Building in Exploits
When I think back to some of the most fun I’ve had in MMORPGs, it’s when I knew I was exploiting something that wasn’t completely unbalancing. Not the times when I created turrets in places that monsters couldn’t reach in Asheron’s Call 2 or when I got to that perfect spot on Lugian Towers in AC1 in which I could level with impunity as an archer. Those were fun for a while, but they made me feel dirty.
I’m talking about the exploits like in Ultima Online when I GM Tinker trapped chests inside orc camps to blow up unsuspecting players, or when I told them that purple potions permanently increased their stamina, and when they used them, they blew up 5 seconds later, hurt me, and I called the guards on them. Maybe that second one is a bad example, but you get what I mean.
I’ve always wondered if it would be a good idea to build in “exploits” that you knew expert players would eventually discover, but that didn’t completely disrupt game balance. For example, the recent introduction of Achievements into EverQuest II. You get Achievement experience for killing boss mobs, discovering areas, completing non-repeatable quests, and so on. The “exploit,” however, is when you mentor down to other players.
You can Mentor down from level 60 to 20 and complete quests appropriate for that level (or do anything else that would normally yield Achievement experience) and get Achievement experience toward your next point. Was this on purpose initially? Tough to say, but it’s really cool, and it almost feels like an exploit but doesn’t disrupt game balance.
I think it may actually be a good idea to start building in more “exploits” in online games. Anything that you know the average Joe won’t figure out on his own, but that veterans or especially smart players will discover. This type of exploitation can be really fun. and fun is always a good thing as long as it doesn’t hurt other players in some way. It rewards creativity and exploration (Exploration in the curiosity sense. “What if I do this and this in succession? It might make sense that something cool would happen. Holy crap! It did!”).
Another example of an EverQuest II “exploit” that results simply in fun rather than balance disruption is the recent ability to jump off flying mounts (griffons, carpets, and clouds). This ability is especially useful for scouts and others with safe fall, as you can jump off in locations you normally could not. On the new PvP servers, it’s proven itself extremely useful if you know griffon paths.
If I’m near any of the griffon flight points in Commonlands, I know how to get to the gates in about 30 seconds because there’s a spot any class can jump safely. In Antonica, jumping off a griffon into the water results in enhanced safety (because players camp the towers) and allows you to attack enemy players from points they might not initially expect.
Of course, the line has to be drawn somewhere. What makes an exploit damaging to other players? I think the answer is simple: If all players can do it and it doesn’t result in immediately apparent imbalance (e.g. the ability to get a ton of coin easily, farm named mobs, etc.), it’s probably an exploit worth leaving in or even introducing on purpose. You also have to use your own judgment when introducing such exploits, but I think doing so on purpose knowing that they won’t cause major imbalance would be a big plus on the fun side of things.
Well, I think you played a bit too much with the terms here.
More than “exploits” these are unintended secondary effects that sometimes aren’t too bad.
It just depends if the “explot” finishes to be detrimental for the game or add to it, which is something that the devs are called to consider.
I suppose the term “exploit” can’t really be applied here because the nature of the term dictates that it is an unintended use of a game system to garner some advantage for the exploiter.
Perhaps what I should have said was that I think we should build in side effects that feel like exploits to a player but we know are not detrimental to the game. Maybe what I’m talking about here is emergent behavior, but even that is generally defined as unintended.
I’ll try to come up with an example or two. Let’s say you’re on a quest in which you must harvest 20 pieces of iron. You could run around harvesting the iron, or you could purchase the iron from another player and get the harvest credit.
You’d still have to turn the iron into the NPC, so though it’s an exploit to purchase iron from another player rather than harvest like the quest says to, it isn’t hurting anything (and if anything, the player who purchased the iron would get bored harvesting anyway, and the player who sold the iron wanted to sell it anyway, so it’s a win-win).
Another example: A player has boots of run speed, a spell that increases run speed, and an item that can be consumed to boost run speed. Each gives a 25% bonus to run speed, and cumulatively they give 75% bonus. Even I might not agree that players should be running 75% faster than normal, but what if we planned for players to use all of these run speed boosts in concert?
When used together, they could reduce in effectiveness but still stack (perhaps giving an overall boost of 50% to run speed). Generally speaking, developers would see the 75% run speed stacking as an exploit and simply eliminate the ability to stack run speed boosters altogether.
I completely agree with you that these unintended features add a new layer of experience to the game. The problem is the age-old issue of semantics: one man’s “unintended feature” is another man’s “exploit”. The feature in question may not cause an imbalance, but if the perception by players is that the effect shouldn’t be possible, then it is perceived as an exploit. Most players quietly complain to customer service (or maybe not so quietly) and given enough negative feedback that “feature” gets nerfed.
But that seems to be the case for truly unintended features. I think you’re onto something that if devs build-in *intended* but undocumented features, then there’ s much firmer ground for the devs to stand on when it comes time to defend it.
The one thing I would “demand” from such a thing is that the “exploit” is achievable only through the context of the gameplay. In other words, I don’t think you should get any special bonus by, say, pressing an arbitrary key a certain number of times. As your post implies, it should be a result of experimentation with how things work within the framework of the game.
Just using the word “exploit” sent off red flags and made me want to cry in the corner, but after I got over it, I see what you mean.
I’m all for “easter eggs” and trying to incorporate ways to benefit the crafty player, but there is a certain line. If its making the gameplay easier for players because they’ve chosen a certain irreversable path (class, race, specializiation) and/or allows a monster not to be able to hit back then I’d argue it’s a bug/exploit. Think rangers getting in a spot where they can’t be hit and shooting arrows at an NPC without fear of being attacked.
If there’s a quest where you could either run around dumbly speaking to NPCs and have them give you a story in 5 hours or figure out a cryptic message the first NPC gave you and finish the quest in 5 minutes, or something like the griffin jumping, sure.
There is a certain awesome fusion of what we as designers create and how it’s interpreted and experienced by players. We give them the words, they make the poetry. However, when it’s damaging, it becomes less like poetry and more like a quote in an interview taken out of context….sure we said it (designed the system/quest/item/etc), but had no idea it would be taken THAT detrimetal way, and that’s when we need to put a stop to it.
Just some ramblings…you ask, I blather =)
I think you have to distinguish carefully between “logical exploits” and “non-sequitur exploits”. There is a problem with using the word “exploit” in that it almost always refers to the latter kind: exploitng software bugs in a way that makes no logical sense in the game world.
I know you are opposed to artificial restrictions, and this could be categorized precisely as such. Almost everything we do IRL is some form of “exploit” of our situation and of the laws of nature. When we cannot exploit the laws of nature in the game world in a logical way, it “suspends suspension of disbelief” and just annoys us.
So I don’t think you have to phrase this as “put deliberate exploits in the game.” Rather, say “let the players to do what they logically should be able to,” or “enable the players to exploit the laws of nature in any logical way they want.” Traditionally, an “exploit” is the opposite of that: it’s a way to do something you logically should not be able to do. A good example is duping.
[...] This is a delicate task, to be sure. If you give players one or two abilities that are imbalanced in all situations, they’ll primarily use those one or two abilities and will get bored with the game. If you give them too few compared to other classes, they’ll feel slighted (and imbalanced). I won’t go on to discuss building in imbalance too much, because it’s for the same reasons I already explained in an older entry entitled Building in Exploits. [...]
with the game. If you give them too few compared to other classes, they’ll feel slighted (and imbalanced). I won’t go on to discuss building in imbalance too much, because it’s for the same reasons I already explained in an older entry entitled Building in Exploits. And a final thought since Psychochild poked me in the eye about working in community relations: Just because you wrote a chapter in a book on balance doesn’t make you an expert. I’ve read plenty of books about game development by clueless people.
You put this into words perfectly, and I am completely on the same page. This is exactly how I run the balancing in Reign Of Militias, an rpg cyberpunk modification for UT2007. It’s jsut that I’ve never seen anyone explain it so well.
Ultima Online for the win, another good exploit was polymorphing into an orc and getting players to attack you then busting out an “An Ex Por” and a few “Cor Por”s.. I can’t believe I remember the spell chants..
cheers,
– thom