Feedback:User/Guild Wars 3 perhaps/World Building and the Death of the Map Jump

From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Go here to see a list of my other GW2 suggestions and discussion contributions.


I'll start off by listing a pet peeve of mine with regards to MMORPG games (with Guild Wars singled out because it's the only one I care about at the moment) and then follow with my suggestion as a solution to the problem.


Travel. Traveling between outposts, towns, cities, dungeons, important way points, etc. Grinding, boring, pointless, monotonous travel. Walk, ride, swim, or fly it's all the same; you're just trying to get from A to C by passing through static, unengaging B. It doesn't matter how absolutely gorgeous the countryside is. It doesn't matter that the artists such as those at ArenaNet are so talented that they can make it look like a classical oil painting come to life. After having traipsed through it for the hundredth time on my way from A to C, it just becomes something to get through, to grin-and-bear until I get to where I'm going. You could turn it into a gray, flat, featureless plane and it would psychologically register as no different in terms of game play or how much attention I give it any longer.


Granted, the ability to map jump from town to town is a welcome relief from the monotony. But isn't that just validation that players are bored having to run through all that lovingly detailed scenery? Isn't that the wrong solution to the problem? When you have talent such as exists at ArenaNet, isn't it worth having that talent recognized by giving credit to the visual cornucopia we're presented with in the world of Guild Wars? Why then is it so easily dismissed; why has it become something to dread rather than something to revel in?


I'll tell you why. The world of Guild Wars - as beautifully rendered as it is - is nothing more than a backdrop. It's a static world seen at a distance in which there's no interaction. Thus, there is nothing to engage the player psychologically. Consequently, if you can't interact with that world then it's easily dismissed and quickly becomes boring. The key is - IT'S ALL ABOUT THE INTERACTIONS.


Which brings me to my three-part suggestion to address this problem.


First of all, make the world dynamic. I don't mean dynamic in that you can watch the wind blow through the trees as the branches wave back and forth or witness the flow of water in a stream while sitting back and saying to yourself, "Gee, that's pretty". I mean dynamic relative to INTERACTION WITH THE PLAYERS. Make the world respond to user (and NPC) actions. If an elementalist drops meteor shower on an enemy, have some craters get carved out of the ground. If a ranger's errant ignited arrow misses its mark and hits a tree instead, make it catch on fire. If an enemy throws a boulder at you, have it be a boulder that was actually sitting next to that enemy rather than magically materializing out of thin air. If a village comes under attack by a marauding band of centaurs, have the buildings show signs of damage. In other words, have cause-and-effect between the actions of characters in the world and the world itself. What I'm suggesting is not beyond the scope of Guild Wars nor beyond the abilities of modern computers; plenty of games now have fully destructible environments.


Secondly, now that the world is dynamic, make the dynamicism relevant to playing the game. It's all well and good to have your actions make an impact on the world. But that's not enough; those impacts have to affect game play or they, too, will soon become dismissed as irrelevant. After having made your thousandth crater with meteor shower, it will be ignored just like the backdrop world currently is if it has no effect on gameplay. Instead, have the crater DO something. For example, a stampeding centaur unable to stop in time will actually be tripped up (knocked down?) by running into that crater. The tree that caught on fire from the ranger's errant arrow eventually spreads to a forest fire that displaces some tribe of forest dwelling creatures now bent on revenge. The village ransacked by the centaurs needs rebuilding or it's refugees escorted elsewhere to start anew.


Also, the world and its features become important from a tactical perspective. If every time your aggro circle overlaps an enemy's aggro circle they instantly become aware of your presence despite 10 feet of solid rock or a dense jungle canopy between you, that begins to strain credulity. How much more interesting it would be if you eliminate the magical radar typical of practically all MMORPGs and make the game world act like the real world. What if you couldn't see an enemy as a little red dot on a compass nor they you? Imagine the heightened sense of awareness and anticipation as players creep along the narrow corridors of a dungeon not knowing what is around the next bend. Now when you're out and about in the wilds, you would actually have to pay attention to the terrain. Hiding behind rocks and trees and using elevation changes in the ground to keep out of sight of enemies. Or vice-versa, now you have to hunt around for the enemy as it tries to elude you through dense brush or rocky canyon lands. Sound would play a part in this as well. Rather than background noises being just that - background - they become important clues as to the possible location of allies and enemies. The sound of rustling vegetation, a cracking twig, the sudden flight of birds, a rock rolling down a hillside all become tips as to the location of your predator or prey.


First you have cause-and-effect of player and NPC actions on the world around them. Secondly, those cause-and-effects must have tangible consequences on gameplay.


Now to my third suggestion. Make the world around the players be part of the game. In my previous two suggestions the world can now be affected by player actions and those actions will have an impact on minor aspects of game play. But in neither case is the world actually PART of the game play experience. It's still just that expanse between A and C that you have to slog through on your way to a goal. Why not make the world itself part of the goal? In other words, make it about the journey rather than the destination, grasshoppa'.


I'll start off small and build to the larger vision I have in mind here.


MMORPGs traditionally involve performing quests, daring deeds, missions, tasks, whatever you want to call them. They are goal-oriented rather than process-oriented (or experience-oriented if you prefer). In the early days of computerized RPGs, this made sense (and was even a necessity) due to the storage and processing limitations of computers at the time. You couldn't have gigantic, richly detailed worlds because the computers of the day couldn't handle them. So the games centered on small, discreet goals for the players to achieve with a lot of the world building being left to the imagination of the player. Fast forward to today where nearly entire virtual planets can be created on a home computer. But MMORPGs are still stuck in the past using the old model. Their worlds got bigger (a LOT bigger) but the experience remained the same; travel from A to C to complete task D. Sadly, B - the ever growing, ever more richly detailed worlds built for these games - got left out of the equation. So B - for all its beauty and CGI craftsmanship - just becomes a static backdrop that gets larger and larger with each new game but does not contribute to the game EXPERIENCE; it's just another computer rendered landscape to run through - and ignore - on your way to the next goal. What a shame and what a waste.


What if instead the world IS the game? Certainly there will still be goals, quests, missions, tasks, etc. to perform and there will certainly be already-established outposts, villages, towns, and cities. But what if playing within that virtual space between them actually became part of the game?


Let me start with one radical suggestion; no more map jumping. *Gasp*, *Cough*, *Say it isn't so!*, *Has he gone mad?!?* I realize that this suggestion borders on the blasphemous within the current context of Guild Wars. But let's look behind the scenes - at the hidden assumptions - as to why this suggestion would be so unwelcome.


Let's start with asking the question, "Why do you want to map jump in the first place?"


The simple answer is, "To get to where I'm going, of course."


HAHA! GOTCHA!! YOU FELL FOR THE TRAP!!! I would respond, "Well, then why not just WALK there?"


The response would be some version of, "Because, I want to get there fast (whatever 'there' is; a mission start, an NPC to talk to for a reward, etc.)."


To which I would counter, "But what's your rush? Isn't a game about passing the time in a form of recreation you find enjoyable? Don't you want to go walk around the game world and witness it in all its grandeur?"


And with that would come the coup-de-grace of, "Because there's NOTHING TO DO OUTSIDE (in the game world). All you do is walk around and it's BORING!"


BINGO! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!


So the reason for map jumping is TO AVOID WASTING TIME PASSING THROUGH A GAME WORLD IN WHICH THERE IS NOTHING TO DO/NO INTERACTION.


Maybe it's time to change that. My suggestion for doing so goes something like this:


Worlds will get bigger and bigger. Short of some contrivance such as map jumping or Asuran gates or what-have-you, it will take longer and longer to pass through them simply by walking. What if we stop making the world something to simply "get through (on your way to somewhere else)" and instead make it something to "get into"?


Let's start with a small party of players adventuring in the wilds in an effort to perform some quest. Time is limited; the party comes to the conclusion there won't be enough time to march through the world to the next waypoint to begin their mission. Assuming they have never traveled to this new location before, map jumping is not an option. Thus, under the old paradigm, the party would not even be able to begin the mission because there won't be enough time to even reach the start point let alone complete the mission.


What if instead of having to scrap their plans the party had another option. I'm going to call it "The Encampment". Whether this is an innate ability of all players, a specific player skill, or even a consumable item I will leave open for now. With "The Encampment" players are able to create a camp anywhere on the map. It permits players to save their progress in journeying throughout the world without having to resort to going back to a town or their guild hall. While players are encamped, their location and progress is saved and - when logged off - are safe from harm from other players or computer controlled enemies. The encampment may or may not have various limiters. For example, if it's a skill it can only be used once in 24 hours, if it's a consumable it gets used up with each encampment, etc. For reasons I'm about to explain you'll see why no limiters at all may be a good thing.


Now, with "The Encampment", players are actually playing IN the world rather than simply journeying THROUGH it. But only marginally; it's just a temporary stopover until they get to their real destination, right? So let's expand upon this concept.


Let's assume "The Encampment" remains a viable tool for getting through the long-distance journeys between quests for those players who are goal-oriented. But what if we add the ability to build upon "The Encampment". How about hiring NPCs such as merchants, traders, and Xunlai Agents to accompany you on your journey. They would have to be paid a fee for their services to remain in your employ lest they go looking for greener pastures; but at least now you have a base of operations from which to adventure forth into the surrounding territory. Provided you can continue to pay whatever upkeep costs are associated with the encampment (if any), you can continue to use it as your home-away-from-home while you're out adventuring. Think of it as a mobile guild hall.


What if you really like the area in which you've set up camp or there are multiple quests to be completed in the surrounding territory such that you don't want to pull up stakes just yet? Now we introduce the ability to upgrade your encampment to an outpost. This would have certain requirements such as gathering X-amount of wood or other material with which to construct some basic structures of an outpost, situating your encampment close to a source of water and maybe food (random wandering herds of animals now take on a purpose in the game rather than being just another backdrop element), and hiring at least one merchant or trader for example. Once these minimum prerequisite costs are met, the outpost is now established. It will confer greater benefits than a simple encampment and will have more permanency. For example, a marauding group of five centaurs might have thought nothing about overrunning your encampment, but they give your outpost a wide berth (at least until they've managed to gather enough reinforcements to make a viable assault later on).


After the outpost comes the village. Provided you gather the minimum requirements (more wood, granite for some rudimentary walls perhaps, possible domestication of animals for food, convincing NPCs to move to your village through payment of gold, materials, or completion of tasks on their behalf, etc.) you will be permitted to upgrade.


Next would come the town. More densely populated, more defenses, more services, more raw materials needed, more food and water required, etc.


Building successively larger structures will require greater and greater cooperation and involvement of players to complete these undertakings. A single player up to a small party can make an encampment. Particularly wealthy and motivated small groups of players might pull off an outpost. It would take (or even require) a guild to build a village. A town could only be achieved through the combined efforts of an entire alliance.


And before you know it, we have dynamic world building within Guild Wars, ladies and gentlemen. No longer shackled to the old paradigm of "outpost - map jump - outpost - map jump", players are free to interact with and explore the world around them without having to worry about rushing back to the nearest town to save their progress. Also, with no map jumping permitted, players will actually have to travel through the world and become part of it through their interactions rather than rushing through it with blinders on as they head towards their next quest. Players will come to cherish that painstakingly-created world because now they are dependent on it for survival. To maintain their encampment, outpost, village, or town, they must rely on the surrounding environment for the resources they need. They will also need to rely on each other for goods and services traded in and between outposts, villages, and towns. They will study every rock and tree of their surroundings because doing so will give them the strategic and tactical advantage when conflicts arise in their local area. When players are ready to sally forth into uncharted territory, they will rely on players visiting from those other realms to give them news and tips of that territory to help them navigate their way through (remember, they can't just map jump over there). Exploring the world truly becomes an exploration as there may be areas you will only pass through once in your game career because of the effort involved in trekking there.


"Not so fast!", you counter. "You can't have your cake and eat it, too!", you say. You point out that I also want a destructible dynamic world. "What happens when the surrounding forest has been clear cut to provide building materials and fuel for the fledgling outpost, village, or town? What happens when the surrounding rock has all been quarried out to build walls?"


That's simple. There's five ways to solve that problem (all five of which would exist together):


1. Players would have skills, abilities, or talents (call it what you will) that would permit them to regenerate resources. Whether or not this is race- based is open to debate. I know the current model for the game is trying to move away from race-specific traits and professions. However, my initial concept is you could have a Sylvari with the ability to make trees, grass, plant life in general regenerate faster. So as a forest is cut down, a Sylvari party member is helping restore it. Just as easily an Earth-attuned Elementalist could achieve the same effect. A Norn or Charr character may have an ability that will permit them to hunt for food needed for the colony. Maybe the Human characters will be accomplished at animal domestication or farming. The Asura could create machines to mine deeper for rock. Conversely, these could be abilities that are learned by any profession or race so that we don't fall back into the trap of, "Well, gee, I sure would love to build an outpost but we don't have a Sylvari party member to help us regenerate the trees."


2. Outposts, villages, and towns could establish trade routes with other outposts, villages, and towns. They exchange essential building and maintenance resources with one another that are plentiful in one's location but lacking in the other's.


3. Other players who visit these outposts, villages, and town could buy and sell materials with the colony's NPC traders much like they do now in the established towns of Guild Wars. Those materials traded to the NPCs could be earmarked by the colony's owner(s) to be put towards its maintenance costs, thus reducing pressure on the surrounding environment.


4. Anything bigger than an encampment will be required to pay a tax to the race that has majority control of the surrounding territory. Fail to keep up with your taxes and there could be several consequences. NPCs you've hired may start to leave, your town's population may begin to dwindle, you may risk attack by the controlling race of the area or they may refuse to come to your aid should you come under attack by some other faction.


5. Failure to keep up with the maintenance costs of your outpost, village, or town will lead to it being downgraded to the next lower level (with the attendant loss of services, defenses, and other benefits conferred by the larger establishment). A town would become a village, a village an outpost, an outpost an encampment (at which point we're back to a temporary structure that has little impact on the surrounding environment).


All of these factors would be working either for or against the outpost, village, or town simultaneously. Some establishments will grow up, exceed the resources needed to maintain them, and eventually decay into ghost towns before finally disappearing off the map completely. The surrounding dynamic destructible environment then has an opportunity to regrow and recover. The forest that had been clear-cut to build the town eventually regrows into a forest again. Few if any players will attempt to establish a colony in that area while it regrows because there will be insufficient resources available for doing so. An additional limiter can be added that only trees of a certain maturity are structurally sound enough to be used for making buildings, only certain types of stone make good walls, etc.


You concede, "Ok, you've thought out how to balance a dynamic destructible environment against the resource requirements for outposts, villages, and towns. But how do you propose to handle a situation in which potentially tens of thousands of outposts, villages, and towns would be built by every Tom, Dick, and Harry playing the game?"


That shouldn't be too hard, either:


1. Not everyone is going to want to build an outpost, village, or town. Most players will be goal-oriented and will go no further than building a temporary encampment to act as a base of operations while they complete quests and missions in the area.


2. The cost in gold, resources, materials, time, and ongoing maintenance to build outposts, villages, and towns will be such it will discourage those who would only dabble casually in world building. They will find their needs would be better met by contributing towards an already established outpost, village, or town rather than trying to build one from scratch.


3. There could be level limiters put in place so that only players of higher level can build larger structures.


4. To establish an outpost, village, or town would require permission of the ruling race or faction for that region. This permission would likely be acquired through the completion of a quest or achieving some notable rank among that race. Larger colonies would require increasingly higher ranks or more difficult missions to be completed before permission would be granted. Likewise, falling out of favor with the ruling race or faction might subject your outpost, village, or town to attack by NPCs of that ruling faction or race. Also, as mentioned earlier, a tax would have to be paid to the ruling faction or race. Default on your taxes and you also expose your colony to attack. Fail to fend off these attacks and your colony will slowly be taken apart piece-by- piece until the player can no longer afford to rebuild and maintain it.


5. A limit could be set on how many outposts, villages, and towns can be built in a given area. Try to build too close to one already established and you won't be permitted to build there.


6. Natural disasters such as avalanches, floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, mud slides, tidal waves, tornadoes, and volcanoes could take out the random colony here and there. As was pointed out on the discussion page by one contributor, this suggestion is too punitive. I've since revised my original suggestion to make natural disasters less destructive while still acting as a limiter to unchecked growth. See the discusion entry "Natural Disasters Too Punitive (originally titled derp)" for additional details.


7. Build too close to a dragon's territory and you'll log on tomorrow to find your establishment a smoldering ruins. The closer you get to a dragon's lair the smaller and smaller your colony has to be until eventually only an encampment will escape the dragon's notice.


8. Resources or the lack thereof will naturally limit the number and placement of outposts, villages, and towns.


9. An option to merge two nearby colonies into the next larger type may be available. Two outposts merge to form a single village, two villages merge to form a single town.


10. Outposts, villages, and towns may be voluntarily abandoned by their creator(s). If there's no one who wants to buy the town or take over its maintenance, it will revert to a ghost town (maybe even complete with NPC ghosts) until it eventually withers away to nothing as it's reclaimed by the surrounding environment. Alternately, a repeatable quest could be available in which players are tasked with cleaning up ghost towns. Kill all of the ghosts in the former outpost, village, or town and - in addition to getting a quest reward - the outpost, village, or town is removed from the map. Or perhaps the conquering player is given an option to take over the outpost, village, or town and rebuild it as their own (provided they can come up with the money, resources, and whatever other requirements are needed).


11. There could be specific skills, traits, attributes, talents (whatever you want to call them) required to build a colony. Carpentry for example. Only players willing to invest the time, effort, and expense in learning these skills will have the necessary requirements for colony building.


So you see, there are many ways to limit the number of outposts, villages, and towns so that the map doesn't wind up becoming one megalopolis.


Thanks for reading. Be sure to check out the discussion page (see tab at top of this page) for evolving suggestions of how to implement this idea or critiques (and possible solutions) of its shortcomings. Guild Wars 3 perhaps 18:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Feedback:User/Guild_Wars_3_perhaps/World_Building_and_the_Death_of_the_Map_Jump&oldid=2500378"