Surviving the Future

As I said, I visit MMORPG message boards for not only present, but future games as well and it is these future games that worry me. No, it's not Dungeons and Dragons Online but Lord of the Rings Online and Vanguard: Saga of Heroes. What these games are proposing not only in purpose, but player interaction and it has to be seen as a serious threat to anyone playing EverQuest II at this time.

This article, however, is not going to be about exclaiming that the sky is falling or anything of the like, because it's not, plain and simple. This article will be about exploring possible methods of further end game solutions that will give the players an added reason to log on and really get involved in the world. After all, as we all should know, if the community isn't compelling and you aren't fond of raids, then this is a serious issue.

I'll start with player versus player first, since it seems to be a hot topic these days. Even though I am very much against any additional player versus player elements being introduced into EverQuest II I recognize that it may be inevitable and it could provide a very strong purpose, or reason to log on.

We need to make an assumption first and foremost: the possible upcoming player versus player system may very well be "open." What I mean by open is quite simple: the ability to kill anyone, anytime, in player versus player enabled areas, be it zones or entire servers. While this definition is very broad it can give us ideas of making it meaningful, to say the least.

One way we can make it really meaningful and purposeful, is to emphasize a possible war between Qeynos and Freeport and possibly set up a "territory acquisition system." Quite simply, if Qeynos, for instance, is successful in zone A (so a territory) then Qeynos will control said territory, which could have a variety of perks. This could be further expanded on servers dedicated to player versus player so that all zones fall under this category. Simply the threat of one side over the other controlling territory close to the heart of ones home city could be purposeful enough to encourage players to log on. Heck, it works wonders in World of Warcraft.

We could find other facets in player versus player which includes a ranking system. Namely, the overall best player versus player combatant (or even those in the top 100 as well) could be recognized server wide and perhaps perks would be available to them. Yes, they are necessary time sinks but do provide something to aim at that directly requires competition with other players.

But player versus player isn't right for EverQuest II, as I have held before. As I have said in previous articles, EverQuest II is primarily a player versus environment game, most of the population plays it because of that. So a strong, player versus player end game is a relative waste of time, past what we have. So now let's look at other meaningful possibilities when we look for a purpose.

One of the things that comes to mind is the concept of "solo raids." I've tackled this topic before, with some controversy mind you, but it is something that could work very well in implementation. Quite simply these raids would be exact copies of the group raids we have today but solo versions of them. Very similar time sinks, require similar skills just everything minus the group.

The obvious refutation that comes from this is "why not just raid as most normally do, if there is little difference?" To that I would reply "there is a difference, and it is quite substantial." For when I say "similar time sinks" I'm referring to absolute time, that is, the total time that it takes to complete it. In solo raids I would propose that the raid be split up in chunks, in say 30 to 45 minute chunks, so that you don't have to complete everything at once. You see, there is quite a difference.

This is something that I would absolutely love to see, and being a casual gamer it really isn't too hard to figure out. Personally, I'm not a big fan of raids, nor are many casuals, due to simply the time comittment that is required. If these things were implemented then we would have some meaningful purpose to log on: we would be able to experience the epic adventurers that everything else does.

I understand as well that a lot of people won't like the "solo raids" idea but this is a process of simply throwing ideas around: we are trying to lock down a purpose to log on. With this particular idea, I brought it up because I feel if casuals could viably compete in raids without having to put down large amounts of time then it would settle for a viable reason to log on.

We have explored a purpose for those who enjoy player versus player content, as we have for the casual soloers. What about those who group, what possible purpose can we bring them? Don't they already have their reason to log on, raids? While the answer to this is obviously yes we can expand this further to an idea I brought up in the past that is slowly becoming a very popular design proposition: player impact on the world.

We have only seen this idea discussed in very small terms, mostly in respect to Sigil's upcoming title, Vanguard: Saga of Heroes. To be brief, the idea dictates that any action the player takes - quest, slaughtering spawns - there will be a viable, and visible impact on the global world around them. Whether this is increasing spawns of a particular opponent or causing monster raids on nearby towns: it's all the same. Why not then, take this to a higher level, to raids?

What I would like to see as a purpose for raids (which effects everyone as well) is that for a few raids (we're talking absolute numbers here) to trigger world events that everyone can get involved in. For example, if Guild A raided goblin lair B then Goblins would attempt to invade Nekutols Forest or something in response to it. Now this wouldn't be every single raid (only a few absolutely) but simply the chance of this occurring would give players more reasons not only to raid but to be on when raids do occur.

All of these are just speculative ideas and, contrary to what I feel should be done, the only one we may see is the one related to player versus player. With my approval or not we're going to see a new player versus player system. Even still, the other ideas are just that, ideas and ideas are what keeps games fresh, exciting and very creative.

As I closed an article last week with, we need something besides community and raiding to give us a reason to log on. Maybe Sony Online Entertainment plans to utilize player versus player as another reason, maybe not. Regardless, another reason is coming and in the meantime it's great speculative fun to explore some of these ideas.

«« Back to Main Editorial Page

Posted by Malignant at 2005-10-28 02:21:06

DDO Vaporware. Oh for a plat every time I heard XYZ game is going to revolutionize the MMO genre. Horizons ring a bell Shadowbane Must I go on

Posted by Let's try this again at 2005-12-20 23:54:40

Magi the problem is you cant tell SOE anything. They know it all. If you dare so much as speak to them about whats going on and how it should be changed they banlock and get rid of your ass. They want fanbois in there to do their rescuing. God forbid if they actually did some design work instead of playing rule enforcer they wouldnt have the problems they do. I give that game less then a year. Its doomed And I say that after having bought every box title from day 1 of EQ1 through DoF. But after that display of crap when you tell them where they went wrong and what needs to be reworked nah they arent getting another red cent except the 10 they automatically took off the price paid to sell it on their exchange server. At least thats gonna pay for LoTR