A new blog discussing mmorpg design is for me an occasion for a challenge. In particular when it is so praised by the elite mentors. I have to find my own point of view and I have to find something where I disagree so that I can still feeling like what I say could still matter something. You know, affirming identity :) In particular when we get someone that writes so much better and clearly and that delves a lot more in what is being discussed. She is just more competent, precise, analytic and going straight to the point of what actually matters without struggling with the words or raving with the thoughts through an undefined path noone can actually discern (and she even uses WordPress better than everyone else).

So I was going to read through her website to find some sort of weak point that I could criticize or at least affirm a different point of view. But then she completely won me with this recent post:

Currently games – and this is closely related to the static nature of present mmogs – have little to no added mechanisms for large-scale, long-term combat, and by “mechanisms�? I mean functions and interface aspects that are designed specifically for that type of combat. There are siege engines, which do imply some extended duration, there are added chat features for large groups, and there are often special abilities for large-scale group versus group play. However, when I say I would take this way further, what I mean is adding several more tiers to the combat systems at the “large-scale�? end of the spectrum.

This means war!

Specifically, and for this to be meaningful the game at its heart would have to support this far beyond minor bonuses to one or another winning side – I think it would be interesting to see what could be added in terms of strategic long-term planning in wars that are designed to last, literally, weeks. The eternally-ongoing warfare of current games is fine, but I would far prefer to see that relegated to a minor aspect in a dynamic game, because for “real�? war to have any effect it should be dramatic and at least to some extent destructive, which means that any constantly-available skirmish combat would have to have minimal effects.

You see, that game is the game of my dreams. But then the truth is that she already won me before, when I read her personal intentions. She writes something I definitely share and I felt like reading myself. Just better written and explained. Well, beside the point she is not interested about working in the industry, because I’d love to do it (or at least it’s what I like to think). So I’d break that point and say that I’d also really like to see her working on something concrete and move all those discussions to the specifics of a precise game. About the same way I’d like to see Dave Rickey working for an high-profile company and game (or not having left Mythic). When I start to appreciate how someone thinks and tackles the problems, I’d like to see them contributing concretely and push forward those ideas and principles that we discussed for so long. Just maybe to have the illusion of not wasting all these words on redundant discussions that don’t really go anywhere.

The other point that I noticed and that it’s different from the way I write is that, in general, I don’t deduce what I think. I assume already a point. I know it is correct. But then, if I want to communicate it, I need to explain it and I need to find justifications that make sense and are logic. So firstly I have the idea, then I have to research the reasons about why it is correct so that I may suceed to convince others about its validity. I need to bring on proofs, research the problem and analyze it. AFTER I already arrived at a point and often trying to reverse-engineering the path my mind followed on its own. I cannot track my mind. I struggle a lot doing it, it’s definitely something I do poorly and the result is that I may have good ideas but I express them poorly and often have to quote someone else so that I can say: “That’s what I mean”. This, instead, doesn’t happen to her. Her points come out logically and naturally, she makes sense and provides lot of insights about what she’s writing.

Now I wonder, can a blogger just please everyone? It must be a first.

P.S.
There would be a lot to discuss about the positional combat system she suggested. To begin with I see two big problems in it that are also shared by all those games that already offer some sort of positional styles. The first is that this type of combat cannot really work till we don’t have a decent physics in the game (so that the movement in the space can be meaningful and make sense). An obvious example is WoW where the most common PvP strategy is about running *through* the opponent to make him lose the LOS and disorient him, which is an absolutely lame tactics. The other problem is about the large fights, assuming that the warfare idea comes along the positional combat in the same game. It’s not really viable have a complex positional (and visually reactive) combat when it’s even hard to discern the human shapes in the mass of polygons. It may work for duels but it wouldn’t easily fit group battles or something even larger.

Her ideas resemble on some aspects to the combat system I planned a while ago. But today I would completely reconsider it and drag it somewhere else. In particular in the light of what I write here.

My idea now would be about incorporating arcade (but realistic) elements with the “roleplay” layer. To begin with, get rid of the quickbars. Something that really went out of control in WoW and that Babylona also underlined. The combat system I have in mind should be completely manageable through a joypad. That’s the first goal. Then offer to each character/type/class specific attacks. With different animations and effects depending on the weapon and even the targets (through reactional feedback, think for example about sinking your sword in a fat monster and have to fight to pull it back out).

The model I have on my mind is “God of War”, just translated to a mmorpg, with the statistics still there but not prevalent as we know them. Each attack shouldn’t be just the same swing with a more or less unique animation and functional effects like a DOT, a root, a powerful attack, a taunt and so on. Instead we would directly regulate how the weapon can be used from a realistic point of view and offer a direct type of feedback that doesn’t need to be simulated and faked through numbers and statistics. In “God of War” I was surprised by the insane amount of different moves the character has available and how different was their use in the specific situations.

The resulting action may be considered more “arcade” but it definitely *isn’t* less tactical. On the contrary. The feedback is direct, you need to learn from the situation, figure out the encounter and apply a different strategy till you finally manage to “win” the part. And this without the need to parse complex statistics, quickbars and other “roleplay” elements. The game doesn’t even need an UI. It is directly usable and deducible from what you see without the need of external knowledge.

Give each weapon 4-5 types of attacks at maximum, give them unique animations and concrete, physical effects on the target. Then chain the attacks in a combo system that can take advantage of reactive styles and specific events. Noone should need to learn complex interfaces but just understand the combat system through the direct use. Not anymore parsing the numbers to study the best pattern to follow in the hotkey party, leave that type of planning to the managment of the character *outside* the fight and just make the actual fight depend on action elements that can be directly figured out.

This type of combat not only would attract DROVES of players thanks for its absolute accessibility and fun (want mass market? this is a way). Not only it would reproduce a type of realistic combat where what happens makes sense in the flow of the action and truly resembles to a swordfight instead of the faked action resulting from the combat in WoW and other games. But it would also work flawlessly in a duel as in a larger battle between armies.

(and my english is particularly broken today)

P.P.S.
If “God of War” isn’t a good example to imagine what I mean, think to one of the latest Zelda. Btw, today I go back to give a look at Babylona post and find out that “Age of Conan” will follow a similar idea (combat possible through a gamepad). Well, at least I still could claim the idea within a Virtual World and bigger battles. Which “Age of Conan” definitely won’t deliver.