Feel free to talk with me on gtalk if you have any doubts or suggestions!

In some way that’s only a problem when there are static quests. In a true virtual ecology there is no such thing as static quests, needs, or events. What is necessitated by the implementation of a virtual ecology is a dynamic, responsive quest system. The way to achieve it is to 1. Somehow let players make meaningful quests of their own, and 2. Somehow make NPC quests adjust to the ever-changing environment around them. Of course, there can be the occasional static quest in there to further flesh out the quest gameplay track.

Further ramifications include the need for a true market economy where in-game item values are wholly determined by what some player is willing to pay. Base values in Eve Online often boil down to what an item is worth when it’s been reprocessed into its raw materials. High values depend on what someone is willing to pay.

Even further is what may be the need for constrained player-generated items. If crafters can adjust what they make based on what is available- and I’m not just talking about not making items whose blueprints require materials that are not available in the area any longer. I’m implying that players can actually change blueprints to fit what is available. Having the appearance of said items reflect the actual materials used would make for nice “flare”.

Extinction could be largely avoided by just leaving it open to a developer to be able to reintroduce a currently-extinct species, and with some attribute modifications if necessary. Or, if players had the ability to initiate spontaneous spawn spot creation of some certain species that could alleviate if not fix the problem. Heh heh, imagine player-run wild game preserves for endangered species

Now, I’m not just running amok designer-with-his-head-in-the-clouds style. I’m trying to make the point that as soon as we decide to have a “virtual ecology” there are vast, far-reaching changes to the fundamental game mechanics and systems that must be implemented as well; otherwise there will be game-breaking problems. The approach has to be make the virtual ecology first, then within that implement features that allow for dynamic quests based on their surrounding environment at that moment. If we can have an NPC city respond to what amount to real, genuine threats to its existence by issuing relevant quests and missions, for example, then we’re a long way there.

My point is also that current “WoW clones” have it right for what they are. If you have static quests, if you have static NPC cities, if you have static spawn spots, and/or if you have large swaths of instancing, then they all kind of go together. WoW is not compatible in its current set of assumptions and implementation with a virtual ecology, dynamic quests, and fully player-driven economy. To go with just one of the latter you must embrace them all (in order to have a “best” product). You can’t mix hoards of static quests with a virtual ecology. In fact, merely the presence of hoards of static quests means it’s not a virtual ecology.

To wrap up this endless comment, attempting a “virtual ecology” in an MMOG will require a complete and utter re-think of everything we currently see in the genre. Also, there is a bit more emphasis on “static quests” than I intend, so forgive me

So, just for the sake of writing out the idea: Agile is a natural fit for prototyping; then based on that feedback the Big Design is refined and the various “products” that make up the game are identified and scoped; and then proceed Agile-style to make all those “tools” (as I call them). “Tools” being all the stuff players can do.

Then do the Big Design.

I will fully not underestimate (and in fact appreciate) the power of getting a larger pool of initial players. Receiving a push to do as much has and will help me from over-focusing on one aspect of a proposition, and this applies to more than just the IP issue.

I remember reading about the issues faced in Star Wars Galaxies designs due to secret movie information. I liked how it wrenched my perspective to a new location. They really did have some tough decisions they, well, almost couldn’t make.

However, I have the sense that the underlying “virtual world” mechanics of an MMO are largely independent of the specifics of any IP. That being said, some IPs are necessarily player-hero centered, rather than allowing for an “Uncle Owen Experience”. Interestingly, this seems to call into question the very notion that in an MMO every player is or can be a legitimate “hero”. This is a topic for further discussion. I’ll cover it in the blog portion soon.

A few thoughts: First, don’t underestimate the power of getting a larger existing pool of players. The way the typical subscription-based game works, the more people you have at the start, the longer your game will run, in general. Before WoW, you could pretty much chart out the growth and decline of a game based on how many people initially tried the game out near launch. It was the case, as you said, that more people playing means more people that will be attracted to the game.

Note that WoW may fit the pattern, but the large number of players makes it hard to fit it to the typical growth curve. We’ll have to see how it goes.

Second, often a licensed IP can be just as restrictive as it is creativity-inspiring. Raph Koster often said that the Ultima license was the greatest boon and the greatest albatross he had to deal with on UO, and he had similar stories about Star Wars and how hard it was to get some info about the new movies from LucasFilm. Of course, the high profile natures of these IPs gave the games a much higher visibility than they might have enjoyed otherwise.

Anyway, thanks again for giving this some thought.

Have fun,

I didn’t intend to sound like I disagreed with the notion that higher risk goes with higher reward. I’m afraid my “writer’s voice” is still a bit rough, though I am improving.

I was partly reacting to the notion of the best items coming from loot drops, and also partly from the implication that such a system largely precludes one from being able to play totally combat-free, hence the Stephen Hawking statement, however tacky that was – sorry . Both points, incidentally, hinge on the case for “virtual worlds” vs. “games”. However, they do interrelate at some equal level, so the “virtual worlds” debate includes them.

The disagreeable part is that there would need to be a more explicit developer presence in the mechanics of the game, in this case some system to increase the death penalty based on the [relative] difficulty of the foe. Such a presence is in essence the “unnatural” or “contrived” rules that are fundamentally a “game”.

I’ve gotta say I honestly don’t dislike the original idea as much as it may be coming across. In fact, I find it intriguing. In retrospect, I used the original idea as a jumping off point into, well, a part of the “virtual world” debate. I’m still figuring out how best to express ideas, and part of that process seems to include a certain bit of mistakery. So, all is duly noted.