Hot Topic #2: The cliché multiplayer Elder Scrolls topic

[shadow sun]

i think... it would something along the lines of oblivion with perhaps co-op or an arena (similar to the 1 in the IC) where players could

fight each other :unsure:

[fuinelen]

TES is not suited for an MMORPG. Let's face it : MMORPGs are not about lore, quests, or atmosphere .. or even roleplaying. It's a 3D chat with a bit/a lot of stat-slashing (grind, threadmill ... whatever you want to call it) on the side. It would ruin all for which TES games stand for.

 

The only way I can see for a TES game to work as a multiplayer game would be, as a few others already said, as a low usercount multiplayer game. System Shock 2 had a multiplayer addon that worked great with 2 or 3 players. NVN had that system as its MP core. The same party-based formula would be incredible in Oblivion. Drastically limit the players (perhaps to 16 or something on that order), the player computers compute the cells in which they are, if they are alone in that cell. In case players share a cell, let the player with the best power/connection ratio act as temporary server. Synchronize showstopping events between connected players (NPC deaths, item removal/movement).

 

Due to the limited player count, you should be able to find like-minded people, whether you're in for the l337 sw0rd, or because of the lore and RPG aspect, and you can create parties and explore together, or even do some PvP, without losing the immersion factor ... AND you can still use mods (as long as all players have the same ones)

 

SS2 did that, NeverWinterNight did it ... why can't the TES world?

 

bbye,

Sammy

[Switch]

soadf1's post removed. One liner spam. Please read the rules before posting, thanks. ^^

[Peregrine]

TES is not suited for an MMORPG. Let's face it : MMORPGs are not about lore, quests, or atmosphere .. or even roleplaying. It's a 3D chat with a bit/a lot of stat-slashing (grind, threadmill ... whatever you want to call it) on the side. It would ruin all for which TES games stand for.

 

Two words: EVE Online

 

 

When you say "MMORPG" you really mean "World of Warcraft and its clones". The problems you're talking about are the painfully bad design choices of the developers, not inherent flaws in the MMORPG concept. It is very possible to create a game with deep player interaction as the focus, it just takes a little creativity and the courage to take some risks instead of going for the sure profit.

[Sypron]

I don't know how to impliment this in a good way, but I think that any form of multiplay should be done on a "host and client" basis, Where anyone can be a host, and people can join the server to play with you. This way you could just set up a game with you and your 3 mates and have some fun, or, let randoms join to make new friends.

[Peregrine]

I don't know how to impliment this in a good way, but I think that any form of multiplay should be done on a "host and client" basis, Where anyone can be a host, and people can join the server to play with you. This way you could just set up a game with you and your 3 mates and have some fun, or, let randoms join to make new friends.

 

It would be nearly impossible to do this, if you want to have any depth to your game world. Even Oblivion had far too much complexity to make this practical. Think about it... if someone who made different choices enters your game (such as grabbing all of the good unique items) joins, whose game world is used? If it's the host's, what happens to things like the client's house and stash of needed items? And what happens when someone decides to make story choices that conflict with what you are planning to do, such as assassinating key NPCs? Who is going to want to re-do the same quests again because you are all at different places in the game (and what's the point in having multiplayer if you go off and do your own thing and never see your fellow players?)?

 

There are only two options for a multiplayer RPG:

 

1) Have a fixed storyline, like Neverwinter Nights multiplayer. This isn't a perfect answer, since there's still the issue of finding people who are at the same place in the game to avoid boring gameplay. I can't even count the number of times I've played the early stages of Neverwinter Nights and Diablo II in various multiplayer attempts. But at least it resolves the problem of conflicting game worlds: there are none. Player actions can't impact the world in any meaningful way, so it's easy to say "we're playing Chapter 6", and every player's idea of Chapter 6 is exactly the same.

 

2) Have essentially no storyline, and make the game revolve around hack and slash action. Diablo II is the classic example, the storyline didn't matter, the only question in organizing a multiplayer game was deciding which massive hordes of monsters you were going to kill with which character levels and equipment. The fact that you already killed Baal and made yourself the hero doesn't matter, you're going to kill him a million times more anyway. Just mow down the hordes of your enemies and pull the lever of the slot-machine boss again, you might actually get an item!

[Sypron]

How about having the game in two parts. A multiplay part, and a single play part? Single play just like normal game + storyline and multiplay a bit less in-depth and a bit more "throw you into your boots, its time to fight!"

[Peregrine]

How about having the game in two parts. A multiplay part, and a single play part? Single play just like normal game + storyline and multiplay a bit less in-depth and a bit more "throw you into your boots, its time to fight!"

 

That would be option #2. Personally, I don't like it, it goes completely against the spirit of the games... well, Morrowind at least. For Oblivion it wouldn't be much of a change. Considering the vast differences between my ideal TES V and your hypothetical multiplayer variation, you might as well develop an entirely separate game. It would probably be easier than trying to re-work the game mechanics to function consistently in such completely different ways.

[Clipz]

In this debate I hear alot of "Modding will be difficult, if not impossible", but if they make it like Diablo 2 with both a MMO and a Single Player then they could mod the single player when they get bored with the MMO.

 

 

Now what i think they aught to do is make it not an MMO but like Diablo 2 and Halo. Have servers hosted by other players that allow for group play with out degrading the game, NPC's could still have AI and you could still do epic quests BUT the rewards would be based on group size and the group would be considered heros not everyone as a single hero. Also there could be seperate server types for PvP where you could do 1v1 2v2 etc or even FFA. I think this would make for a great game.

 

To make it so that people could host their own little server without their choices being hindered or their house being ramsacked by some @$$hole would be to make the player's housing system like WoWs instance systems except the house would only be accesible by its owner. The loot problem could be solved by a system that allowed for rolling. For ex. should a bow drop only those who have Marksman as a Major skill could need, the rest could only greed or pass. The prblem of people killing NPC's could be solved by a option upon creation that bans people who do kill NPC's and the NPC would respawn after the player is banned. Otherwise, if the option isn't selected, it could be just like oblivion is now... kill an NPC and fight off the Horde's of Guards who come after you.

 

Yes I play WoW, and I don't care about your opinion of the game.(For all you critics and haters out there.)

[Peregrine]

In this debate I hear alot of "Modding will be difficult, if not impossible", but if they make it like Diablo 2 with both a MMO and a Single Player then they could mod the single player when they get bored with the MMO.

 

*bashes head against wall*

 

Why do I feel like I'm talking to myself? Read the damn post I made a little higher on this page. It explains why you are wrong, and why this idea sucks.

 

 

And Diablo II was NOT an MMORPG. It was a small-party hack and slash action game with no persistent world or large-scale player interaction. While a successful game, its design concept is 180* apart from Morrowind's (though sadly, it isn't so far away from Oblivion's).

 

 

Now what i think they aught to do is make it not an MMO but like Diablo 2 and Halo. Have servers hosted by other players that allow for group play with out degrading the game, NPC's could still have AI and you could still do epic quests BUT the rewards would be based on group size and the group would be considered heros not everyone as a single hero. Also there could be seperate server types for PvP where you could do 1v1 2v2 etc or even FFA. I think this would make for a great game.

 

It would suck beyond belief. It would have absolutely nothing to do with the Elder Scrolls series or their traditional gameplay. Here's a hint: Diablo II only worked with that kind of multiplayer because it was completely linear and the plot was just a flimsy excuse to kill lots of monsters.

 

Now go read my comments on this kind of multiplayer so I don't have to copy/paste them. And then come apologize for being wrong and wasting our time.

 

To make it so that people could host their own little server without their choices being hindered or their house being ramsacked by some @$$hole would be to make the player's housing system like WoWs instance systems except the house would only be accesible by its owner.

 

Oh, perfect. My master thief will just run into your god-mode door and that won't harm my gameplay experience at all!

 

The loot problem could be solved by a system that allowed for rolling. For ex. should a bow drop only those who have Marksman as a Major skill could need, the rest could only greed or pass.

 

Oh, perfect, lets turn the existing loot system (NO RANDOM LOOT) that is both realistic and perfectly balanced into a WoW-style slot machine. And lets make the gameplay into WoW-style item hunting instead of focusing on the story.

 

Here's a hint: if I wanted to play WoW, I would buy the damn game. And then shortly after that, I would kill myself to end the pain. I don't expect to see WoW's awful game mechanics crossing over into other games.

 

The prblem of people killing NPC's could be solved by a option upon creation that bans people who do kill NPC's and the NPC would respawn after the player is banned. Otherwise, if the option isn't selected, it could be just like oblivion is now... kill an NPC and fight off the Horde's of Guards who come after you.

 

Oh, just what we need. Let's be sure TES V has the story depth of a puddle, so you have something to do when the WoW servers are down. To state the blindingly obvious (that you somehow miss): many story concepts such as rival factions require you to kill NPCs.

 

Yes I play WoW, and I don't care about your opinion of the game.(For all you critics and haters out there.)

 

 

You know, you should've just admitted this in the first sentence and immediately identified yourself as someone with absolutely no knowledge of proper game design. It would've saved me the bit of effort I wasted in correcting you if I'd realized you were a hopeless cause.