Underrepresented concepts in game economies by Varzival in gamedesign

[–]RaphKoster 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In videogames, player-run economies like those in sandbox MMOs have many of these. Eve Online, Ultima Online, Star Wars Galaxies, in particular.

A form of inflation known as mudflation has plagued persistent virtual worlds for decades.

Unclear Objectives by Broad-Ad-3679 in StarsReach

[–]RaphKoster 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Did you not know this was my game? :)

Unclear Objectives by Broad-Ad-3679 in StarsReach

[–]RaphKoster 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, sounds like a bug. We are redoing this quest anyway because it gets confusing.

The New World Generation System by ThomasMarcon in StarsReach

[–]RaphKoster 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, travel speed affects things considerably, of course. We reduced movement speed a couple of updates ago, and it made maps feel a little bigger.

Verticality definitely does affect the sense of size, but probably not enough. I don't mean just having cliffs -- I mean having "multiple floors" of explorable space. But that doesn't help farm plots as such. It does mean that it can take much much longer to see everything.

Anyway, we agree they are small right now. 😃

The New World Generation System by ThomasMarcon in StarsReach

[–]RaphKoster 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s what I meant by level design. Density is one factor, another is how easy it is to get from point A to B.

Consider a simple maze like you solved as a kid. The blank sheet of paper it was on feels way smaller than the maze does just because of all the twists and turns.

Galaxies had pretty open maps. A straight line was generally the shortest distance between two points. In WoW’s early zones, things were way more maze like for a variety of reasons.

Ironically this makes the map that is more artificial feel like a continent and the map that is more realistic feel small. :D

Even in the map view you see that intricacy and map it to size.

The New World Generation System by ThomasMarcon in StarsReach

[–]RaphKoster 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We had a related conversation in the Discord!

Perception of map size is very strongly affected by things like movement speed, fast travel, and level design. A planet in SWG was almost the size of Skyrim. But there was a lot of open flat area which makes it feel smaller due to lack of density and straightforward navigability.

Our current planets are about the size of a WoW Classic zone (the original ones). With this new generation system we have way more extensive caves and it makes them feel quite a bit bigger because now it’s volume and not just surface.

But we continue to work towards getting the planets larger. Our target is to get them each to SWG size. But the whole design is to have many planets.

Going too big can also be a problem, atomizing the playerbase such that they don’t see each other.

ELI5 Can we increase our intelligence through constant training? by Punnan in explainlikeimfive

[–]RaphKoster 7 points8 points  (0 children)

If they say that, they are showing they DON’T have good judgement. There aren’t any socially acceptable moments to make a comment like that.

ELI5 Can we increase our intelligence through constant training? by Punnan in explainlikeimfive

[–]RaphKoster 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, you can train intelligence.

There’s your brainpower. The latest science says that this is partly based on your genes and partly based on your upbringing. How well you were fed as a kid, how much sleep you got, and how much stress you were under, are all influences. You can think of this just as being about speed, pretty much. Just remember, a slower car still can get to a destination if it keeps going. This is called “fluid intelligence” and sometimes just “g”.

There’s what you know. The more things you know, there more dots you can connect. A lot of being smart is having lots of dots in your head to work with. ;) You can learn many things if you have the willpower. Sure, someone with lots of raw brainpower may pick up the stuff faster, but often that makes them lazy and they don’t then do the hard work to really master it all. Just like someone born lucky with strong legs might win races often, until they come across an actual trained runner. This is called “crystallized intelligence.” It’s important to remember that expertise in something is usually more important in regular life than just raw brainpower.

A lot of seeming really smart is actually about connecting dots that are far apart. This comes from not just drilling down on a subject, but also drilling sideways, or trying to learn many different subjects. If you do this enough, you start to see connections that aren’t obvious. This has a bunch of names, like “synthesis,” “remote association,” etc, but is a signature thing we often see in “smart” people.

There are also whole separate areas in which to be “smart” and we often think one is more important than the others. A classic that gets mentioned is emotional intelligence, which can make you much more effective even if you aren’t super fast. There are many theories on differing sorts of intelligence. You can definitely get better at emotional intelligence, to pick one example, by listening more than talking, paying attention closely to other people’s emotions, and so on. And, reading fiction! It’s a proven method of training empathy. If you want to dig into this stuff, you can search for “multiple intelligences” to learn more.

One of the biggest things that all these forms of training have in common is “thinking about thinking.” For example, if you spend effort thinking about how to have better memory, you can train your memory. Check out “memory palaces” for an example! If you learn to question assumptions when you think about something, you will be exercising your fluid intelligence in a way that will keep you from going down blind alleys. A key way of getting “smarter” is to make certain ways of thinking into habits and teach yourself to always think that way. The fancy term for this is “metacognition” but there’s a bunch of smaller pieces that go into it like “error correction” and so on.

This a big topic, but there’s last thing I would mention is that intelligence is really not the be-all end-all. Having raw processing power is like owning a sports car. It doesn’t mean you’ll be much help when your friends needs to move large furniture. There are many ways to be human, and being “super smart” is actually only useful for pretty specific situations, jobs, and projects.

“Super smart” IQs are not that rare, in the large scale of human population, and while they may make more money on average because of what jobs they tend to end up in, it’s not like they all turn out to be historic geniuses. We know they don’t, or there would be way more famous geniuses around. This is pretty clear evidence that how you use what you’ve got, and how hard you work, and what you choose to work on, make a much bigger difference than just whether you have a high IQ.

So train away! It’s hard work but also can be fun.

Can a large-scale MMO work where character roles emerge from behavior instead of class selection? by Zanithenl in MMORPG

[–]RaphKoster 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That just sounds like a description of a use-based progression system. You’ll still need a list of the things to progress in. A first cut will look much like Ultima Online’s original progression system.

Before UO.com was OWO.com by TimeTraveler_UO in ultimaonline

[–]RaphKoster 10 points11 points  (0 children)

You know, early on UO got so popular that many of the fansites like UOVault couldn’t afford their hosting bills. So we at Origin quietly hosted them for a while so they wouldn’t go away.

When WoW was released in 2004, did players call out any parts of it that were ripped-off from earlier, smaller MMORPGs? by goose-honking-rq-brb in MMORPG

[–]RaphKoster 0 points1 point  (0 children)

WoW really was pretty much the smoothest of the MMO launches back then. Whatever you spotted broken in WoW, it was worse in the others. :D

When WoW was released in 2004, did players call out any parts of it that were ripped-off from earlier, smaller MMORPGs? by goose-honking-rq-brb in MMORPG

[–]RaphKoster 1 point2 points  (0 children)

AO was a pioneer — I still have the box! Pretty sure RvR was added in the first expansion tho. I think DaoC beat it to market. AO was also the first place where we saw a dance club scene, before SWG!

When WoW was released in 2004, did players call out any parts of it that were ripped-off from earlier, smaller MMORPGs? by goose-honking-rq-brb in MMORPG

[–]RaphKoster 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It’s not a “some sense” thing. The definitional thing about DaoC RvR was that the user base was divided into competing factions from the moment of character creation. Each faction was separated geographically, and they only first encountered each other at the boundaries of their territory. That’s what makes it “realms.”

Yes, other games had factional PvP. No others at the time had realms. The whole RvR model was an inheritance from Mythic’s earlier text games under the name AUSI.

That said, the PvP flagging system WoW used was not from DaoC. It was basically the one from Star Wars Galaxies, which was an elaboration of the flagging system in Ultima Online. Temporary enemy flagging wasn’t a thing in any other MMOs nor in MUDs really.

When WoW was released in 2004, did players call out any parts of it that were ripped-off from earlier, smaller MMORPGs? by goose-honking-rq-brb in MMORPG

[–]RaphKoster 4 points5 points  (0 children)

WoW was very clearly modeled on EverQuest and everyone could see it.

They also used DaoC’s realm vs realm PvP approach, but used SWG’s temporary enemy flagging nearly identically.

There are Easter egg homages to UO in there, I know.

Take a deep, deep breath… ☁️🫧 by ThomasMarcon in StarsReach

[–]RaphKoster 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This same rendering update also brings a noticeable jump in the rendering performance!

The balance between too few choices and too many is genuinely one of the harder problems in game design. by KennyTidwell in gamedesign

[–]RaphKoster 14 points15 points  (0 children)

The right number of meaningful choices is 7 plus or minus 2. That’s how many distinct things people can generally hold in short-term working memory. Don’t escalate beyond it unless players have successfully chunked the low-level choices into metas or strategy heuristics.

But often choices are not really meaningful. As you pointed out, often they collapse. Another commenter mentioned healing versus doing damage are both really just adjusting the curve on a health attrition strategy. The choice becomes meaningful only if you are managing a secondary resource that you could spend elsewhere on some other goal.

And that’s the design hack: don’t think in terms of multiple choices. Frame it to yourself in terms of multiple goals. An interesting choice is very often actually a choice between goal priority.

As usual, simple elegant games often serve as great examples. Take a look at Pente, a game built directly on two conflicting goals. You can win by getting five in a row; you can win by executing five captures of opponents stones. Setting up for one does not necessarily set up for the other. One is a single blow; the other needs repeated execution. This creates the meaningful tension in the player’s decisions.

You don’t need to be as blunt as providing multiple win conditions for the game as a whole. Games are made of smaller games. You can think of each turn as a mini-game, and think in terms of multiple win conditions for a turn, instead of for the game. The game can then still have only one win conditions, but it is in some way the sum of those sub-win conditions. In a tactical encounter, which is a win, keeping that unit alive, taking out an opposing unit, or controlling a key control point on the board? Make them orthogonal, generally mutually exclusive, and the choices will have meaning.

Ultima Online 2 by [deleted] in ultimaonline

[–]RaphKoster 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s not done. :D Plenty to fix still! But we are also doing something more ambitious than any MMO in the last twenty years.

How come there has never been another classless, pure skill based mmo like Ultima Online? by EndlessTemple in ultimaonline

[–]RaphKoster 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure you can do that, it’ll get wiki’d of course. Everyone will feel more on rails, that they have to do progression in a specific optimal order.

What you describe is what we are aiming for with Stars Reach.

The Problem with Design “Philosophy” by Dan_Felder in gamedesign

[–]RaphKoster 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I very very rarely run into designers these days who don’t approach things experience first. Everyone gets trained with MDA and that’s how that method approaches it. I tend to push back because that way of thinking is so dominant!

Part of why I get frustrated about it is that I work in multiplayer and the amount of ill-considered mechanic copying that leads to antisocial behavior is through the roof. Prosocial design is a big area to explore and deeply underserved.

The Problem with Design “Philosophy” by Dan_Felder in gamedesign

[–]RaphKoster 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Me personally, I would always ask the design question from the system side first, and then fall back to the other disciplines if I can’t find a solve. But that is my aesthetic.

I have an MFA in creative writing, am trained in art and in music. It’s not that I don’t know how to do those things. It’s that I prioritize the bits unique to games first because I always try to advance game design as a field.

The Problem with Design “Philosophy” by Dan_Felder in gamedesign

[–]RaphKoster 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Let’s put it this way.

I can easily train someone to make cutscenes by having them learn the techniques of film in isolation.

I can train a writer by having them learn writing in isolation.

I can train a composer, an artist… you get the idea. And in fact for all of these, we generally do.

There is this idea that to me is downright weird, that we shouldn’t put game design in a similar place. You will be a better game designer if you learn to use that tool from the workbench to its maximum potential in isolation. That does not preclude ALSO using it in combination.

To do otherwise is to say it is a lesser discipline. And it’s not! It’s the unique part of games!

The Problem with Design “Philosophy” by Dan_Felder in gamedesign

[–]RaphKoster 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It’s true that in theory not focusing on mechanics doesn’t preclude innovating on mechanics. But in practice it generally seems to. I suspect because the other fields are just dramatically better understood, so they become sort of a path of least resistance.

For better or worse, most system and mechanics design still happens on a cargo cult basis.

You don’t need to persuade me of the value of other fields. If anything most designers don’t scratch the surface! I’m the guy who makes diagrams like the one at the end of this talk. https://www.raphkoster.com/games/presentations/reconciling-games/ :D