An idea for player-generated stories in an MMO environment.

[kingjing]

Hey all, I want to know what you guys think of this idea: An MMO with three tiers of play-

1) Basic (Free to play, limited stats but a number of quests and hunts to enjoy)

2) Heroic (Pay a one-time price to have access to higher stats and more powerful weapons, as well as being directly connected to the third tier)

3) Leader (Monthly subscription fee which allows the players to build their own city, direct the economy based on limited local resources, and give orders (Special quests) to the heroic tier adventurers, such as blocking trade shipments to a rival state, or slaying a monster which is causing trouble on the outskirts of their territory).

With this kind of set-up, stories would start to evolve on their own. Leader players from neighboring countries might seek to sabotage eachother for political or economic gain, or perhaps they would work together against some common threat.
The Heroic tier players would more or less act as military leaders, court officials, city guards and powerful stand-alone warriors. Free players could either be mercs or paid soldiers under the heroic tier players, as well as merchants and crafters.

What do you guys think? Would that be a reasonable idea, or is it doomed to immediate failure? What do you guys think about player-generated stories in general, and are MMOs the right place for them?

 

[Daxis]

One should never have to buy power. One of the most popular mmos I've played, League of Legends, has a model in which one buys vanity, not power. It makes it so that you must buy power to get into any real play, additionally, it limits the game's playerbase to those to pay or don't play, and more importantly, it limits the friends of the players that are "Leaders" can't freely join without paying as well. Thus, either the game is so ridiculously awesome that EVERYONE joins, or that NOBODY joins in.

Having a system where you buy naught but vanity


In a related little thing, I've always though why you couldn't do a system where you couldn't sort of set up your own quests for others to complete: pay money to set up a quest that gives you x gold for killing this character (or player name, based on who is participating), or for collecting this item. It has a threshold to be highly fallacious, but the idea has always been tinkering in m ymind,

 

[kingjing]

One should never have to buy power. One of the most popular mmos I've played, League of Legends, has a model in which one buys vanity, not power. It makes it so that you must buy power to get into any real play, additionally, it limits the game's playerbase to those to pay or don't play, and more importantly, it limits the friends of the players that are "Leaders" can't freely join without paying as well. Thus, either the game is so ridiculously awesome that EVERYONE joins, or that NOBODY joins in.

Good point. Perhaps some other metric could be used to determine the leaders/heroes then, instead of how much money you're willing to sink into it.
What if leaders were elected by other players instead of purchasing the power? That way, they would have to be able to show leadership ability before they started overseeing the affairs of a city or nation. Also, this way everyone who plays has the chance to become a leader, if they play well and make the right friendships.

 

[GameBoy]

3) 12 year kid steals his parents credit card and then he becomes leader. Did you want play MMO under some kid's rules?
Or another scenario - that game is so awesome so all players are paying subscription and everybody becomes leaders.
Lame as hell.

 

[Xilef]

How about: You kill the king, you become the king. King's guards are super well paid.