VRMMO Combat System

Scribbler

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 23, 2018
Messages
290
Points
103
876


Also the sword weapon focuses on raw physical attack.
The shield focuses on defense.
The dagger on stealth.
The bow on accuracy.
And the wand on magic attack and magic defense.

I want the sword to be the most direct damaging weapon, so as to differentiate it from all the rest. The bow can equal its damage but only if a player is accurate with it and knows the monster weak spots. And the wand can equal the sword and bow, but it specializes in area of effect damage instead of single target. The sword can also do area of effect damage, but not to the same extent/range as the wand.

At level one all players start out with 100 hp, 100 stamina, 100 mana. Gaining hp, stamina, or mana is done from equipping armor and accessories.
In order to use active skills all players must do a specific motion with their body or hands to activate it, in other words, all skills must be cast to some extent.
There is no traditional leveling; only leveling weapon and armor proficiencies.
You don't gain experience from killing monsters or completing quests; you gain experience from using weapons, armor, or accessories. And instead of getting experience from monsters or quests, you get materials or gold or equipment.
There are no classes, so they can't give skills; all skills are given by equipment, books, or NPCs.

I would like some thoughts on my system. Also general balancing tricks.

Here's the link to the story: https://www.scribblehub.com/series/24094/olympus-online/
 
Last edited:

Llamadragon

Active member
Joined
Jan 19, 2019
Messages
171
Points
43
Hey!
I don’t play MMO’s, but I know a little about game design. I’d advice you not to think too hard about that, because there aren’t any general balancing tricks - game theory is a field with a lot of mathematics behind it. Your system would be especially difficult to balance, because classes have several purposes. There’s the growing stronger in a narrow field.. but also the limitation of a character that allows the opponent to know approximately how to counter it. For example, Pikachu has the static ability and can leave the opponent paralyzed. The opponent will know to worry about that. But they know that Pikachui can not poison them, so they don’t worry about defending against poison. The core of gameplay is knowing what your opponent can and cannot do, so that you can plan. For builds where everything is possible and there are no class limitations.. well, that’s gonna be real hard to balance. Imagine a Pikachu that might have the ability to paralyze, or might have the ability to poison, or have the opponent fall asleep. Heck, that Pikachu might know earthquake or have a 1HKO move, you just don’t know. And then when you’ve finally figured out what this specific Pikachu can do, you still know that it can change its entire skill pool and become completely unpredictable again. How do you set up a strategy against something like that? It’s hard.

So my advice to you is to not think too hard about balancing it, if you want to use this system. You’d spend more time learning about game design than you would writing. Just accept that it won’t be a system actually usable for a real game, and focus on the plot.
 

Scribbler

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 23, 2018
Messages
290
Points
103
Hey!
I don’t play MMO’s, but I know a little about game design. I’d advice you not to think too hard about that, because there aren’t any general balancing tricks - game theory is a field with a lot of mathematics behind it. Your system would be especially difficult to balance, because classes have several purposes. There’s the growing stronger in a narrow field.. but also the limitation of a character that allows the opponent to know approximately how to counter it. For example, Pikachu has the static ability and can leave the opponent paralyzed. The opponent will know to worry about that. But they know that Pikachui can not poison them, so they don’t worry about defending against poison. The core of gameplay is knowing what your opponent can and cannot do, so that you can plan. For builds where everything is possible and there are no class limitations.. well, that’s gonna be real hard to balance. Imagine a Pikachu that might have the ability to paralyze, or might have the ability to poison, or have the opponent fall asleep. Heck, that Pikachu might know earthquake or have a 1HKO move, you just don’t know. And then when you’ve finally figured out what this specific Pikachu can do, you still know that it can change its entire skill pool and become completely unpredictable again. How do you set up a strategy against something like that? It’s hard.

So my advice to you is to not think too hard about balancing it, if you want to use this system. You’d spend more time learning about game design than you would writing. Just accept that it won’t be a system actually usable for a real game, and focus on the plot.
But don't you think the idea of figuring out what your opponent can do mid-battle is fun? It's just like a shounen battle manga!
And there aren't any classes in the traditional sense, but players in my VRMMO would generally focus on a single weapon or few weapons to level up.
I edited my post and added some things.
 

Llamadragon

Active member
Joined
Jan 19, 2019
Messages
171
Points
43
But don't you think the idea of figuring out what your opponent can do mid-battle is fun? It's just like a shounen battle manga!
And there aren't any classes in the traditional sense, but players in my VRMMO would generally focus on a single weapon or few weapons to level up.
I edited my post and added some things.
It might be fun, but it’s not feasible for an MMO, or even a singleplayer game. Sure, there’s something fun about figuring out what your opponent can do, but with an endless amount of possible builds, you cannot properly prepare.

Lets say you go with what you’ve said, and a player have leveled a small number of weapons. They meet someone who happens to have resistance to all their weapons. Now what? They’re screwed.
 

Saber

New member
Joined
Dec 23, 2018
Messages
4
Points
3
Kind of like SAO :blob_cookie:

Just don't focus too much on numbers or you'll regret it :blob_sweat:
 

Saber

New member
Joined
Dec 23, 2018
Messages
4
Points
3
I honestly copied so much from SAO.
No biggie :blob_okay:

Like I said, don't focus on numbers (like how SAO LN played it) or you'll have a hard time in future chapters.

A status screen for the character and equipment at the beginning is fine but when you start listing them it gets really tiring and... troublesome :sweating_profusely:

Trust me, I've been there :blob_teary:
 

LotusLily

New member
Joined
Mar 23, 2019
Messages
21
Points
3
Does SAO LN have a lot of numbers? I didn't notice anything except money, fortification, and skill experience numbers.
 
D

Deleted member 5560

Guest
Cracks my knuckles.

Okay, so, there are basically two parts to this, and I will lend as much of a response into both as I can. You can take or leave all of this advice, this is largely my own thoughts.

The first part of this, and in my opinion the lesser part of it, is "how does the game system work, objectively, in a vacuum, as a game system?" So, let's talk about how this works as a game system. First, if you have no personal experience in game design, I would honestly think about the systems you like from actual games, not gaming stories, and borrow from those for the foundations. Preferably games with a massive multiplayer aspect, as the way games function with the expectation of massive amounts of players interacting, vs. how games function with the expectation of 1 player existing alone in the world are different.

Llamadragon's point about the importance of builds is both right and wrong, if you'll forgive me. First, they're talking about the balance of player builds mostly in a PVP scenario, and without knowing how you plan to approach PVP in your game, there's no advice I can give, but as a quick aside:
There's a lot of ways to do PVP in an MMO build game, but I've narrowed it down to three basic systems:
  1. PVP as a feature - basically, all players are at risk of PVP barring specific limitations - traditionally this is if your player character level is too low, usually under 5 or 10, but in your case this might be for players who haven't accrued a certain amount of playing hours, in order to protect newer players who are still learning to play the game. These games offer PVP as part of the gameplay, thus, PVP is a feature. There are more things you can do with this - for example, have PVP be a constant threat, but also have some kind of karma system where if you do PVP you face some kind of in-game penalty (that doesn't exactly punish players, but acts as a way to heighten the gameplay/roleplay, for example, maybe there's a "reputation system" where the more you kill other players, the more you gain a reputation, and certain NPC merchants might not sell to you because you're a renowned killer, but then certain black market NPCs become available to you instead. Find ways where everything is just an opportunity to add to the fun.)
  2. PVP zones/servers - this is a common way actual MMOs handle PVP. Certain serves allow PVP, other servers are strictly PVE, and players can choose for themselves if they want to play the game with the possibility of PVP at any moment. Alternatively, all servers have PVP, but are limited to certain zones, whether this is "anywhere outside of towns/hubs" or maybe specific coliseum/arena maps that are just for PVP.
  3. PVP by mutual consent - basically, duels. Players can challenge one another to fights, the challenged has the right to accept or refuse.
These are not mutually exclusive. You can having a "duel" feature even in a game which has PVP as a feature, because maybe it comes with it's own system of reward - like gambling certain items on the outcome of the match, or other stakes of the players choosing. And again, there are a lot of other ways to tackle PVP, but these are a simplification of the three ways I usually see it handled in actual MMO or online multiplayer games.

Okay, so. You're going for a classless, build-a-bear-workshop style game. Although as Llamadragon pointed out, fighting against someone not locked to a certain build can be unpredictable, but it's not like it's unheard of - hey, let's just talk momentarily about Dark Souls. Dark Souls is a game with a robust PVP community and a game system where you are not locked to a specific class or playstyle, but instead can build your character to be how you want it to be. Does this mean fighting against other players can lead to unpredictable matches where they can pull out unexpected trump cards? Yes. That's what makes it so fun to a lot of people. But you're not creating a singleplayer game with a PVP feature, or a game with a focus on battling between varied teams like Pokemon. You're trying to write an MMO. So where does this system cause problems in an MMO game?

Well, simple. Party dynamics. MMOs tend to use class systems because they're games with multiplayer as a key element. In a single player game, having the versatility to switch between a bow and magic is a boon, because it gives the player more freedom to play the game how they want, and how they want to play does not impact other people's experience because they're playing alone. But MMOs, while can be played solo, are more or less built off a model of playing in a team, and teams work better when they're made up of individuals with their own speciality, rather than a bunch of jack-of-all-trades. The tank-DPS-DPS-healer formation has become iconic for a reason.

So, what do you do? Although your MMO offers a lot of freedom for players to play the game how they want, and honestly having to pick a class for a new game you just recently got can be daunting - I love playing sneaky thieves, but often times the stealth systems of games are kind of crappy and lacklustre, so I often run into the problem of "I like playing sneaky thieves in games with a robust stealth system but otherwise they're the crappiest class don't @ me", so when I pick up a new game I've never played before, I don't know. Do I pick a sneaky thief, only to find out they don't play well and start the whole game over with a new character? Or do I just power through playing a build I don't really care for? - unfortunately this is an MMO, and each player character does not exist in a vacuum. How do you create a system that allows players freedom, but also allows them to have a balanced multiplayer experience? Purely from a game design stand point, how do you balance this?

Well, first: even if they're given freedom, people geeeenerally end up specialising in the style that they like. I'll come back to this in part 2, but let's put a pin 📍 in it for now, and remember what I said.

In terms of balancing a game, the simplest way is to gently guide players into specialising by giving a finite amount of resources with which to build their character. In another game, this can be in the form of attribute points they gain upon level up, but with a level cap meaning there are a limited amount of points they can gain because there are a limited amount of levels. You don't have levels for your game, but you do have proficiency.
There is no traditional leveling; only leveling weapon and armor proficiencies.
Do these proficiencies have a cap, if so, hard or soft (and just so we're on the same page on how I am using those terms, in this case a hard level cap is a max number a level can reach, a soft level cap is a point where the proficiency can still in theory level up (even if there is a "hard cap" above it), but the requirements for levelling up are so extreme and the rewards for doing so are so insignificant, it becomes pointless outside of hardcore completionism). What are the requirements for levelling up proficiencies? Is simply swinging a sword enough to increase the proficiency in it, or is the player required to hit a target in order for the game to read as "increased proficiency"? Does the target have to be hostile, or are there training scenarios that offer proficiency training? If skills are bound to items, NPCs, and books, what are the perks for levelling up proficiency - traditionally, the character might learn new skills, but your skill system isn't rooted in "levels", and presumably an iron sword would have better damage than a copper sword, so the weapon damage itself also depends on the equipment. So, what does increased proficiency actually do, and what perk does it offer that a better piece of gear with a better skill cannot? Why would a player be motivated to increase their proficiency with swords instead of just getting a better sword? Perhaps higher proficiency gives them access to/the ability to equip better weapons, which can create a gameplay loop.

So, if you have proficiency, a way you could balance giving players freedom to choose their style, but also maintain a balance in the multiplayer aspect is have a point where, while the rewards for raising proficiency are still worthwhile, the amount of effort required to put in to raise the proficiency makes juggling more than, say, two weapon types, a larger time commitment than the average player might have the time to spare. Hardcore gamers who dedicate a lot of time to the game can still feasibly level a lot of different weapons to higher levels, but players who have the time to invest in the game to that level would also end up with more resources and better overall mastery from more time spent playing anyway, putting them intrinsically on a different playing field than people who spend maybe four accumulative hours a week playing in their spare time.

Players can easily invest a small amount of effort to reach a basic mastery of a variety of weapons, and in the process will come to naturally learn which ones they favour, but at the upper levels where that mastery becomes really relevant, they wouldn't have as much time/energy to spend evenly levelling everything, and will naturally favour the specialities that suit them and their style best.

Then, when it comes time to party formations, you can also rely on the social aspect of players preferring to work alongside other players who really know their own character and abilities, rather than ones who are all over the place and stepping on other party members toes. But again, let's put a pin in this, because its a part two issue. 📍

The main point is that while giving players some degree of freedom to craft a playstyle they want is great, that's more of a single player thing where versatility enhances the experience without infringing on other players's experience of the game. When creating a game intended to have a social aspect where you are working with other players, the systems are all interconnected, and there still needs to be some kind of in-game balance that gives benefits to players who, perhaps not wholly, but at least somewhat specialise if they're going to act in a party. It needs to be baked into the system. You say
but players in my VRMMO would generally focus on a single weapon or few weapons to level up.
which is great! But also, why? What about the game would ultimately make them decide to give up having a totally rounded, all proficiency character and instead specialise?



Okay, so, part two of this, and the more important part:
Your game is not real. Your game exists for the purpose of a narrative, and thus while the game mechanics definitely need to have a logical internal consistency, there are also mechanics that may not necessarily function in the real world or in a real game, but may serve the purpose of the narrative, in which case, sometimes you just need to let the narrative justify its existence.

There will always be people who nitpick things, because nitpicking things is Cool Now, but unless it creates a glaring plot contrivance that is hard to reconcile, sometimes you can just say "yeah, in a real world context this makes No Sense, but for the purposes of the narrative it has to be this way, so just go with it."

You crafted an MMO with no class system. In the real world, this would create a headache of balance issues of not only creating a system wherein the game itself is balanced against a versatile character with no speciality, but also balancing the social aspect of versatile characters acting within a group party dynamic.

But on the other hand, you have a story about a character exploring a new game, and part of that story is him trying out a variety of playstyles and eventually coming into his own and figuring out how he wants to approach the game through trial and error. That's the narrative. So it's okay to say "well, the game has no classes because that's what serves the themes of the narrative". I know this sounds like a free pass, but it's not. You should always have internal rules of logic that govern the game even if you don't describe it in painstaking detail to the readers, have it on hand so you know the limits of what your characters can and cannot do, but unless you're creating huge gamebreaker issues like "there is absolutely no limitations at all on what a player can equip, so they can just use this super duper 1HKO megasword five minutes after creating a character", saying "characters can use any weapon type, but there are limits on what weapons in terms of strength they can access and equip" isn't really that bad.

Pin the first: 📍 "even if they're given freedom, people geeeenerally end up specialising in the style that they like." 📍
Let's take a look at Dark Souls again: as I said, it is a game that allows players to craft and build their characters in a way that suits their playstyle, rather than has the players tailor their style to their character class. Yet despite this, players will almost always specialise in "builds" they prefer - a lot of DS players will usually talk about/favour either a "strength build" - a build wherein you're pumping stats into STR and using slow, heavy, high damage weapons, with the risk being you leave yourself open during wind up/recovery, but precise control over your weapon allows you to consistently deal huge damage - or a "dex build" - high DEX builds that use lighter, faster weapons that deal less damage but allow you to land more hits and leave you usually with more stamina left over for precise dodges. Do people use character builds outside of these? Yes. There are mage and cleric builds too. Do people use high versatility builds which a jack-of-all-trades approach? Rarely. If people are the type inclined to pick a heavy damage tank class character in a game with strict class roles, they're the type to, if given the freedom, end up building their custom character build in the direction of a heavy damage tank class anyway, because that's how they like to play.

I'm putting this under "game system as a narrative" rather than "game system as though it were real", because I think this ties more to the theme of your story than it has to do with pure game mechanics. As I said, from where things currently are (three chapters in), the story is about a character learning how the game works at the basic level, and trying out new things, gradually figuring out how he intends to play. He tried shooting an arrow, and already found that he has no natural knack for it, so he switched back to sword and shield, equipment he already had success with, and used that to gain an advantage in a fight. In this case, this is your character learning, although maybe he'll want to practice the bow and see how useful it is once he can use it a little better, he has more of a natural inclination toward being a melee fighter. Players will gravitate toward the playstyle that both comes naturally to them, and makes for the most fun game experience.

Pin the second: 📍 when it comes time to party formations, you can also rely on the social aspect of players preferring to work alongside other players who really know their own character and abilities, rather than ones who are all over the place and stepping on other party members toes. 📍
Social aspect is a big part of MMOs, but if you're writing an MMO story, then character interaction (for good or ill) should also be a major part of the narrative. So I'm placing this under "game systems as a narrative", because bringing up the way players interact with each other in a party and how they are willing (or not willing) to work with a character that has a really all over the place playstyle doesn't need to be answered with a game system that supports or penalises these things. It can be answered within the narrative by guiding how the playerbase as characters react. Players gradually coming to disdain and push back on character builds that are jack-of-all-trades can be a narrative tension, especially if the MC comes to have just a varied enough build that he's considered "to broad" for parties, making him either have to adapt and learn to become even more broad in order to play solo, or maybe end up finding a group of other players who similarly play more varied builds and have also been refused entry into parties, and forming a friendship with them.

The point being: there are certainly balance issues. But moreover, there are times when you need to decide "do I solve this balance issue by writing something into the game system that accounts for it, or do I leave that balance issue open in order to use it for narrative purposes to add tension/conflict/interest to my story?" There's a balance to strike in writing a VRMMO story between "this makes sense as a game" and "this adds worth to the story".

Looping back to PVP - you can certainly think about how PVP functions in the game, and how the system would be built in response to that. But if your story never involves PVP as a narrative aspect, you don't actually need to explain how it works. You can just say, yeah, sure, there's PVP, but this story isn't about the MC fighting other players, it's about him building his character, exploring dungeons, building up a guild, etc.

So these are all points about game balance, but as far as thoughts on your system go:
As I've said, I think what is more important than "how does this game work in a vacuum under the assertion that it is a real game", is "how does this games systems function within and add to the narrative", and the class versatility ultimately offers more things of interest to the narrative than it feels like an unstable game system, so I actually really like that you went in that direction!
How you choose to balance the game within the narrative should certainly add to the internal logic of the game system, but also consider: when adding this feature that balances the game, what does it also add to the story? You took away levels, which adds an interesting narrative element of forcing the character to actually learn how to use different weapons instead of just needing to grind up levels to get stronger. This makes me feel more excited and looking forward to seeing the character grow stronger, because hopefully rather than just "killing lots of enemies", we'll see the moment to moment of the character learning how to use skills, and master timing, and learning technique. You've set up a system that offers a lot of narrative potential.

Hopefully you'll continue to think about the game systems as you add to and expand on them as a narrative tool, not just as a game.
 

Scribbler

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 23, 2018
Messages
290
Points
103
Cracks my knuckles.

Okay, so, there are basically two parts to this, and I will lend as much of a response into both as I can. You can take or leave all of this advice, this is largely my own thoughts.
You are asking me so many questions. And my character just finished the tutorial. You expect me to know such things... I will try to answer to the best of my abilities.

About taking inspiration from real games instead of fictional ones:
I've definitely played more games than read fictional ones, so no problem there.
But you see, for me, I've mostly only ever played solo when playing MMOs, but I think I can still give each class their own strengths and weaknesses so they need to rely on one another. In WOW, there's the holy trinity of tank, dps, and healer. This is a themepark MMO that is guided by quests and dungeons on a linear, predictable path; where most quests are just kill this many or gather this many items. For my game I'm following the sandbox, where there will be no auction house and instead each player will have to open a stall on the street to sell their wares, where quests will be more like puzzles rather than gather/kill things, where progression isn't defined as leveling up solely combat classes - lifeskillers can progress just as quickly by selling their crafts and buying gear. My world will be alive. It will account for the whole and not just the one.

Regarding PVP:
I haven't decided on anything yet. But here are some rules that will be a part of it whenever I do introduce it.
  1. You can only attack someone who is within 5 levels of your highest combat weapon
  2. On death, you lose less items if you don't fight back
  3. Player killing will accrue a bounty
  4. Attacking second or self defense will not accrue a bounty
  5. PVP will turn on for all players outside of villages/cities at the middle levels.
  6. There will be a dueling feature where one player can challenge another in the open world or in hubs
  7. There will also be a dueling feature where players are transported to another instance where they can fight to gain rank or in tournaments for a great reward
Regarding player roles/classes/balancing:
PVP
Sword and shield wielders will be the front line.
Bow and wand users will be in the back line.
Dagger users will try to invade the back line.

Daggers are weak to sword and shield users because they have higher defense and flat attack
Sword and shield users are weak to Bow and Wand because they have higher range
Bow and wand users are weak to Daggers because they have lower defense and more specialized attacks

dagger>sword/shield>bow/wand>dagger

PVE
Sword users will be good at single target and area of effect, but they will be close range.
Shield users will be better for aggroing
Bow users will be better at high single target damage - bosses
Wand users will be better at are of effect damage - mobs
Dagger users will be better at picking off separated targets, and scouting dungeons, and stealth

Regarding weapon leveling/progression:
There will be a hard cap.
The requirement for leveling is to use a weapon.
  • Simply equipping something will increase its level
  • Armor/accessories will level faster from equipping then weapons since you can't use them as actively
  • Armor/accessories will level up faster the more physical damage you take
  • Weapons will only level slowly from equipping, but will level up faster from actually using the weapons.
  • Using the weapon is defined as hitting a target.
  • A target is defined as monster in the open world, other players, or training dummies.
  • Training dummies will offer significantly less experience than monsters or players
Increasing the level of your proficiency with a weapon type allows you to learn the skills aligned with that weapons skill line (only the wand will have a skill tree), and gives buffs that will increase your damage or efficiency with that weapon.
An iron sword will do more base damage than a bronze one. But leveling up your sword proficiency gives you greater scaling from the base.
For example: A bronze sword is a 10. An iron sword is a 15. At level 10 swordsmanship you have a scaling of plus 10% damage, so a bronze sword would become 11, and an iron sword would become 17. But at level 20 swordsmanship the scaling would become plus 20%. This is just a hypothetical and have not decided on the actual numbers or if I'll ever actually introduce actual numbers. But this will be how it works under the hood.

Books and NPCs will give skills that may be unrelated or complimentary to a weapon or armor/accessory skill.

There will be no level requirement for weapons/armor/accessories. If a player gets an item than they should be allowed to equip. Nothing ruins the fun like loot that you can't equip. But a player with an iron sword would still be weaker than a player with a bronze sword if they are lower level or just don't know how to use the weapon as well.

At early levels leveling all equipment will be fast. At mid levels it will become slower. And at high levels it will become much, much slower. So to gain the most powerful skills players will be forced to specialize eventually. The developers of the game made it this way so all new players could use and test out each weapon to see which they liked most.

The reason why they would specialize is because each weapon type has its own distinct strengths and weakness and to obtain the greatest/most useful strengths of those weapons they can only choose one because of how long it takes to level them up in the late game.

I plan to add more weapons for the future of the game. Maybe a spear or mace.

Thank you for giving your thoughts. Thank you very much.

I'll remember that the VRMMO is only the setting. As I writer I like to focus on the characters and the plot more.

It took me way longer to reply to your post than I would like to admit.

Again, thank you.

As for my actual plans for the future of the story. I will do crafting/quests. He might meet some players while questing or hunting mobs for materials. Then after that I want to do dungeons, and that's where I'll probably introduce the MC to actually parting with other players. Then after that maybe some PVP. Or maybe I'll introduce PVP while he's questing. I really don't know. My approach to writing is to write whatever sounds fun/cool.

My main inspirations are SAO for the UI, Dark souls for game design, Monster Hunter for combat/progression, and Runescape for MMO design.

Again, thank you so much for your so many words and feedback.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 5560

Guest
ou are asking me so many questions. And my character just finished the tutorial. You expect me to know such things... I will try to answer to the best of my abilities.
I wasn’t asking these things of you expecting you to answer me. I was asking you these things to ask yourself, in the future. Because you literally asked for feedback about balance. I don’t know what to tell you.

ETA: I’ll also add this is the DISCUSSION forum not feedback, so a lot of what I was posting, I was posting it as discussion in general that anyone with an MMO story could read and engage with. It’s 6am, I just woke up to let my dogs outside, I’m too tired to parse this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Llamadragon

Active member
Joined
Jan 19, 2019
Messages
171
Points
43
Cracks my knuckles.

Okay, so, there are basically two parts to this, and I will lend as much of a response into both as I can. You can take or leave all of this advice, this is largely my own thoughts.

The first part of this, and in my opinion the lesser part of it, is "how does the game system work, objectively, in a vacuum, as a game system?" So, let's talk about how this works as a game system. First, if you have no personal experience in game design, I would honestly think about the systems you like from actual games, not gaming stories, and borrow from those for the foundations. Preferably games with a massive multiplayer aspect, as the way games function with the expectation of massive amounts of players interacting, vs. how games function with the expectation of 1 player existing alone in the world are different.

Llamadragon's point about the importance of builds is both right and wrong, if you'll forgive me. First, they're talking about the balance of player builds mostly in a PVP scenario, and without knowing how you plan to approach PVP in your game, there's no advice I can give, but as a quick aside:
There's a lot of ways to do PVP in an MMO build game, but I've narrowed it down to three basic systems:
  1. PVP as a feature - basically, all players are at risk of PVP barring specific limitations - traditionally this is if your player character level is too low, usually under 5 or 10, but in your case this might be for players who haven't accrued a certain amount of playing hours, in order to protect newer players who are still learning to play the game. These games offer PVP as part of the gameplay, thus, PVP is a feature. There are more things you can do with this - for example, have PVP be a constant threat, but also have some kind of karma system where if you do PVP you face some kind of in-game penalty (that doesn't exactly punish players, but acts as a way to heighten the gameplay/roleplay, for example, maybe there's a "reputation system" where the more you kill other players, the more you gain a reputation, and certain NPC merchants might not sell to you because you're a renowned killer, but then certain black market NPCs become available to you instead. Find ways where everything is just an opportunity to add to the fun.)
  2. PVP zones/servers - this is a common way actual MMOs handle PVP. Certain serves allow PVP, other servers are strictly PVE, and players can choose for themselves if they want to play the game with the possibility of PVP at any moment. Alternatively, all servers have PVP, but are limited to certain zones, whether this is "anywhere outside of towns/hubs" or maybe specific coliseum/arena maps that are just for PVP.
  3. PVP by mutual consent - basically, duels. Players can challenge one another to fights, the challenged has the right to accept or refuse.
These are not mutually exclusive. You can having a "duel" feature even in a game which has PVP as a feature, because maybe it comes with it's own system of reward - like gambling certain items on the outcome of the match, or other stakes of the players choosing. And again, there are a lot of other ways to tackle PVP, but these are a simplification of the three ways I usually see it handled in actual MMO or online multiplayer games.

Okay, so. You're going for a classless, build-a-bear-workshop style game. Although as Llamadragon pointed out, fighting against someone not locked to a certain build can be unpredictable, but it's not like it's unheard of - hey, let's just talk momentarily about Dark Souls. Dark Souls is a game with a robust PVP community and a game system where you are not locked to a specific class or playstyle, but instead can build your character to be how you want it to be. Does this mean fighting against other players can lead to unpredictable matches where they can pull out unexpected trump cards? Yes. That's what makes it so fun to a lot of people. But you're not creating a singleplayer game with a PVP feature, or a game with a focus on battling between varied teams like Pokemon. You're trying to write an MMO. So where does this system cause problems in an MMO game?

Well, simple. Party dynamics. MMOs tend to use class systems because they're games with multiplayer as a key element. In a single player game, having the versatility to switch between a bow and magic is a boon, because it gives the player more freedom to play the game how they want, and how they want to play does not impact other people's experience because they're playing alone. But MMOs, while can be played solo, are more or less built off a model of playing in a team, and teams work better when they're made up of individuals with their own speciality, rather than a bunch of jack-of-all-trades. The tank-DPS-DPS-healer formation has become iconic for a reason.

So, what do you do? Although your MMO offers a lot of freedom for players to play the game how they want, and honestly having to pick a class for a new game you just recently got can be daunting - I love playing sneaky thieves, but often times the stealth systems of games are kind of crappy and lacklustre, so I often run into the problem of "I like playing sneaky thieves in games with a robust stealth system but otherwise they're the crappiest class don't @ me", so when I pick up a new game I've never played before, I don't know. Do I pick a sneaky thief, only to find out they don't play well and start the whole game over with a new character? Or do I just power through playing a build I don't really care for? - unfortunately this is an MMO, and each player character does not exist in a vacuum. How do you create a system that allows players freedom, but also allows them to have a balanced multiplayer experience? Purely from a game design stand point, how do you balance this?

Well, first: even if they're given freedom, people geeeenerally end up specialising in the style that they like. I'll come back to this in part 2, but let's put a pin 📍 in it for now, and remember what I said.

In terms of balancing a game, the simplest way is to gently guide players into specialising by giving a finite amount of resources with which to build their character. In another game, this can be in the form of attribute points they gain upon level up, but with a level cap meaning there are a limited amount of points they can gain because there are a limited amount of levels. You don't have levels for your game, but you do have proficiency.

Do these proficiencies have a cap, if so, hard or soft (and just so we're on the same page on how I am using those terms, in this case a hard level cap is a max number a level can reach, a soft level cap is a point where the proficiency can still in theory level up (even if there is a "hard cap" above it), but the requirements for levelling up are so extreme and the rewards for doing so are so insignificant, it becomes pointless outside of hardcore completionism). What are the requirements for levelling up proficiencies? Is simply swinging a sword enough to increase the proficiency in it, or is the player required to hit a target in order for the game to read as "increased proficiency"? Does the target have to be hostile, or are there training scenarios that offer proficiency training? If skills are bound to items, NPCs, and books, what are the perks for levelling up proficiency - traditionally, the character might learn new skills, but your skill system isn't rooted in "levels", and presumably an iron sword would have better damage than a copper sword, so the weapon damage itself also depends on the equipment. So, what does increased proficiency actually do, and what perk does it offer that a better piece of gear with a better skill cannot? Why would a player be motivated to increase their proficiency with swords instead of just getting a better sword? Perhaps higher proficiency gives them access to/the ability to equip better weapons, which can create a gameplay loop.

So, if you have proficiency, a way you could balance giving players freedom to choose their style, but also maintain a balance in the multiplayer aspect is have a point where, while the rewards for raising proficiency are still worthwhile, the amount of effort required to put in to raise the proficiency makes juggling more than, say, two weapon types, a larger time commitment than the average player might have the time to spare. Hardcore gamers who dedicate a lot of time to the game can still feasibly level a lot of different weapons to higher levels, but players who have the time to invest in the game to that level would also end up with more resources and better overall mastery from more time spent playing anyway, putting them intrinsically on a different playing field than people who spend maybe four accumulative hours a week playing in their spare time.

Players can easily invest a small amount of effort to reach a basic mastery of a variety of weapons, and in the process will come to naturally learn which ones they favour, but at the upper levels where that mastery becomes really relevant, they wouldn't have as much time/energy to spend evenly levelling everything, and will naturally favour the specialities that suit them and their style best.

Then, when it comes time to party formations, you can also rely on the social aspect of players preferring to work alongside other players who really know their own character and abilities, rather than ones who are all over the place and stepping on other party members toes. But again, let's put a pin in this, because its a part two issue. 📍

The main point is that while giving players some degree of freedom to craft a playstyle they want is great, that's more of a single player thing where versatility enhances the experience without infringing on other players's experience of the game. When creating a game intended to have a social aspect where you are working with other players, the systems are all interconnected, and there still needs to be some kind of in-game balance that gives benefits to players who, perhaps not wholly, but at least somewhat specialise if they're going to act in a party. It needs to be baked into the system. You say

which is great! But also, why? What about the game would ultimately make them decide to give up having a totally rounded, all proficiency character and instead specialise?



Okay, so, part two of this, and the more important part:
Your game is not real. Your game exists for the purpose of a narrative, and thus while the game mechanics definitely need to have a logical internal consistency, there are also mechanics that may not necessarily function in the real world or in a real game, but may serve the purpose of the narrative, in which case, sometimes you just need to let the narrative justify its existence.

There will always be people who nitpick things, because nitpicking things is Cool Now, but unless it creates a glaring plot contrivance that is hard to reconcile, sometimes you can just say "yeah, in a real world context this makes No Sense, but for the purposes of the narrative it has to be this way, so just go with it."

You crafted an MMO with no class system. In the real world, this would create a headache of balance issues of not only creating a system wherein the game itself is balanced against a versatile character with no speciality, but also balancing the social aspect of versatile characters acting within a group party dynamic.

But on the other hand, you have a story about a character exploring a new game, and part of that story is him trying out a variety of playstyles and eventually coming into his own and figuring out how he wants to approach the game through trial and error. That's the narrative. So it's okay to say "well, the game has no classes because that's what serves the themes of the narrative". I know this sounds like a free pass, but it's not. You should always have internal rules of logic that govern the game even if you don't describe it in painstaking detail to the readers, have it on hand so you know the limits of what your characters can and cannot do, but unless you're creating huge gamebreaker issues like "there is absolutely no limitations at all on what a player can equip, so they can just use this super duper 1HKO megasword five minutes after creating a character", saying "characters can use any weapon type, but there are limits on what weapons in terms of strength they can access and equip" isn't really that bad.

Pin the first: 📍 "even if they're given freedom, people geeeenerally end up specialising in the style that they like." 📍
Let's take a look at Dark Souls again: as I said, it is a game that allows players to craft and build their characters in a way that suits their playstyle, rather than has the players tailor their style to their character class. Yet despite this, players will almost always specialise in "builds" they prefer - a lot of DS players will usually talk about/favour either a "strength build" - a build wherein you're pumping stats into STR and using slow, heavy, high damage weapons, with the risk being you leave yourself open during wind up/recovery, but precise control over your weapon allows you to consistently deal huge damage - or a "dex build" - high DEX builds that use lighter, faster weapons that deal less damage but allow you to land more hits and leave you usually with more stamina left over for precise dodges. Do people use character builds outside of these? Yes. There are mage and cleric builds too. Do people use high versatility builds which a jack-of-all-trades approach? Rarely. If people are the type inclined to pick a heavy damage tank class character in a game with strict class roles, they're the type to, if given the freedom, end up building their custom character build in the direction of a heavy damage tank class anyway, because that's how they like to play.

I'm putting this under "game system as a narrative" rather than "game system as though it were real", because I think this ties more to the theme of your story than it has to do with pure game mechanics. As I said, from where things currently are (three chapters in), the story is about a character learning how the game works at the basic level, and trying out new things, gradually figuring out how he intends to play. He tried shooting an arrow, and already found that he has no natural knack for it, so he switched back to sword and shield, equipment he already had success with, and used that to gain an advantage in a fight. In this case, this is your character learning, although maybe he'll want to practice the bow and see how useful it is once he can use it a little better, he has more of a natural inclination toward being a melee fighter. Players will gravitate toward the playstyle that both comes naturally to them, and makes for the most fun game experience.

Pin the second: 📍 when it comes time to party formations, you can also rely on the social aspect of players preferring to work alongside other players who really know their own character and abilities, rather than ones who are all over the place and stepping on other party members toes. 📍
Social aspect is a big part of MMOs, but if you're writing an MMO story, then character interaction (for good or ill) should also be a major part of the narrative. So I'm placing this under "game systems as a narrative", because bringing up the way players interact with each other in a party and how they are willing (or not willing) to work with a character that has a really all over the place playstyle doesn't need to be answered with a game system that supports or penalises these things. It can be answered within the narrative by guiding how the playerbase as characters react. Players gradually coming to disdain and push back on character builds that are jack-of-all-trades can be a narrative tension, especially if the MC comes to have just a varied enough build that he's considered "to broad" for parties, making him either have to adapt and learn to become even more broad in order to play solo, or maybe end up finding a group of other players who similarly play more varied builds and have also been refused entry into parties, and forming a friendship with them.

The point being: there are certainly balance issues. But moreover, there are times when you need to decide "do I solve this balance issue by writing something into the game system that accounts for it, or do I leave that balance issue open in order to use it for narrative purposes to add tension/conflict/interest to my story?" There's a balance to strike in writing a VRMMO story between "this makes sense as a game" and "this adds worth to the story".

Looping back to PVP - you can certainly think about how PVP functions in the game, and how the system would be built in response to that. But if your story never involves PVP as a narrative aspect, you don't actually need to explain how it works. You can just say, yeah, sure, there's PVP, but this story isn't about the MC fighting other players, it's about him building his character, exploring dungeons, building up a guild, etc.

So these are all points about game balance, but as far as thoughts on your system go:
As I've said, I think what is more important than "how does this game work in a vacuum under the assertion that it is a real game", is "how does this games systems function within and add to the narrative", and the class versatility ultimately offers more things of interest to the narrative than it feels like an unstable game system, so I actually really like that you went in that direction!
How you choose to balance the game within the narrative should certainly add to the internal logic of the game system, but also consider: when adding this feature that balances the game, what does it also add to the story? You took away levels, which adds an interesting narrative element of forcing the character to actually learn how to use different weapons instead of just needing to grind up levels to get stronger. This makes me feel more excited and looking forward to seeing the character grow stronger, because hopefully rather than just "killing lots of enemies", we'll see the moment to moment of the character learning how to use skills, and master timing, and learning technique. You've set up a system that offers a lot of narrative potential.

Hopefully you'll continue to think about the game systems as you add to and expand on them as a narrative tool, not just as a game.
Holy moly that was thorough! O.O
You’re right, I only looked at the PvP ascpect. In a sense, though, I don’t think darksouls is a good comparison to what op seem to be describing, since darksouls still use stats unique to the characters and need to be built properly from the beginning. Haven’t played the multiplayer aspect of it tho so I can’t continue on that track.

I don’t have the time to continue the discussion rn, but, man, you bring up an interesting thing by mentioning Dark Souls. Imagine the kind of crazy people who would enjoy that as a vr experience? That would make for a really interesting novel.
 

Scribbler

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 23, 2018
Messages
290
Points
103
I wasn’t asking these things of you expecting you to answer me. I was asking you these things to ask yourself, in the future. Because you literally asked for feedback about balance. I don’t know what to tell you.

ETA: I’ll also add this is the DISCUSSION forum not feedback, so a lot of what I was posting, I was posting it as discussion in general that anyone with an MMO story could read and engage with. It’s 6am, I just woke up to let my dogs outside, I’m too tired to parse this.
How should I know what you are or aren't expecting?! I'm still thankful for the many thoughts and feedback. And even if I won't use of any of the stuff I said, I think it'll still be good for figuring out what fits or feels right. Yes, again, thank you very much for your reply.
 
D

Deleted member 5560

Guest
I don’t think darksouls is a good comparison to what op seem to be describing, since darksouls still use stats unique to the characters and need to be built properly from the beginning
That’s true, I was just talking in raw play styles. And yeah, I would love play a gothic fantasy horror type game in VR, but unfortunately I’m one of this extra people who suffers intense motion sickness from VR so I’ll probably never get to play VR at its current rate of advancement. 😢

How should I know what you are or aren't expecting?!
That’s also true! I should have more clearly indicated these where talking/thinking points rather than hard notes.

I will also add I have not read your response in full, just that first part. Sorry! But as I said, I didn't ask these questions looking for hard answers, and as I am reading your story actively as it updates, I would rather see the game systems unfold contextually.
 

Llamadragon

Active member
Joined
Jan 19, 2019
Messages
171
Points
43
That’s true, I was just talking in raw play styles. And yeah, I would love play a gothic fantasy horror type game in VR, but unfortunately I’m one of this extra people who suffers intense motion sickness from VR so I’ll probably never get to play VR at its current rate of advancement. 😢
Same here, it sucks. I can’t even watch the lets plays :/ On the bright side, there seem to be a fair few games coming out that are doing pretty well with the teleportation thing for us motionsick ones. I’m sure there will be more.

For the novel concept, I meant actual virtual reality rather than the currently existing headseats. Like, SAO-style, you enter the game and feel pain and move around and stuff. Takes a pretty special person to want to experience death over and over like in Darksouls, I think, but they definitely exist.
 
D

Deleted member 5560

Guest
For the novel concept, I meant actual virtual reality rather than the currently existing headseats. Like, SAO-style, you enter the game and feel pain and move around and stuff. Takes a pretty special person to want to experience death over and over like in Darksouls, I think, but they definitely exist.
:blob_hmm_two:
...hol' up a minute.
:blob_hide:
Slowly opens my google docs.
I think... I'm gonna... write this idea in fact...
:blobspearpeek:
 

Scribbler

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 23, 2018
Messages
290
Points
103
Same here, it sucks. I can’t even watch the lets plays :/ On the bright side, there seem to be a fair few games coming out that are doing pretty well with the teleportation thing for us motionsick ones. I’m sure there will be more.

For the novel concept, I meant actual virtual reality rather than the currently existing headseats. Like, SAO-style, you enter the game and feel pain and move around and stuff. Takes a pretty special person to want to experience death over and over like in Darksouls, I think, but they definitely exist.
People get hurt in sports all the time. But that doesn't stop them from playing. Also it's like an extra motivator to not get hit. I love how you described those type of people as "special".
 

Llamadragon

Active member
Joined
Jan 19, 2019
Messages
171
Points
43
People get hurt in sports all the time. But that doesn't stop them from playing. Also it's like an extra motivator to not get hit. I love how you described those type of people as "special".
That’s not the same. Have you played it? If not, check out a lets play. Darksouls has a brutal difficulty and is designed to kill the player over and over. You’ve got to learn from experience where all the enemies are hiding, how many they are, and how they attack. Like, lets say you’re rounding a corner. Suddenly an undead jumps out and kills you and before you can react it kills you in one hit. Respawn. Now you know where the undead is, though, so you can prepare and dodge. But whoops, it was faster than you thought. Respawn point for you. You try again. Ah dang, there were a few more than you thought. Over and over. Throughout the entire game. And we’re not even talking about the bosses yet.

For an untrained person entering a fight, it’s very difficult to face a weapon coming into the direction of their face and not flinch. If it’s virtual reality, there might be pain, and having to fight with an injury. That takes a very special kind of adrenaline junkie. (And I say that as a former adrenaline junkie.) It’d be the equivalent of entering an MMA ring with a rhino. Over and over again. Excpet the rhino is hidden and ambushes you lol
 
D

Deleted member 5560

Guest
People get hurt in sports all the time. But that doesn't stop them from playing. Also it's like an extra motivator to not get hit. I love how you described those type of people as "special".
I think the point of difference is that (one) you don't die in sports, you are only injured - even if sometimes those injuries can be permanently crippling, and (two) as you say, avoiding getting hit is part of the gameplay of sports. But in a game like Dark Souls, dying is an expected part of the gameplay mechanic. They even called their special edition "Prepare to Die Edition". The gameplay loop of Dark Souls is that you will die, but each death should be a learning experience. The narrative of the game actively supports a cycle of death and resurrection - basically the story of the game is that people who are dying aren't staying dead, and are coming back to life as the undead, and this lack of death is causing a slow rot and stagnation of the world. You play a character that is undead, so there is no "fail" death state in the game - every time you die, there is an in-game narrative as to why you just come back.

What Llamadragon was saying is that it would take a special kind of someone to play a fully immersive VR experience that transmits the pain of literal death fairly realistic that has the same "prepare to die" gameplay setting of Dark Souls. Imagine going through the realistic sensation of being stabbed to death, burned to death, crushed to death, torn apart, etc. over and over and over and over and over and over and relishing it as part of the game.
 
Top