anytime, and it's fresh blood, not just their network of friends in real life. They don't care about roleplaying, just being as powerful as possible (and yes, they're all guys). They also don't ever play non-aggro classes. Buut, I've never played a "real" MMO (subscription based, persistent, etc. (I play GW)) so I can't really say whether I'd be down for PvP (I'm somewhat the dying breed of hardcore consoler, raised on the NES).

    --
    When you look at the state of the world, how can you not become a radical, liberal anarchist?
    1. Re:Thoughts on PvP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now, let's be clear about something. People who play World of Warcraft on PvP servers are there to play the game, just as are those who play on RP servers (yes, there are servers set aside for people who want to roleplay). Check the forums and you can even see a disparity in these players' attitudes -- roleplayers think they're smarter than pvpers, and pvpers call roleplayers "carebears" (a term also applied to people who spare obviously weaker foes in pvp). The fact is, some people want to roleplay and others just want to "PWN U LOL!" For the record, i play on a PvP server. I'm a guy, and my character has boobs. When i want to roleplay, i play Eve Online instead. That's actually a pretty good example of a pvp-heavy game whose players are anything but unimaginative. There's some leet-speak net rabble in there, for sure, but there's just something to be said about having your own frozen corpse sold back to you by the (very in-character) player pirate who just blasted your spacecraft into the next solar system over!

  9. Well, there's a difference by Moraelin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Not all games are GW or even WoW in that aspect. There are games that were launched completely without PvP.

    E.g., PSO was the most extreme case. It wasn't just that you couldn't attack another player, it's that you just couldn't do _anything_ to them. You couldn't leave aggressive NPCs to someone, you couldn't block their retreat, etc. Heck, you couldn't even kill-steal. So people who wanted to play it like a FPS deathmatch just soon left.

    That however also contains the "problem". It's entirely too easy for a publisher to see it as "whaa? you mean we're losing players for lack of PvP? well, then let's add PvP to the game!" And from there the balance that was finely tuned for PvE goes down the drain, as the boards get swamped with "my <insert support class> should deal as much direct damage as the mages and take as much damage as the tanks in a duel" whine. Powers and classes which were useful in more subtle ways than 1-on-1 damage, e.g., even AOE attacks or aggro-management, get proclaimed useless because they're not an alpha-strike in 1-on-1 PvP.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  10. Currency traders, PvP etc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That's a worryingly high proportion of players who've engaged in real-world currency trading, particularly as there's no doubt a further margin of people who have also done this trading, but won't admit to it. I play FFXI myself and I'm fairly sure that a few of the people I know in-game have bought gil before, but it is, of course, nigh-on impossible to prove (unless they do something really stupid, like being broke one day and buying a peacock charm, kraken club and scorpion harness +1 on the Auction House the next - and I only know of one person who was dumb enough to do something like that).

    To be honest, I'd have thought it would be pretty easy to identify and close down the accounts used for real world currency trade. The game always tells you who has sent you currency, unless it's via an auction-house purchase. Reading IGE's (the largest currency trading site) website, it sounds like they just send gil directly to the recipient. All the GMs would need to do would be make a few purchases (spending maybe a couple of hundred dollars total) and close down the accounts that the gil came from. Rinse and repeat a few times and you'd have made the whole business deeply unprofitable. I'm almost tempted to take matters into my own hand, make a few minimum purchases from IGE, get screenshots of the gil in my delivery box and report the senders to the GMs. Sadly, I've a sneaking suspicion that all this would achieve would be to get my own account suspended. So I won't.

    On the topic of PvP, I think the article is right in broad terms about the demographic involved, but perhaps goes a little too far and risks being a bit unfair in the stereotype it builds up. It's true that in the days before FFXI had any PvP at all, the vast majority of the players who were demanding it were immature 14 year olds who wanted to get revenge on somebody who'd annoyed them a week before. Once limited PvP appeared, in the form of ballista, and people realised that PvP works both ways and that immature grief-kiddies tend to have far smaller social networks to call on for backup than the more rounded players, most of the clamour vanished overnight. Ballista these days tends to be played by people who are pretty dedicated and specialised. It's not my thing and I doubt I'll ever be any good at it, but kudos to those who are.

    I've played World of Warcraft and while I think it's vastly inferior to FFXI in most respects, I do like the way it's managed to integrate PvP into the game-world without turning it over to the griefers. Having the two major game factions in a de facto state of war, with their own towns and territory, is great for encouraging people to blend the social/organisational challenges of traditional PvE combat with the more tightly defined skillset of PvP. I think that's definitely the model that future MMORPGs (hopefully ones with a bit more depth and challenge than WoW) should be looking to imitate and build upon.

    Finally, on the gender issue. I always assume that any character in game is played by a male, no matter the gender of the avatar or anything they say in game, unless I have met them in real life. I do know a couple of women in real life who play the game - they both use male player characters, simply because while the hassling that female pcs get in-game from male teenagers is flattering (and occasionally profitable) at first, it gets old real fast.

    1. Re:Currency traders, PvP etc by EngineeringMarvel · · Score: 1

      I was also suprised by the percent of players who have bought online gold/gil. Almost a quarter of the players? Wow. I have been playing WoW since December and I just received my epic mount (this is a faster one than the normal). It's not easy to get due to its price being so high. I worked my butt off to earn enough money to buy it and I must say it was worth it. It's very disappointing to me that so many people have probably bought their epic mounts from places like IGN (by bought, I mean got the gold from IGN, then used it to buy their epic mounts). It sort of takes away from my accomplishment knowing that others have "cheated" their way to get their epic mounts. Atleast I have the satisfaction every time I mount up (which is a lot in WoW).

      I use to play FFXI back in the day. Good game, but it doesn't mix well with casual gamers like myself. I agree with you 100% about Balista. I felt there was little to no griefing in FFXI, but it was near impossible to do it when I played and that's probably why there wasn't any griefing.

      --
      I couldn't think of anything witty to say, so...you're stuck with this.
    2. Re:Currency traders, PvP etc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh, no. FFXI does not offer much to casual gamers. It's an incredibly harsh game to get into - basic equipment costs are pretty astronomical by now (I doubt you could get bronze armour and a basic weapon for under 5000 gil now), levelling beyond level 15 or so absolutely requires a group, most of the content is locked away until you reach at least level 30 or so, even basic crafting requires masses of capital to get you started and the end-game content requires epic amounts of time.

      As I said in my original post, I don't like WoW much. However, I can understand its success and I don't resent it in the slightest. WoW and FFXI aren't in competition for players - all the ones I know who left FFXI for WoW came back within 2 months. The genius of WoW was to offer a sizable chunk of the MMORPG experience to casual gamers. Even WoW's endgame content is pretty laid back. Of course, for those who consider themselves serious MMORPG players, WoW is shallow and the content can be breezed through in a couple of months (and doesn't get expanded anything like fast enough). That's what FFXI is for.

      I'll be interested to see what happens when FFXI get released for the X-Box 360 early next year. By all accounts, the 360 version is going to be cross-compatible with the existing PC and PS2 versions, with players continuing to share the same game worlds. Personally, I'm looking forward to this; without fresh blood, MMORPGs inevitably wither and die. However, I honestly believe that if they're going to make the launch a success, they need to do some serious tweaking to the early stages of the game to make it less intimidating. My own preference would be for a fully signposted series of newbie quests in the home cities which would introduce players to game concepts and provide them with basic gear (like bronze and leather armour, maybe even some basic rings etc) right from the start. I'm aware that newbie gear can currently be quested in some of the home cities, but these quests are generally obscure and irrelevant - most new players seem to miss them completely. Using the quests to give new players an idea of which zones they should be going to at which level ranges, a la WoW, would also be a really nice touch.

      Of course, knowing Square-Enix, they'll just add a new level 75 dungeon and nerf another job instead. I guess we'll see soon enough.

  11. Not that easy by Moraelin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "On the topic of PvP, I think the article is right in broad terms about the demographic involved, but perhaps goes a little too far and risks being a bit unfair in the stereotype it builds up. It's true that in the days before FFXI had any PvP at all, the vast majority of the players who were demanding it were immature 14 year olds who wanted to get revenge on somebody who'd annoyed them a week before. Once limited PvP appeared, in the form of ballista, and people realised that PvP works both ways and that immature grief-kiddies tend to have far smaller social networks to call on for backup than the more rounded players, most of the clamour vanished overnight. Ballista these days tends to be played by people who are pretty dedicated and specialised. It's not my thing and I doubt I'll ever be any good at it, but kudos to those who are."

    That all is based on the assumption that everyone cares equally about their character. E.g., that the socializers who got ganked in the newbie area, and the "immature grief-kiddies" who made a bunch of people chase them and then logged off, are equally saddened that you killed their character.

    In practice, it just doesn't work that way. There are people who just don't care about their character. At all. It's just a disposable tool, to be used as needed and discarded when no longer needed. They don't need any backup, unless it's for a grander scale scam or ganking run. If you ended up calling on a whole social network to chase him, you haven't "punished" him, you haven't taught him a lesson, you've "fed a troll" in internet lingo. You gave that kiddie the attention he wanted. Lots of it.

    The real reason why they tend to disappear off pure fullt-time PK worlds was already explained by Bartle in the days of MUDs. It's not that they learn a valuable lesson, it's just the same reason why wolves die off too when the population of rabbits goes way down: they run out of prey. What a griefer ("killer" in Bartle's terms) needs is victims. Unwilling victims. The moment they end up on a server where everyone else doesn't give a damn about their character and about anything happening to that character, they lose interest and leave.

    Really, you should read Bartle's studies. It's fascinating, and might turn your assumptions right on their head. For example, it's not that those kiddies have some vengeance for some grief they suffered earlier, it's that actually their favourite victim is a socializer who never did them any wrong. The aim is simply to cause grief. Nothing more, nothing less. And the best target for that is someone who was trying to make friends and tends to take offense at being received with all-out hostility. Other griefers (i.e., the ones you'd have a reason to want to exact vengeance on) are actually their _least_ favourite prey.

    "I've played World of Warcraft and while I think it's vastly inferior to FFXI in most respects, I do like the way it's managed to integrate PvP into the game-world without turning it over to the griefers. Having the two major game factions in a de facto state of war, with their own towns and territory, is great for encouraging people to blend the social/organisational challenges of traditional PvE combat with the more tightly defined skillset of PvP. I think that's definitely the model that future MMORPGs (hopefully ones with a bit more depth and challenge than WoW) should be looking to imitate and build upon."

    As someone who <bleep>ing hates PvP, I should hope they don't. Putting some funky back-story explaining why it's there, still doesn't change the fact that I don't want it. If it's an activity I dislike, it's an activity I dislike, and that's that. I don't care what convoluted excuse the designers came up with, as to why should I take part in that.

    WoW still sorta does the right thing in that it has separate PvP and non-PvP servers. That's ok by me. I'm not opposed to the PvP people getting their jollies too, as long as I'm not dragged into it. Even then, what I'd like is the choice of a server which is "strictly non-PvP", but ok, I can also live with Blizzard's solution.

    But of a game really tried any harder to integrate PvP into it, well, that's one game which wouldn't see my money.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:Not that easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. I can understand why you're saying this, but there's a fundamental and serious error in your reasoning.

      MMORPGs are not MUDs.

      Not even close.

      There's a huge difference in scale and game-mechanics between the MUDs you're talking about (and on which the old article you refer to was based) and a modern MMORPG such as FFXI, WoW or EQ2 (or even the previous generation of graphical MMORPGs such as Everquest, SW: Galaxies and Asheron's Call).

      First of all, the issue of "attachment to a character" is pretty bunk when talking about PvP in MMORPG. Permadeath basically doesn't exist in MMORPGs. If you die, all you lose in most games is a fraction of your gold, a small amount of xp, or even just the time it takes to run back to your corpse. People put literally months of play-time into a MMORPG character and players who get wiped out completely are just going to cancel their subscriptions.

      Moreover, becoming a griefer through PvP in a MMORPG, even one with extremely permissive PvP rules (like the full-PvP servers in WoW) is neither fast nor easy. Except in the first few days after launch, you simply cannot jump right into the game and be griefing within hours. It's going to take weeks, or more likely months, to get to the stage where you can have a reasonable hope of killing new players safely and effectively, without being killed by random white-hats in retaliation. Plus, if there are any death penalties, you're going to be subject to them as a griefer yourself. More so once you get a reputation. If the penalties include xp loss, you're going to need to get xp back on a regular basis. In games that require grouping to get xp, you're effectively out of luck, as your newfound rep will mean you can't get parties any more.

      Simply put, if your reputation is pure grief, don't play a MMORPG. It's the worst possible genre for it. Pick up a MUD, or just log onto a Counter-Strike server and start TKing. What I was talking about is the kind of vendetta you *do* get in MMORPGs, where a few badly chosen words, or a contentious pull make one player aggrieved enough at another to want to hurt him. Obviously, some players are quicker to take offence than others, generally the most immature, and these were the ones demanding full PvP, until the full consequences for it came home. They're not dedicated, full-time griefers, but in-game events and their own personalities make them want to do some temporary griefing.

      Bottom line is: MMORPGs are not MUDs. Keep the two separate and don't assume that what holds true in one also holds true in the other.

  12. EverQuest 2 has voice-overs by Moraelin · · Score: 1

    As I was saying, EQ2 already has voice-acting for every single NPC. So it's not like a different universe is even needed. It exists in this one already.

    Additionally, if you want to make a character interact with a GM-controlled NPC, voice-chat might be the easiest way out anyway. A GM taking over the "Enchantrix" NPC and role-playing that interaction by voice-chat might just be a lot less effort than requiring the GMs to be competent enough to script a new NPC and a dialog tree, and be confident enough that it will just work in the game without going through QA and testing first.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:EverQuest 2 has voice-overs by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      It would certainly be interesting, but I think we're getting away from current games pretty quickly. In any case, you're gunna need some cool voice modification software so every NPC your GM is puppetting doesn't sound alike. In which case your argument about accents is kinda mute.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:EverQuest 2 has voice-overs by Moraelin · · Score: 1

      The argument about accents wasn't mine. I'm just saying that MMOs where the NPCs "talk" already exist. Nothing more.

      About the accents, personally I don't mind outlandish accents in a game. They can add a certain flavour if they're consistent.

      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  13. So basically "pay to cheat"? No, thanks by Moraelin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "And how many of those players want to pay $25/hr for a GM? Frankly, if you can make that kind of money off a player you can afford to set up a few thousand terminals in India and train that many GMs."

    1. So basically, you're proposing... what? That anyone who can pay $25 can officially get not just an advantage in the game, but they get someone to customize and tailor it especially for them.

    You know what? No, thanks. It's bad enough to have people with rare super-powerful items bought on eBay. Having the game company itself sell customized "swords of Paladin slaying" to every PK idiot with a credit card... no, thanks. I like achievements in the game to at least pretend to reflect some personal skill or effort. A whole game built on achievements being how much RL cash you're willing to pay, wth is the point and achievement in that? How insecure _does_ someone have to be to measure their achievements that way?

    2. You're still proposing that a bunch of people be trusted with creating and putting content in the game on short notice, completely bypassing any QA or testing. You may notice that even stuff that senior designers and programmers made, and still after an extensive internal- and beta-testing, still needs to be tweaked and balanced against everything else in the game.

    Would I trust some half-trained tech-support guy's 5-minute hack to actually be anywhere near balanced? Does that guy even know everything in the game that the item needs to be balanced against?

    It's not even whether it's in India or not, it's just that _noone_ can have the whole game in the head, and know the balancing factors and decisions that went into everything. (E.g., that yeah, item X is also that powerful, but it's something that's the big reward for a whole story arc, spanning several instanced missions.)

    Do I even trust that not to break the game? E.g., if the player wants a potion of teleporting through walls for the next instance, how do you know they won't use it to get into an unfinished area still in development? E.g., if the player wants a wand that creates a deadly plague to finish off some NPCs, how do you know they won't use it to start a plague in the capital city or in the newbie area, for grief's sake?

    Both cases above, getting into restricted areas _and_ a world-wide plague, are stuff that actually happened in WoW. Again, stuff designed by professional designers, with code/scripts made by professional coders, and after an extensive internal- and beta-testing. And shit still happened. Do you trust 1000 monkeys with keyboards, bypassing QA and testing completely, not to create that problem 1000 times a day?

    How do you trust them _all_ to not be _bribed_ to explicitly code something against the rules? There are some people with a _lot_ of disposable income. (I've been in a game where someone had paid literally over 20,000 USD for in-game advantages.) And there are countries where those cheap GM's would end up recruited from, where salaries are really low. It's very easy for a westerner to pony-up a bribe that's ludicriously high for that country.

    E.g., I don't know about India, but in China an average wage is about 1000$ per year. If I knew my GM is from China, I already know that for a 1000$ bribe, the guy will roll repeatedly against will-power to refuse it. Even if he gets fired for taking it, it's a year's salary in one go. People have stabbed each other there for a $800 virtual item. "Hey, buddy, I'm sick and tired of running away from all these murlocks. Make me a pair of 100D6 damage daggers for my rogue, and you get 1000$ by PayPal right now." Are you sure he won't take it?

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:So basically "pay to cheat"? No, thanks by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you monitor and review GMs actions and fire the ones that do a shit job. Besides which, who said anything about the GM having the ability to create new items? They could simply be supplying information to the user or selecting objects from a preapproved library and adding them to the world. Of course, then you could say that any interaction between a player and a GM is cheating as the GM (by definition) has intimate knowledge of the game. Great, yes, that's possible, but frankly, you've gotta balance what is "fair" with what makes money. If players want to pay your company for professional in-game "help" then you should supply it.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:So basically "pay to cheat"? No, thanks by Rycross · · Score: 1

      So now you have to pay for not only the GM, but also people who review the GMs. And thats hardly a sure bet against a GM doing something stupid and messing up game balance. And is $25 a month really enough to pay for it? Maybe if you outsource it, but that brings in language and quality control issues. Its definately not practical if you're hiring Americans. As much as people would like dynamic personalized worlds, in truly massive online rpgs, its a bit impractical.

  14. Try Neverwinter Nights by nick_davison · · Score: 1

    Neverwinter Nights had a fully featured GM system. You could posess NPCs, trigger events, script, even drag a dynamic difficulty slider if the PCs were getting their asses handed to them in a particular fight or were finding it too easy.

    And yet, as both a programmer and an on/off DM for fifteen years, it was still damn hard to keep things running.

    When an RPG is all in your head, you've got millions of years of evolution helping you respond immediately. The idiots decide to open the door marked "Instant Death" - you can kill them if you want but you can also instantly come back with "Oh, it's sticky. [Makes sound of rolling dice behind screen] You fail to open it."

    When you're trying to use a UI, even a great one, and every player's deciding to walk off in a separate direction, doing something stupid, all at once, you're screwed. Just as you hop in the Elf looking character who's really a benevolent gold dragon (it being a pain to script that so it's quicker to just spawn an NPC and posess it), another character decides to start a fight with the bar whilst the loot whore decides to start breaking in to the back rooms that you never filled in because you figured you could run those as one offs later and it wasn't worth spending that much time on.

    Plus there's the side that with pen and paper, time's arbitrary. If you want to say, "OK, I'll get to your fight in just a second" or "Just a second, the fight's breaking out. Let's resolve round one before the first bit of conversation." That's entirely reasonable. Similarly, you could spend a six hour session playing through five minutes of players escaping dire peril. In a game that resolves time and everything else by default, with players expecting that, it's no longer an option.

    So, in short: Playable GMs in games like NWN are a great addition. It takes a great game and adds wonderful flexability for doing even more. But, even with the amped up reflexes of an RTS player on crack, no GM can pull of everything you can do in your mind and do it in real time.

    That said: How much custom interactivity do you really need? I'd suggest a team of half a dozen "actors", a "director" and a programmer and artist could likely add three or four unique encounters/missions a day to a server - even if they had been largely pre-scripted. That's probably enough for word to spread of those events and to get players feeling a lot more than repetetive code was happening or, more importantly, could happen to them.