Sunday, April 4, 2010

On-Line Games and High-Level Bosses

I spend a good amount of time playing an online game called Asheron's Call. It's a multiplayer online game where people all over the world are able to play in the same virtual world at the same time. Most computer games are what we call single-player, and run directly on the local machine. Some games allow multi-user, where several players join their computers to a network to enjoy a common game experience. X-Box, for example, has the ability for many players to get into the same game space. The concept of multiplayer gaming is extended to it's extreme in games like World of Warcraft, Everquest, Asheron's Call, and many others. These are termed Massively Multiplayer games.

In the course of these games, players face various levels of creatures. They are usually referred to as monsters, and they must be defeated in order for the player to take their loot, gain experience, or otherwise advance in the game. There are easy monsters, and there are the more difficult monsters. Monsters have a set of behaviors which are programmed into their code. Most are quite random, selected from a short list of possible actions. They usually attack players, and switch attacks to other players randomly.

The most difficult monsters are called Boss Monsters, and they are usually the culmination of an epic sequence of tasks called a Quest. The completion of the quest causes a boss monster to spawn, which any number of players then strive to defeat. Boss monsters are usually more difficult to defeat because of their level of difficulty, and unusually high stats, which make the players have to hit it many more times, and when it hits them, it hurts a lot more. So in order for a game to produce a boss monster, it just has to increase the stats of any monster program. The behaviors may be different, but still they are random and computer-generated.

Which leads to my Bright Idea. What if the boss monsters were operated by human beings? There would be a place like a call center, probably in China or India, where there would be a room full of workstations, possibly hundreds, and at each station would be a trained operator, called an Operator, who would control the actions of a particular boss monster spawn. The players would complete their quest, and a signal would go off, alerting the operators that a boss monster was needed. One operator would assume control of the boss monster until the end of the battle.

This would add a depth to the game that would make it far more challenging. The operator would eliminate the randomness, and then the agro would be real. He could target the most effective or least effective players at will, and thus make it more difficult to defeat the boss. It would give the players a greater sense of accomplishment when they did win.

The downside is that costs would increase, possibly making players pay more for subscriptions. Some new game might make it a feature that stands them apart from other games. For others, it could be sold as a premium service, since some players don't play for the goal of defeating a boss monster. It would also require a game to have a sufficient player base to support a live boss monster call center, 24/7.

Anyway, you have to admit it is a good idea. I predict that at some point in the development of multiplayer games, this will become a feature, nay, a selling point of many games. Some games already have live events which are moderated by humans, and sometimes they have instances where a game admin joins with really uber gear and stats, and may fight against the players. The problem with event-based instances is that players either have to be lucky enough to be online when the event occurs, or have to plan to be there.

This idea is really a dedicated group of players which are a part of the game itself. It means a constant availability of the challenge of an unpredictable opponent, rather than a special-event type of availability.

Remember that you saw it here first. Stay tuned for another cool idea in a few days. Thanks for reading.

No comments:

Post a Comment