Slashdot Mirror
Setting a Learning Curve In MMOs
Ten Ton Hammer has an article looking at the learning curves of modern MMOs. Many of the more popular games, such as World of Warcraft, go to great lengths to make learning the game easy for new players. Others, such as EVE Online, have had success with a less forgiving introduction. But to what extent do the most fundamental game mechanics limit the more complex end-game play?
"The current trend in MMOG's appears to be make the game so easy and interest-grabbing right out of the gate that even a person with the attention span of a monkey chewing on a flyswatter will be able to keep up and get into the swing of things. Depth of game mechanics is still possible with a system like this, but it needs to be introduced not only clearly, but later in the game, after a player has played enough to be hooked and is willing to put in some extra time to learn about the more intricate game mechanics available to them."
Here you go
"I may be full of crap about this game, and I may be wrong, and that's fine." -Jack Thompson
famous eve learning curve graph
Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
-kfg
And didn't make it past the tutorial. It was long, boring and suffered from information overload. Couldn't be bothered with it all really. Also not a big fan of games that are 'ruled' by super guilds.
I think the problem isn't so much the learning curve as giving players the motivation and chance to learn. Take WoW, you're eased into skills, the early instances don't require you to be especially knowledgable of what spec you should be for your role (as at that stage there's little variation in talents and equiptment). These instances even teach you the basics about how to group (not to N on stuff you can't use or gems, how to avoid wipes etc.) FFXI lets you solo for about 8 levels before it gets into the forced grouping, there's a relatively early quest that forces you to tour the major cities.
There's nothing wrong with having complex MMOs but you've got to ease them into the various aspects of it one stage at a time. Even simple play mechanics can suffer if everything is forced on you at once. To use WoW again as an example, one of the critisisms of the new Death Knight class is that as you're given one at lv.55, you haven't been levelling with the class but have a huge number of abilities and loads of talent points. As people haven't learnt the class in that way, it can be surprisingly difficult to play it properly and people may not realise they've bad specs or itemisation until it's pointed out to them.
Learning to code? Learning a musical instrument? Martial arts? Latin dancing? Anything with a 2 year learning code is a hobby (or a job), not a game.
I think you're doing it wrong, and here's why. In the interest of full disclosure, I play WoW, Counter-Strike, and QuakeWorld. Also, I can't understand EVE (but I tried).
I'm getting quite sick of games with small learning curves - the ones who's mechanics you can master in less than a month without any special instruction.
Depending on your definition of "mechanics", mastering them should be quite easy in less than a month. For example, one can learn the mechanics of Chess, in a day or so. The rules aren't particularly complicated, but to reach any level of interesting play, it can take years.
My point is that the mechanics *should* be simple. When they're complex, you end up with EVE; and I think there's a general consensus that EVE is impossible for outsiders to comprehend enough to appreciate, let alone play for themselves. I've tried playing it, and my experience is that the game is completely inaccessible to those with anything but a dedicated interest in playing EVE. My guess would be that most EVE players are probably close friends with other EVE players, or they would never have been able to overcome the learning curve (or lack thereof) in the first place.
If you have a chance to watch the Portal "Director's Commentary", they explain precisely how the learning curve was developed for that game, and the rationale behind it based on feedback testing.
The ones that become a game of who went deeper into the dungeon for the better armor, who buys the more expensive weapon, who can snap-aim better (which takes skill, but is not a particularly interesting one).
But not true. At the highest levels of play, all people are geared similarly with armor and weapons, and they can all aim. It's already assumed at being at a high level of play. Competitive WoW players already have their full sets. Competitive Quake players have insanely good aim. That's why, when you reach that level of play, you no longer have to worry about armor or aim. It's built-in. Check out the discussions going on over at the Elitist Jerks forums for WoW. Or go watch some QuakeWorld videos. Or if you have the patience to setup nQuake, go download it and watch some QuakeWorld demos .. or Quake3 for that matter.
Sure, you might find cases where the winner is decided by having a super rare WoW-drop, or where someone's lightning gun or rail gun is what wins the match based on exceptionally good aim. But for the most part, it becomes a game of strategy.
MMO's are very big into number-crunching, like the kind you'll find at Elitist Jerks. FPS's are very big into demo watching and strategy. Keep in mind, however, that it's only at very high levels of play that you'll see this.
The good games, in my opinion, are easy enough for anyone to pick up, but complex enough that only the most dedicated can reach the highest levels of play. WoW does this very well. Quake is too inaccessible, and suffers from a lack of players (even bad ones) as a consequence. Counter-strike has a different problem, where the game isn't very good at high levels of play, but it is very accessible. The FPS is difficult to get right in a way that doesn't alienate newbies or pros. EVE is an enigma in the sense that it even survives at all. (Someone feel free to explain this to me.)
Give me something rewarding, where I can be playing a year or two later and still improving my skill. Items are cool, but after a while they don't cut it.
And that's why there's a casual gaming market. You're asking that a game neither be too hard that you can't pick it up nor too easy that it doesn't feel rewarding. You should pick a game that has both a large enough following that skill makes a difference at the end-game stages, while it is accessib