Concepts for a new MMORPG - your thoughts?

[Chipperz]

OK, as I've mentioned a few times, I'm training to be a games designer and my major project that I'm working on is an MMORPG. I have a few concepts that I don't think have been done in RPGs (let alone MMORPGs) before, as well that a few that have, just not well, and I wouldn't mind some feedback (especially if they HAVE been done before. I'm going through a spate recently of finding out everything I came up with has been done);

In-game access to the Wiki and the Forums - I want to avoid the constant Alt-Tab that many MMORPGs get. I've seen people trying to find weaknesses and loot chances while in combat and the result is rarely pretty. To not break immersion, I want to have the wiki already written before the game starts and have both set up as being maintained by one of the NPC factions. I also want guild forums and sites in game so that people can advertise and communite easily.

Combat as a small part of the game - Sure, it'll be there, but I want the game to focus on the "Role Playing" part of Role Playing Game. I'm currently working on ways of making crafting, scavenging and healing as interesting and rewarding as hitting things to encourage different types of gameplay.

Automated Combat - Inkeeping with the idea that I want this to be an RPG more than a fighting game, I want combat to be more or less automated - you control who your character targets and where they move, but the character uses attacks/moves you have learnt that are best for the situation - if you're behind someone and choose to subdue, they'll automatically pistol whip the back of the head, as an example.

Free to play. With ads. - This game is set in the near-future after an alien invasion. As such, I want billboards, automated radio stations and even possibly TVs to have looped adverts. I also want "branded" products, like, say, movie T-Shirts or brand-name chainsaws. The upside of this is that I hope for advertising revenue to make it free to play.

Generalist equipment - Rather than micromanaging your equipment, I want everyone who picks up a handgun to know that all handguns are effectively the same before being modded. While I know this isn't massively true to life, it'll save a lot of balancing issues that many games get and mean that someone who wants to wear Light armour could wear biker leathers, hockey gear or thick furs and not have to worry that they won't have the best stats for that category.

Guild Towns - This has been done before, and I understand Anarchy Online did it well (I couldn't get to level 200 to find out...), but I figure it works here, too. The idea is that you can only make them at "nodes" in the neutral areas which are based on prime locations to mine - 12 neutral areas in the starting game, 10 "nodes" per area, 120 guilds per server can have a guild base. As the town increases in size, the guild can recruit NPC guards and traders. When all of them are filled, you're going to have to attack one to get it for yourself... (Yeah... This is a pretty PvP game if players can't work out diplomacy)

No classes, no levels - I hate them I hate them I hate them! You train up skills as you use them, with various achievements and goals unlocking the cooler traits, which in turn unlocks the better moves, recipies and scavenging methods. All players have access to all the skills, but you can't get all of the moves, recipies and scavenging methods.

"Favour Based" trade - Instead of getting cash, you get "Favours" for doing favours for different factions/guilds. You can trade in your "Favours" for equipment, ammo, whatever, getting more stuff the more that particular faction likes you. I want trading to resemble more of a Civilization diplomacy interface than a dry list of stuff, meaning you can barter, flatter or try to extort more stuff out of traders. Also, non-tradable currency means gold sellers are fucked, which can only be a plus.

Cross-system compatability - Square Enix are trying this with the new Final Fantasy MMORPG. If they get the legislation in place, it will set a precedent for PC, 360 and PS3 gamers playing together. If it works, I'm gonna try pushing for it too - aint no reason we can't all get along!

Anyway, I'd love thoughts/opinions/statements that what I'm thinking has been tried and is shite. Cheers

tl;dr? Don't post, then!

EDIT -
First-Person gameplay - Almost all MMORPGs can be played First Person. None of them do it well. My thought is to have the game literally through the eyes of the player - left thumbstick/WASD controls character movement, right thumbstick/mouse controls what you look at. Look down and you'll see your body. Kinda like a cross between Mirror's Edge and The Conduit. REJECTED IN FAVOUR OF THIRD PERSON.

 

[Shampoo Ninja]

I... I love you.

Exactly the kinds of things I want in MMOs.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

"First-Person gameplay"

This would suck. It's very hard to combat in first person whilst you're fighting another player.

"Combat as a small part of the game"

The combat should always play a major role in any Role-Playing game. Whilst the Role-Playing should be a somewhat major part of the game, so should the combat.

"Automated Combat"
Heck no. I actually want to "feel" the combat, not just control the movement. Actually controlling your characters combat, movement and abilities leaves room for improvisation. It gives the PvP aspect depth, which it needs. PvP would be just plain stupid if you can't use your abilities. A fight would last forever since each character would just plain use the best abilities in order to survive and continue fighting.

"No classes, no levels "
Yeah, you specialize in something then based on your professions/experience etc you improve that specialization.

"Favour Based" trade"
Why not. Player - Player trade could be done by the more primitive "I give you item X, you give me item B".

"Cross-system compatability"
This would work if all your ideas were in place, but if all your ideas were in a place a pretty bad MMO would arise.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

I would have thought that wanting to get rid of classes would go against emphasising playing roles. That's unless you are designing skills so that players would have to specialise to be effective then you are just using a class system with another name.

Automated combat sounds like a snooze. Maybe you can automate everything so I don't have to be there. I can just check up at the end to make sure that my character rocks.

 

[Maxman3002]

With FPS view point but combat being a minor part isnt that going to be a bit pointless? FPS view is quite unnessasay unless the game is based on combat (Please dont make the game based on combat, there is a severe lack of social games around where you focus more on town n guild building and mission completing)

Other than that your ideas sound awsome, try to keep it open with varied paths. To many games just alow combat options and then maybe 2 or 3 crafting options and almost no society building side

What MMOs have you seen concepts from that youd want in it? What one is it most like? I know you want a unique game but its impossible to have a completly unique one, youve gotta take concepts from a few games and improve on them, even if you dont realise you have

 

[Chipperz]

I... I love you.

Thank you. May happy karma follow you to the end of your days.

"First-Person gameplay"

This would suck. It's very hard to combat in first person whilst you're fighting another player.

It's more of an immersion thing. So far, throughout development the game has been through Third Person, First Person and even (for a few horrifying minutes before I realised how shit it would be) side scolling and text based. It's also due to it being an RPG - you target the enemy and it (partially) locks. You don't need to keep following it around manually, which leads us on to...

"Combat as a small part of the game"

The combat should always play a major role in any Role-Playing game. Whilst the Role-Playing should be a somewhat major part of the game, so should the combat.

"Automated Combat"
Heck no. I actually want to "feel" the combat, not just control the movement. Actually controlling your characters combat, movement and abilities leaves room for improvisation. It gives the PvP aspect depth, which it needs. PvP would be just plain stupid if you can't use your abilities. A fight would last forever since each character would just plain use the best abilities in order to survive and continue fighting.

I'm going to tackle these two together (looking back, they should have been). The whole idea of combat is that, in any MMORPG, there is always a few "best" ways to fight with set rotations. Eventually, it may as well be automated because players do it anyway. I'm actually holding out to see how well Borderlands does it's combat. It seems to have a number of passive, random chance abilities in place of set attacks that you choose to do. Would this, with a number of set actions that you can perform sound better? Say... Attack, Charge, Take Cover and Block?

Also, having attacks randomly selected leaves more room for tactical maneuvering, taking cover and still being effective in combat - there are many, many people who can't handle all of them.

"No classes, no levels "
Yeah, you specialize in something then based on your professions/experience etc you improve that specialization.

I would have thought that wanting to get rid of classes would go against emphasising playing roles. That's unless you are designing skills so that players would have to specialise to be effective then you are just using a class system with another name.

See, that's exactly it - you CAN specialise, or you can generalise and be better at general survival, but not as much of a combat powerhouse/crafting genius/master healer - if a guild recruits nothing but specialists, it'll be screwed if they leave/are taken out.

"Favour Based" trade"
Why not. Player - Player trade could be done by the more primitive "I give you item X, you give me item B".

That's pretty much my thinking, yeah.

"Cross-system compatability"
This would work if all your ideas were in place, but if all your ideas were in a place a pretty bad MMO would arise.

Hey, that's why I'm asking now

I would have thought that wanting to get rid of classes would go against emphasising playing roles. That's unless you are designing skills so that players would have to specialise to be effective then you are just using a class system with another name.

Automated combat sounds like a snooze. Maybe you can automate everything so I don't have to be there. I can just check up at the end to make sure that my character rocks.

It's more that I want to put an emphasis on movement than selecting the right attack. You CAN just stand there and trust the autoattack, but if the other person's still holding the controller, they can simply walk behind you and shove a sword/shotgun up your arse. I may make that a special move.

With FPS view point but combat being a minor part isnt that going to be a bit pointless? FPS view is quite unnessasay unless the game is based on combat (Please dont make the game based on combat, their is a severe lack of social games around where you focus more on town n guild building and mission completing)

Other than that your ideas sound awsome, try to keep it open with varied paths. To many games just alow combat options and then maybe 2 or 3 crafting options and almost no society building side

As I said above, the First Person viewpoint is more to do with immersion than gameplay - I want to make it that you're looking through the eyes of your character. It doesn't seem to be immensly popular, so I may just put it on the back burner. Shame. The big part about building a society is linked to the guild towns, with the higher-ups in a guild playing more of a management sim, allocating jobs to NPCs, ensuring that resources are maintained and posting quests. Medium-rank players can be allocated certain NPCs to manage more closely, and Lower-rank players would be the ones who spend most of their time foraging and killing stuff. Yes, this means that groups of friends who make guilds will be FAR more successful than a group of complete strangers

Also, I'm just going to put up my ideas on how the combat would work as both first person and automated, to see if it makes more sense/is more appropriate;

All combatants (all players and NPCs) in the game have four facings, each a 90 degree slice - a front, two sides and a rear. The Front extends 45 degrees from the way they are facing, and literally represents what the combatant sees. Being attacked from the front gives a higher chance to block/dodge, while being attacked from the rear gives no defence at all. A player can autotarget anyone in the front arc, and will continue to track them as they move to the side arcs (but any attacks will have massive accuracy penalties). If an enemy gets into a target's rear arc, they stop tracking them. Depending on where they stand, an attacker gets different attacks - fighting from the front gives a chance to feint or chop, the side gives a swing or hamstring and back gives backstab (as examples). The player selects when to attack, and how powerful they want it, so hammering attack will result in a series of fast, light swings while holding it will result in a more powerful, but slower, lunge. Based on location and strength of attack, a player has a chance of doing a random special attack if they have learnt it (like those mentioned above, except backstab - everyone knows it and it's 100% chance).

Of course, shooting doesn't get any of this. That's more about taking cover and hitting attack when the enemy looks up.

 

[Da_Schwartz]

Deadlands... Again...if you know then you know.

 

[Maxman3002]

So the level system and guild system is seeming a lot like the origional Star Wars Galaxies. Thats good because I loved that game before they trashed it. If you need ideas for community in a game take a quick look at 'A tail in the Desert'. Thats a massive niche game with a tiny devoted fan base but its ideas for community gaming are unique and unseen elsewhere. The combat sounds interesting but how well would it work in practice? Isnt that going to cause a lot of Dicks to play distract and backstab on Noobs?

 

[Veacane]

This game sounds like it promotes a socialist agenda to me.

 

[Heart of Darkness]

I like everything...but the first person gameplay. If you can make it work, go for it. I also don't like the concept of automated combat: Runescape had it and, frankly, it sucked (the quality of Runescape is another matter entirely).

But you have some good ideas for the mechanics. It's a shame you live in England, though. I'm gonna start my game design training in a few years.

 

[Chipperz]

Deadlands... Again...if you know then you know.

I only know of the P&P RPG. Was there a game, too?

So the level system and guild system is seeming a lot like the origional Star Wars Galaxies. Thats good because I loved that game before they trashed it. If you need ideas for community in a game take a quick look at 'A tail in the Desert'. Thats a massive niche game with a tiny devoted fan base but its ideas for community gaming are unique and unseen elsewhere. The combat sounds interesting but how well would it work in practice? Isnt that going to cause a lot of Dicks to play distract and backstab on Noobs?

I've never played Star Wars Galaxies, but I'd be lying if I said that I wasn't basing some of my bigger ideas on what people have reminisced to me about, and let's face it, it's good to learn from your own mistakes, and it's stupid not to learn from other people's I'll look into 'A tai in the desert', thanks for the tip

As for the dicks backstabbing new players, well, I'd be lying or have Peter Molyneux levels of delusion if I said I thought the system was perfect. My current thoughts are something along the lines of a bounty system - the more a person kills the little people, the more stuff more powerful players would get if they start ganking the gankers. While it will never remove it completely, I'd hope that it would make people think twice before doing it.

I like everything...but the first person gameplay. If you can make it work, go for it. I also don't like the concept of automated combat: Runescape had it and, frankly, it sucked (the quality of Runescape is another matter entirely).

But you have some good ideas for the mechanics. It's a shame you live in England, though. I'm gonna start my game design training in a few years.

Yeah, it's looking like the first person gameplay will have to go - not one person seems to like it. I'm hoping to avoid the pitfalls not only of Runescape's combat but Runescape in general - superficially, the games are depressingly similar.

Also, if I'm still on here and you need any help when you start your course, drop me a message and I'll be glad to help Hopefully I'll be fully in the business by then! (let's face it, I've probably done more market research with this than Activision does for a title )

This game sounds like it promotes a socialist agenda to me.

Don't worry. If you don't pay the doctors they'll let you die.

Does that qualify for an "Oh Snap"?

 

[Heart of Darkness]

I like everything...but the first person gameplay. If you can make it work, go for it. I also don't like the concept of automated combat: Runescape had it and, frankly, it sucked (the quality of Runescape is another matter entirely).

But you have some good ideas for the mechanics. It's a shame you live in England, though. I'm gonna start my game design training in a few years.

Yeah, it's looking like the first person gameplay will have to go - not one person seems to like it. I'm hoping to avoid the pitfalls not only of Runescape's combat but Runescape in general - superficially, the games are depressingly similar.

Also, if I'm still on here and you need any help when you start your course, drop me a message and I'll be glad to help Hopefully I'll be fully in the business by then! (let's face it, I've probably done more market research with this than Activision does for a title )

Thanks. I'll keep that in mind, but it might be a few years. I just started college this year, and I know Jack Schitt about anything. And I'm not gonna start my major specific courses until next semester anyway.

 

[renner-08]

ive always thought for the longest time that a game like this should be done in the New World-esque timeline, about how an explorer arrives in the americas with nothing but the equipment he brings (musket, powder, food, etc.), and that he should explore this new area of natives and wild creatures, coming upon forts and colonies and exploring the wild. if this comes to be,then i will be greatly impressed with you, my good sir

 

[Chipperz]

ive always thought for the longest time that a game like this should be done in the New World-esque timeline, about how an explorer arrives in the americas with nothing but the equipment he brings (musket, powder, food, etc.), and that he should explore this new area of natives and wild creatures, coming upon forts and colonies and exploring the wild. if this comes to be,then i will be greatly impressed with you, my good sir

If by "New World" you mean "Tortured, Atomic Wasteland that used to be northern Europe" and by "natives" you mean "mutants" and by "wild creatures" you mean "radioactive monsters", then I think you'll be greatly impressed I didn't want to set it in North America because then it'd be exactly the same as Fallen Earth and the Fallout MMO (if either EVER come out).

I'm considering having one of the later expansions be (effectively) what you suggested, though - completely reset America with twisted, bombed out cities and native Americans as tribes of mutants and small enclaves of Norms trying to survive, and having the Europeans (once again) turning up and "installing civilization" by killing off the indigenous population.

 

[Space Spoons]

The first Kingdom Hearts game refashioned into an MMORPG. That's what I'd want. For me, the biggest problem with modern RPGs is that no matter what class/race/faction you choose, it always boils down to figuring out your "pattern", and then repeating it ad naseum.

I'll admit, it's roughly the same way in Kingdom Hearts, but at least active combat is fun.

 

[SquirrelPants]

That sounds pretty damn awesome. Any chance I could get my hands on the alpha?

Seriously, though, everything you said sounds pretty cool. Would the skills and stuff be more like EVE, though? As in, you have a skill set, but no class, and you can queue skills to level up, letting you use more advanced equipment and do different things? Or would everything be open to you right from the start? I'd prefer the former, but the latter would be nice too.

 

[Kazekou]

Automated combat

Final Fantasy 12 had a good stab at automated combat. It was lacking though and the whole random attacks thing may be a good addition to the style.

Combat as a small part of game

sounds great. Combat has only prevailed because it's made the most. When games have a go(i.e. Mirrors edge & Portal) it does seem to work. Just a little imagination is needed.

I mean, think of a spying role where the main aim is to gather information undetected. Combat based on evasion and not domination

 

[Chipperz]

The first Kingdom Hearts game refashioned into an MMORPG. That's what I'd want. For me, the biggest problem with modern RPGs is that no matter what class/race/faction you choose, it always boils down to figuring out your "pattern", and then repeating it ad naseum.

I'll admit, it's roughly the same way in Kingdom Hearts, but at least active combat is fun.

Is that the one with the lighthouses? Something to do with towers of the elements or something?

That sounds pretty damn awesome. Any chance I could get my hands on the alpha?

Seriously, though, everything you said sounds pretty cool. Would the skills and stuff be more like EVE, though? As in, you have a skill set, but no class, and you can queue skills to level up, letting you use more advanced equipment and do different things? Or would everything be open to you right from the start? I'd prefer the former, but the latter would be nice too.

If it gets made, I MAY recruit from people that have already asked. A lot of my former MMO guildmates have first dibs, though

Basically, the way I'm working at the moment is that everyone has access to basic skills. As you use them, they unlock progressively more specialist skills (Ranged weapons unlocks Pistols, Rifles, Shotguns and Archaic Ranged at a certain rank, and then, saay... Rifle unlocks Assault Rifle and Sniper Rifle at a higher rank). You don't que them up, you just level them by doing them - keep shooting at things with an Uzi and you'll gradually rank up in Ranged Weapons, then Pistols, then Automatic Pistols, which in turn will get you more moves and allow you better specialisation in it.

Automated combat

Final Fantasy 12 had a good stab at automated combat. It was lacking though and the whole random attacks thing may be a good addition to the style.

Combat as a small part of game

sounds great. Combat has only prevailed because it's made the most. When games have a go(i.e. Mirrors edge & Portal) it does seem to work. Just a little imagination is needed.

I mean, think of a spying role where the main aim is to gather information undetected. Combat based on evasion and not domination

Final Fantasy 12 is another game that I've looked at. A lot of the ideas are sound, especially the ideas of deciding tactics before you enter combat. I've also taken a lot of inspiration from this beauty [http://www.estiah.com/].

Also, on the sneaking front, there are skills (and specialities) for stealth and detection. I love the idea of sneaking into an rival guild's base, sabotaging a bunch of stuff and then trying to sneak out while the guards are trying to find you. It'd be a great change of pace from PvP involving two guilds just hacking at each other with swords.

Also, thanks for taking the time to make an account to post - it's appreciated

 

[Lord George]

Most of it sounds good but the first person view seems a bit gimmicky and has the feel of something that would be fun until the novelty wore off and you realised that everything would be much better in third person.

 

[Chipperz]

Most of it sounds good but the first person view seems a bit gimmicky and has the feel of something that would be fun until the novelty wore off and you realised that everything would be much better in third person.

Cool, yeah - I'm gonna change it back to Third Person. The people who think it's a good idea are in the massive minority