MMObility: Let's make a mobile game, part two

Last week I started working with Dave Toulouse, indie developer of Golemizer and Star Corsairs, to build our very own mobile MMO. For the sake of completing the project within the month of February, we kept our game designs simple and easy for anyone to play. The idea was not to create a state-of-the-art video game but instead to build a working framework that illustrated some of the basics of MMO design.

Ironically, my first column on the subject was received rather coolly when I consider my normal column response, but last week's responses taught me a valuable lesson about design: Players often want to talk about what is not possible rather than what is. Dave told me how his players often told him what they wished his games would achieve, without ever considering just how difficult it is to make a game.

Still, there were several great ideas in the comments section. I'm going to use those ideas to break down this week's update.

Let's look first at reader DevilSei's comments: "It would be interesting to have the field respond to player actions; it would lend an ebb and flow to it as players have to adjust how they go about as areas possibly lose available resources." He brings up a playfield that would actually change as players moved over it and played in it. I've always enjoyed the idea of having the actual play area of an MMO change over time. In most MMOs, especially mobile ones, the world that players live and play in is pretty much a stage and nothing more. There are props on the stage, and occasionally the lighting changes, but generally the players are the only things that are altered. Even with dynamic NPCs or events, the playfield becomes predictable and stagnant.

If we allow our mobile game to morph over time, even in a very simple way, we keep players guessing what will happen next. Perhaps each of our map squares could be affected the more players visit it? Let's say that a square might change after being visited by its 10th player, even changing from a normal square that provides goods to a square that provides even more goods but is very dangerous to visit? As more and more players visit the square, the price becomes much harder to pay. Dave agrees, but now we need a way to indicate to the player which squares carry more goods or are riskier to visit. I think that the artwork of the square might be able to help.

"Maybe having a player's stats go up or down based on how successful he is during the game is a good way to throw a wrench into the works?"

More from DevilSei: "Perhaps a form of leveling that allows people to gain and lose their levels as their contributions fluctuate. If you consistently lose points for your side, your level lowers and the number of points you can use is decreased. As you prove effective for your team and gain points, though, your level increases, which allows you to invest more points from the score to replenish or whatever else items may be able to do." This is an interesting concept, but I would need DevilSei to clarify a bit for me. He seems to be saying that as a player becomes better or worse at playing the game, the effect is exponential. I could see this becoming a very serious problem if players find themselves in a rut (similar to losing experience upon death), but it could be tapered and tweaked to work out.

Maybe having a player's stats go up or down based on how successful he is during the game is a good way to throw a wrench into the works? If you have an environment that changes while the game goes on and a player's stats change based on how effective he is in that environment, you might have a pretty exciting game. A lot of players do not want anything to do with an unpredictable game, though. They want to know their stats and how to tweak those stats to perfection. They want tables and graphs so that nothing is a surprise. While gameplay like that sort of makes me cringe, I can understand the need for perfection and why some players find it exciting. If this small game I am making represents anything, however, I would hope that it represents how I would make a game if truly given the chance. If I had that chance, the game would not be predictable.

"I would also suggest maybe capping the faction availability somewhat," continued DevilSei "Right now, crows are far and away the highest scorers, with turtles seemingly only having one person playing for them, and squirrels are not far above that. In a competitive game, its always important to ensure as fair a field as possible. This is amplified when you have three factions."

He brings up a good, solid point, although the crow numbers were the result of a bug. How do you maintain "fairness" or balance in a game? How do we make sure that all sides are equal or as close to equal as we can get them? I've asked Dave about a mechanic that forces players into sides to maintain balance, but then I could understand when players complained about being forced. Perhaps we could encourage players to join the less-popular factions by offering free goodies or buffs? Once again this can be seen as unfair by the rest of the playerbase. We also have to consider raising the limit of actions for each player. The initial setting was meant as a test; now that we see how it can work, we might be able to bring it up a bit.

"The mobile players can play on their smartphones, the desktop players can poke around in the game through their browsers, and the basic images and coding of the game open it up to iOS players."

Last week it seemed as though hosting the game inside a browser window confused some readers. The reason a browser is perfect is because most smartphones now have a browser that acts pretty much like a standard one. Truly it is as though the PC browser has been shrunk down to fit in a four-inch screen. Given that ability, we cover several bases with one browser window. The mobile players can play on their smartphones, the desktop players can poke around in the game through their browsers, and the basic images and coding of the game open it up to iOS players. The browser is a perfect platform.

So, we have reached the end of the column for this week. I have a few things to brush up, including new art, and Dave will need to tweak some tables and work that indie dev magic to add in any new adjustments. We'll be updating this weekend, and by next week we will hopefully have a game with more things to "do" and a more solid story behind it. I am not as worried about having a complex game that plays like a "real" MMO as about having a game that has taught us all a bit about design.

So, I once again need your help, fair readers. Now that the game is going to boast a fantasy setting and the playfield will change as players move through it, we need to answer a few more basic questions.

First, what is the lore behind the game? What are the races involved, and why are they there?

Next, we need to come up with a name for the game. I would like something that has to do with survival, faction-based survival, or fantasy.

I will watch the comments during the week, and by the next installment, we should have a game that is starting to resemble an actual MMO, complete with title, lore, and gameplay. Remember, the more comments and discussion we have, the better. Don't worry -- this is all an exercise, so fire away... no matter how silly the idea! Be sure to follow me on Twitter, I'll be updating players on this week's progress as it comes out! Keep an eye on the official game page here.

Each week in MMObility, Beau Hindman dives into the murky waters of the most accessible and travel-friendly games around, including browser-based and smartphone MMOs. Join him as he investigates the best, worst, and most daring games to hit the smallest devices! Email him suggestions, or follow him on Twitter and Facebook.