This brings up another point I was thinking about, which is developers making different server rulesets for the same game. ArcheAge in particular would, in my opinion, greatly benefit from this.
You know, we could solve a lot of the problems with community by a very simple change:
Declare some servers "TeamSpeak Servers" where people who prefer TeamSpeak can play on...
Declare some servers "Ventrillo Servers" where people who prefer Ventrillo can play on...
And declare some servers "Text Only" servers where people who prefer text only can play on.
One of the prerequisites for a community is the ability to communicate. This has been hard to rectify, since we have a stable demographic of one-third who won't play without voicechat, one-third who won't play with voicechat, and one-third who are neutral. By having players self-select a community who all communicates in the same way, we solve a lot of the problem that prevents community from taking shape.
I say we should start with that sort of "server ruleset" before going to more hardcoded rulesets (though those might show promise too).
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
"All content should be accessible to all of the players" - A statement that sounds good on paper. Why shouldn't all players have access to all of the games content, especially if they are paying a subscription to the game. The reason is quite simple,. actually. The moment you open up the content to everyone, you automatically dumb down the games difficulty so less than average skill player can complete it. This dumps down not only the games difficulty, but the mechanics and strategies required to complete the game. Good example of such behavior is Diablo 3. While its only an RPG, the Inferno difficulty was drastically dumped down in the later "Inferno nerf" patch so everyone could complete the said content, this was based on player statements that it was simply too difficult.
Obvious not true .. by the same example you use. D3 adds in a difficulty slider .. and the SAME content can be as easy or as difficult as the play see fit.
The trick is to put in a difficulty slider, and all content can be enjoyed by all. The statement ""All content should be accessible to all of the players" sounds good because it is good, as demonstrated by D3 after the difficulty slider is in.
This brings up another point I was thinking about, which is developers making different server rulesets for the same game. ArcheAge in particular would, in my opinion, greatly benefit from this.
You know, we could solve a lot of the problems with community by a very simple change:
Declare some servers "TeamSpeak Servers" where people who prefer TeamSpeak can play on...
Declare some servers "Ventrillo Servers" where people who prefer Ventrillo can play on...
And declare some servers "Text Only" servers where people who prefer text only can play on.
One of the prerequisites for a community is the ability to communicate. This has been hard to rectify, since we have a stable demographic of one-third who won't play without voicechat, one-third who won't play with voicechat, and one-third who are neutral. By having players self-select a community who all communicates in the same way, we solve a lot of the problem that prevents community from taking shape.
I say we should start with that sort of "server ruleset" before going to more hardcoded rulesets (though those might show promise too).
I'm a little too sauced to know if you're serious, or making fun, but as an older gamer, I like my text chat, darn it. Get off my lawn!
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
This brings up another point I was thinking about, which is developers making different server rulesets for the same game. ArcheAge in particular would, in my opinion, greatly benefit from this.
..... OP doesn't want to live in my solo carebear world, but I also don't want to live in OP's world. And once again, why should either of us ever have to?
FWIW, I definitely disagree about ArcheAge, and probably future sandboxes as well.
If you're going to have open world PVP in an MMO (as opposed to the diversion that are auto-balanced arenas) it needs to be a fundamental part of the game design and play an important role in the progression.
I'm a PVE player, but if you took PVP out of AA trade runs... what would you have? The whole game is built around trade packs and dangerous sea chases (not to mention the risk-reward of unprotected farming and thieving).
I think (hope?) that ArcheAge is leading the genre toward a vision of coexistance between PVE and PVP players. The key I think is that every player can precisely determine his degree of exposure to PVP based on risk/reward. I can farm unsafely or do cross-faction trade runs 0% of the time, 100% of the time, or any fraction in between. (It's true I can be ganked by same-faction players, but if they do this often enough they'll be booted to pirate faction... assuming the constant jail sentences don't deter them first.)
TL;DR PVP rulesets lead to multiple bad games instead of 1 good one.
This brings up another point I was thinking about, which is developers making different server rulesets for the same game. ArcheAge in particular would, in my opinion, greatly benefit from this.
..... OP doesn't want to live in my solo carebear world, but I also don't want to live in OP's world. And once again, why should either of us ever have to?
FWIW, I definitely disagree about ArcheAge, and probably future sandboxes as well.
If you're going to have open world PVP in an MMO (as opposed to the diversion that are auto-balanced arenas) it needs to be a fundamental part of the game design and play an important role in the progression.
I'm a PVE player, but if you took PVP out of AA trade runs... what would you have? The whole game is built around trade packs and dangerous sea chases (not to mention the risk-reward of unprotected farming and thieving).
I think (hope?) that ArcheAge is leading the genre toward a vision of coexistance between PVE and PVP players. The key I think is that every player can precisely determine his degree of exposure to PVP based on risk/reward. I can farm unsafely or do cross-faction trade runs 0% of the time, 100% of the time, or any fraction in between. (It's true I can be ganked by same-faction players, but if they do this often enough they'll be booted to pirate faction... assuming the constant jail sentences don't deter them first.)
TL;DR PVP rulesets lead to multiple bad games instead of 1 good one.
You could be right. I suppose it depends on the mandatory or not nature of the trade run and the option for doing more trade runs at less profit per run in safer circumstances. I have read posts implying this exists for ArcheAge (safe trade runs for less per run) but haven't played the Russian version enough to know.
I'm a poor church mouse and I'm certainly not shelling out $150 to find out about that in the Trion version, so it's just a matter of wait and see and read.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
Originally posted by Flyte27 On the flip side you get a lot of fairly bland games that anyone can play. This is fair for everyone and appeals to a lot of people, but on the flip side the games are just not very good IMO. They are generally based on non stop combat these days and the combat is generally not that challenging outside of PvP and endgame raid. There are always going to be people who are left out in a more challenging or time consuming game. I was never the best by a long shot and chose to avoid the groups that are spoken of in this thread. I still progressed and had a lot of fun. I didn't need kill in groups. I was happy with challenging solo content, freedom of choice, and interacting with others outside of combat. I feel that MMOs today are just to dumbed down for me to enjoy.
Well my primary point behind the reply I made was that having high levels of exclusivity its simply just bad for business. I mean would you want to pay box price $40-50 and then a $15 per month sub and then have access to only 1 of 4-5 40-man raids? Not only that will you continue to pay $15 a month and then spend 6-8 hours per day trying to acquire the gear to progress? Then on top of that run the risk of losing your main tank to the appeal of the "higher tiered" guilds. Many might of forgotten how it was like, but this was the state of 40-man WoW raids in Vanilla/Burning Crusade. I played the game often and spent many weekend trying to get 40 people (usually 38 or 39 after waiting 1-2 hours after posted times). We progressed have done well, but it took us a lot of time to figure out each fight after we finally figure out another one even with guides etc. and then when we finally got to Rag and couldn't take him down the first 2-3 weeks, our main tank up and left with all the gear we let him have, which generally places the guild back on square 1 in teaching another main tank and then getting him gear only to run that risk again.
Now after all of that being said, would the average joe want to continue paying $15 and then potentially not get anywhere because the average joe isn't the elite gamer and spends a lot less time on the game (but could be just as capable of learning the encounters, just limited by its gear). It's a bad deal overall and the reason why WoW had to change its model if it cared about its retention (especially as newer MMO's were coming out).
In regards to your post, its a matter how much you want to extrapolate out what is being said, no one said to make the game easy, but you can make a game accessible without making it easy. I like FFXIV current system, which seems to add more challenges while still allowing things to be within reach and generally their higher tiered things are a challenge to get to but not impossible and then the barriers tend to go down when the next set of dungeons come out (but the difficulty remains the same). This way I don't have to decide between leaving a group of friends/family because they are too casual and join up with "elite" gamers who socially I could care less about.
For the record I personally don't want to go back to those vanilla days, it might look good on paper but there's a reason why MMO's have progressed into where they are at today and it's not because people aren't a little bit happier with the newer variation of the systems as opposed to using the old ones. When you nostalgia remember the bad as well as the good.
As the title states, todays immediate-rewards society has shifted MMO trends to allow players to complete all of the games content without an effort. No longer you are required to socialize to gain friends, guild or clan mates, or even rivals.
No what's wrong with today's MMO's is that there is no innovation. 75% of all MMO's today are a direct cut and paste of WoW and the Themepark ilk with just a bit of change to make it appear there's difference.
This, among other things has shifted the typical MMO player into not thinking through possibilities, and shift the blame on previously obvious solutions to faults at game design (it can never be an user error). This new school way of thinking is damaging MMOs and dumping them down.
Prime examples:
"Ganking of lower levels is griefing" - So a player of enemy faction slays his enemy. On paper this doesn't sound bad at all, its in the games design. Enemy is enemy, and should be put down. However for a solo player, who happens to be the low level, and the victim in this assault, it creates negative thoughts around the game. Back in the good old days, when people got flayed by a higher level, they simply called out help to deal with the enemy. Nowadays though, they state that such behavior is "Not ok" or that it is "Griefing of players" when the solution is absolutely simple: If you cannot handle something solo, you call out for help to deal with the problem.
Ganking at lower levels is fine if your into PvP or allow Differing rule set servers. What isn't ok is using an one size fits all game design. I played Asheron's Call from 1999 till 2004 and again from 2010 till 2012 with a break in-between for WoW all on a strictly White PvE server and It worked and worked well.ll. Even WoW and Everquest had differing rule set servers to segment and suit the differing play styles. Options and freedom is what will dig the genre out of a hole not your narrow views on what should or should not be allowed.
"All content should be accessible to all of the players" - A statement that sounds good on paper. Why shouldn't all players have access to all of the games content, especially if they are paying a subscription to the game. The reason is quite simple,. actually. The moment you open up the content to everyone, you automatically dumb down the games difficulty so less than average skill player can complete it. This dumps down not only the games difficulty, but the mechanics and strategies required to complete the game. Good example of such behavior is Diablo 3. While its only an RPG, the Inferno difficulty was drastically dumped down in the later "Inferno nerf" patch so everyone could complete the said content, this was based on player statements that it was simply too difficult. Yet during the time the nerf came, every class had completed the Inferno difficulty, some with better gear than others. Surely it was extremely difficult for some, but wasn't the original idea of Inferno that you are faced with a grim reaper punching you in the face, not you punching the grim reaper into the face repeatedly? Remember those lovely, difficult raids that weren't necessarily gear dependent, but man did they require cordination to complete? Well, with todays trend those things are history.
If you think playing a game like WoW where only 5% of the population ever experienced endgame content is fine then we're at an empasse in this debate. No small subset of gamers like this should be your games primary development designs. Inferno was dumbed downed in D3 because it was stupid to make and design a game that relied on luck in RNG to overcome. The D3 of today is a much better game then what it released as. Coordination is still required what is missing is the social aspect and the reliance on PvP endgame to carry the day. Not that I am a raider but you absolutely need some of that game design in your MMO to appeal to a larger and broader audience.
Group finder tools - Sure, this answers directly to the demand for immediate satisfaction consumers, but what it truly does is annihilating the last remaining socializing of solo players in MMO. These days people select the content, and press "Search". They join a group, at maximum state a greeting, go the select content and if something goes wrong, they just bail the ship and look for a group that can complete the select content faster. Whats more rewarding, wiping multiple times in a dungeon and finally completing it with a group, or pressing "search" enough times to get a group that gets the job done fast, when both take actually equal amount of time to complete? This also applies to PvP content. I still recall the good old days when someone just yelled in the streets that he is forming a raid to enemy territory, and requesting people to join him. Today, you press H/J/K whatever the PvP finder button is, and press "search" so you will be immediately taken into PvP action with no socializing required.
Any MMO that releases with Instance dungeons or PvP absolutely must include some form of Social dungeon/group finder or you alienate what I would consider the average gamer. Shy, awkward and introverted. Forcing players like that (including me) is #1 the surest way to force us to quit and #2 kill your games growth potential. I have quit 4 MMO's in the last 3 years because of their broken or lack of dungeon finder. Yet you insist I stand around spamming a chat channel.....1 DPS LFG PST......over and over and over, flooding chat channels. No it is a stupid thing to not include. But then again I suppose you belong to some sort of guild that always drops what their doing and invites you to their dungeon runs. No sir, this isn't fair nor is it healthy for a game to not include some method to facilitate the grouping/social aspects of MMO's.
Effort-based progression - Read: Time-based progression. When did all of the MMOs progression shift to a simple pattern: Time spent in the game = progression. This is the real killer, and is tied directly to contents avaibility. Why do people seem to think its a good solution that your character gains power, regardless of players individual skills as a player if the player plays enough? What's the point in that exactly. The best PvP gear can be attained by afking your way in the PvP content, the best gear from PvE comes directly from resources you gain for even trying to complete the content. It's gotten to extremely ridiculous point. So many are looking for challenge, and everything is catered to the sheep flock of todays consumers I'd like to call with all names possible.
When studios release content geared toward such a small subset of gamers, they have to do a hundred times the work to ensure it isn't just beaten in the first week of release. This further snowballs the lack of timely content releases.
Progression should never go backwards - This is a double-edged sword. If players can shift in their progression backwards too much, it really hurts the enjoyement of the game. But is it really the sharper edge of the two? Players not having any set backs nullifies the possibility of risk. Having no risk in MMO content means there's really nothing at stake, making the games casual strolls around the park in acid when nothing matters. Which one would you prefer: Your heart beating out of your chest when you play in adrenaline infused rage, or wiping drool from your cheek every 5 minutes when you have to slap yourself not to fall a sleep during content? Best part is, in the 90's losing all your gear wasn't actually considered that severe of a punishment for dying. Ask that from typical immediate-rewards gamer.
Fairness and balance for everyone! - Sounds like a declaration of presidental canditates speech. Yet today this is actually a subject to moaning. MMO balance used to follow a simple statement: "If its balanced in group play, or has a relatively simple counter - no matter how powerful it is, as long as it can be countered, its in balance." Today, nope. Everything gets dumped down so brainless player can match the set up, even if he has no counter to it. It just happened in the Elder Scrolls Online with Devouring Swarm ability. Those who do not know what it is: It was ultimate ability, costly point-blank AoE that dealt damage and gave you health based on the damage dealt. The trick was to utilize this ability by wearing gear that made the ability extremely cheap; Allowing people to spam it. Now, the ability was bugged in two ways: It could be stacked, and its healing worked in a damage-shield that should have disallowed healing. Yet the counter to this ability was so simple even a trained monkey would realize it after a while: Do not stand in the AoE, especially with a group since the abilitys efficiency is obviously tied to number of players it hits. What happened? People cried the ability was OP, and instead of fixing the bugs tied to the ability: Zenimax nerfed the whole vampire skill tree to the ground. Absolutely disgusting. What would have been the other option? Zenimax could have simply fixed the bugs and stated that the ability was easily countered by not standing in the AoE. Surely if a player could win a 1 v 10 it sounds shifty, but really, when the solution to win a fight was so simple, all you can blame are the players, not the ability.
What single MMO element do you hardly ever dabble in? For the sake of my argument let's assume it is Crafting. Say you need to spend 6 hours every day crafting just to be able to progress any other activity you wish to do but first the 6 hours per day must be reached. The game has just alienated you from enjoyment and forced you to do something you don't wish to participate in. Fairness and balance is something all MMO's should strive for. Again not the one size fits all design principles that plague the genre currently. All you are asking for is more of the same and forgoing fairness for 1 style over another is what we've been doing the last 8+ years in MMO land.
What does this do? It kills the strategies and out-of-box thinking in MMOs. Remember when you were about to set foot in a game, and you had a whole paper sheet ready where you had theorycrafted ideas for your character, what he's going to use with what? Non-existent. That brings us to:
Lack of blueprints - I call this plague by the term. No longer are players required to do any sorts of planning, no matter the content. You just play, there's no real reason to put those brain cells to good use. And why, its catered to the immediate reward society where you shouldn't be really wasting your time planning, but only to do something. Again it lowers the value of gameplay.
TL;DR Todays MMO features that cater to make the content more easy and accessible are hurting the value of said content by lowering the standards in todays game play. And people just accept that without swallowing.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
Remember in high-school gym when people would pick teams for basketball? People would rush to pick the tall kids, and the fast kids. They'd also pick their friends, and friends of their friends. They'd leave out the guy who was a bit heavy, or the guy who is new in town, or the guy who is a foreigner, or the quiet guy, or maybe the guy who doesn't have the right shoes, or the right friends. Those are the guys who don't get picked...and if they do get picked, they stand on the sidelines while the five that are really wanted play the game.
I don't think the changes you mention, OP, are a response to an 'immediate-rewards society' or anything like that. The changes are a counterbalance to the society of exclusivity that pops up whenever you vest player organizations with the responsibility of making the game accessible. Because I lived through the days when MMOs were simply like the high-school gym experience writ large--picking a team from a million member pool--the ones doing the picking were guilds, and they left far more people on the sidelines than they picked for the team.
In a perfect world, player organizations will make the game accessible to everyone. But the truth is that they only make the game accessible to their friends and the people they like, to the exclusion of everyone else. It is, frankly, not in a guild or clan's job description to make the game work for all. They aren't good at it--they've never been good at it--and relying on player-made organizations to facilitate the bulk of the game is a pipe dream.
Because, from my perspective, guilds, clans--whatever you want to call them--have done a very poor job in making the game accessible to the line subscriber. It reached such obscene levels in the late-2000s that you have to fill out applications, force yourself on headsets, and hook your game up to metrics and aides to show statistics like DPS...all so that a few powergaming heavyweights will group with you on games like WoW and EVE. Those were games that didn't promote grouping as much as they promoted selectivity; guilds and clans only were interested in the people who would play the game THEIR WAY, which is like a job, or some twisted rendition of corporate life.
And if you are interested in uniqueness, unorthodox builds and variety, a guild-centric MMO is the absolute worst place to find it. They simply won't take you if your character isn't "the best" build, mathematically speaking. You'll be sitting out like the weird kid or the short kid in gym class.
This marginalized your typical player, who is wondering why he should play when nobody who is doing the "important stuff" you mention in your post, OP, is interested in making the game work for everybody. Because the motivations of guild and clan play are different than the motivations of the developer. The guild or clan does what is in the best interests of the guild or clan, to advance its power or efficiency or glory. This is a different motivation than the developer, who has a need to give all these players who are in the game something interesting to do.
So I don't blame them for making the content more accessible to those people who, quite frankly, don't fit in to the kind of games the guilds and clans would like them to play. They are looking for fun too, but never found it in the kind of guild-centric and team-centric, high stakes loot game that came before.
A wonderful post. perfectly explained the situation that "old school" mmo put us through. /bow.
Boobs are LIFE, Boobs are LOVE, Boobs are JUSTICE, Boobs are mankind's HOPES and DREAMS. People who complain about boobs have lost their humanity.
Originally posted by azzamasin No what's wrong with today's MMO's is that there is no innovation. 75% of all MMO's today are a direct cut and paste of WoW and the Themepark ilk with just a bit of change to make it appear there's difference.
Well if I generalize enough, I guess I can be blind to innovation in just about every game too. I feel sad for these people because they don't even realize how innovation actually has worked within the gaming industry overall, by these standards set, almost every game is a clone of another game. Games innovate slowly, and this is why I get sick of the overused term "WoW clone". I'm sorry but every MMO using a theme park style would be a WoW clone but lets be more politically correct and call them Everquest clones because realistically speaking, WoW did absolutely nothing innovative, just took all the great ideas that currently existed at the time and brought them out with more polish.
Innovation comes with introduction of 1 or 2 new features, not a completely new system that is independent of anything conceived (which is impossible). And please, when throwing around words like innovation, actually define what you mean by it, because to different people it can mean different things. To me, innovation means introducing something new, WoW brought instancing (at least to me), not spectacular but innovative. It still ran with a basic class system, with races and moves and required you to smash things in the face and heal others that needed it. Guild Wars 1 brought mixing and matching skill sets which also wasn't that "unique" because it was ripped from Magic the Gathering and the idea of deck building, but it was innovative because it was introduced into the MMO realm. Everything else was pretty much the same as most of the other MMO's at the time, skills/spells, classes, smash things in the face.
I can actually do more now in FFXIV ARR as a theme park game than I could in the game previous to it because of "innovations" they brought in which weren't unique to them but the innovation comes in a specific combination of features (that other MMO's have implemented before) and implementing them in ways I prefer or like. In ARR they couldn't afford any more innovation so they plainly took what has worked across the industry and brought them in and now their game lives on through this 2nd chance (which many people don't get or pull off properly).
If you are looking for something completely unique (as a whole system) in terms of innovation, you are going to be disappointed most of the time. Games evolve slowly, you don't call modern shooters Doom clones because all you do is point and shoot guns so it fair to treat MMO's in the same light.
Originally posted by Flyte27 On the flip side you get a lot of fairly bland games that anyone can play. This is fair for everyone and appeals to a lot of people, but on the flip side the games are just not very good IMO. They are generally based on non stop combat these days and the combat is generally not that challenging outside of PvP and endgame raid. There are always going to be people who are left out in a more challenging or time consuming game. I was never the best by a long shot and chose to avoid the groups that are spoken of in this thread. I still progressed and had a lot of fun. I didn't need kill in groups. I was happy with challenging solo content, freedom of choice, and interacting with others outside of combat. I feel that MMOs today are just to dumbed down for me to enjoy.
Well my primary point behind the reply I made was that having high levels of exclusivity its simply just bad for business. I mean would you want to pay box price $40-50 and then a $15 per month sub and then have access to only 1 of 4-5 40-man raids? Not only that will you continue to pay $15 a month and then spend 6-8 hours per day trying to acquire the gear to progress? Then on top of that run the risk of losing your main tank to the appeal of the "higher tiered" guilds. Many might of forgotten how it was like, but this was the state of 40-man WoW raids in Vanilla/Burning Crusade. I played the game often and spent many weekend trying to get 40 people (usually 38 or 39 after waiting 1-2 hours after posted times). We progressed have done well, but it took us a lot of time to figure out each fight after we finally figure out another one even with guides etc. and then when we finally got to Rag and couldn't take him down the first 2-3 weeks, our main tank up and left with all the gear we let him have, which generally places the guild back on square 1 in teaching another main tank and then getting him gear only to run that risk again.
Now after all of that being said, would the average joe want to continue paying $15 and then potentially not get anywhere because the average joe isn't the elite gamer and spends a lot less time on the game (but could be just as capable of learning the encounters, just limited by its gear). It's a bad deal overall and the reason why WoW had to change its model if it cared about its retention (especially as newer MMO's were coming out).
In regards to your post, its a matter how much you want to extrapolate out what is being said, no one said to make the game easy, but you can make a game accessible without making it easy. I like FFXIV current system, which seems to add more challenges while still allowing things to be within reach and generally their higher tiered things are a challenge to get to but not impossible and then the barriers tend to go down when the next set of dungeons come out (but the difficulty remains the same). This way I don't have to decide between leaving a group of friends/family because they are too casual and join up with "elite" gamers who socially I could care less about.
For the record I personally don't want to go back to those vanilla days, it might look good on paper but there's a reason why MMO's have progressed into where they are at today and it's not because people aren't a little bit happier with the newer variation of the systems as opposed to using the old ones. When you nostalgia remember the bad as well as the good.
This is why I assaulted the time-based progression pattern, todays gamers don't have 6-8 hours a day to crawl through dungeons. Why cannot the dungeon encounters be 15 minute fights, that are extremely difficult. That way they do not require time, but reward player skill. Naturally, the difficulty wouldn't be such a wall at the beginning of end-game content, but the difficulty should rise steadily. The progression would be then tied to player skill, and not time spent in the dungeon. I hate nothing more as a PvPer to run into Pve content, which I admit can be fun at the times, but why do the dungeons have hundreds of trash mobs to clear, that you'll clear with 100% efficiency, the only problem is that these trash mobs add few extra hours to the dungeon run, its actually counter-productive to what you're stating.
So let's say the end-game has 3 dungeons, 5 bosses each, on difficulty scale of 1-100:
Dungeon 1
Boss 1: Difficulty 5
Boss 2: Difficulty 10
Boss 3: difficulty 25
Boss 4: Difficulty 50
Boss 5: Difficulty 75
Dungeon 2
Boss 1: Difficulty 10
Boss 2: Difficulty 25
Boss 3: Difficulty 50
Boss 4: Difficulty 75
Boss 5: Difficulty 100
Dungeon 3
Boss 1: Difficulty 25
Boss 2: Difficulty 50
Boss 3: Difficulty 75
Boss 4: Difficulty 100
Boss 5: Difficulty 100
And a player with relatively low gear could easily beat down bosses up to difficulty 75 (Gear-wise, player skill would be required), so he could complete Dungeon 1 with low-tier end-game items. Naturally it would be somewhat easier to complete a dungeon with gear that is more powerful, but the challenge should remain in the encounter, not time- or gear- basis. And players who are of average or lower skill level could still run all of the dungeons up to certain bosses, allowing them to access the content with the promise of completing a challenge allows them to reach another one.
Now, this brings up the point whether the average joe wants to play such game, where the boss might annihiliate him and his group constantly (Note that the PvE encounters necessarily wouldn't have to be 40 man runs or anything). But at least game series like Dark Souls have shown us people still want that challenge.
Originally posted by Neherun This is why I assaulted the time-based progression pattern, todays gamers don't have 6-8 hours a day to crawl through dungeons. Why cannot the dungeon encounters be 15 minute fights, that are extremely difficult. That way they do not require time, but reward player skill. Naturally, the difficulty wouldn't be such a wall at the beginning of end-game content, but the difficulty should rise steadily. The progression would be then tied to player skill, and not time spent in the dungeon. I hate nothing more as a PvPer to run into Pve content, which I admit can be fun at the times, but why do the dungeons have hundreds of trash mobs to clear, that you'll clear with 100% efficiency, the only problem is that these trash mobs add few extra hours to the dungeon run, its actually counter-productive to what you're stating.So let's say the end-game has 3 dungeons, 5 bosses each, on difficulty scale of 1-100: Dungeon 1 Boss 1: Difficulty 5 Boss 2: Difficulty 10 Boss 3: difficulty 25 Boss 4: Difficulty 50 Boss 5: Difficulty 75 Dungeon 2 Boss 1: Difficulty 10 Boss 2: Difficulty 25 Boss 3: Difficulty 50 Boss 4: Difficulty 75 Boss 5: Difficulty 100 Dungeon 3 Boss 1: Difficulty 25 Boss 2: Difficulty 50 Boss 3: Difficulty 75 Boss 4: Difficulty 100 Boss 5: Difficulty 100 And a player with relatively low gear could easily beat down bosses up to difficulty 75 (Gear-wise, player skill would be required), so he could complete Dungeon 1 with low-tier end-game items. Naturally it would be somewhat easier to complete a dungeon with gear that is more powerful, but the challenge should remain in the encounter, not time- or gear- basis. And players who are of average or lower skill level could still run all of the dungeons up to certain bosses, allowing them to access the content with the promise of completing a challenge allows them to reach another one. Now, this brings up the point whether the average joe wants to play such game, where the boss might annihiliate him and his group constantly (Note that the PvE encounters necessarily wouldn't have to be 40 man runs or anything). But at least game series like Dark Souls have shown us people still want that challenge.
I think it works well on paper but what would be considered an encounter that "required skill"? I think that's somewhat arbitrary and this is probably part of the challenge a lot of designers face.
It's much easier to scale an encounter based on an expected gear set, but how do you scale up an encounter based on skill and how do you make it hard enough to not be almost impossible but hard enough to still satisfy the "elite"? I also think the 15 minute timer for a dungeon would be an issue unless its like a separate feature aside from the traditional dungeon runs.
Otherwise relying on 15 min dungeon runs as a primary method to acquiring gear, first of all doesn't eat into player's time enough i.e. keep them engaged into the game and if you're constantly doing 15 min dungeons, it'll get stale as people start surpassing it. I mean it could work,but we really wouldn't know unless its tried and it also depends how its implemented into the overall system like would it hold players back that just cannot defeat the final boss because of "lack of skill" etc. or do they get to see the other encounters/content etc. just not be able to reap the rewards of defeating the last encounter.
Originally posted by azzamasin No what's wrong with today's MMO's is that there is no innovation. 75% of all MMO's today are a direct cut and paste of WoW and the Themepark ilk with just a bit of change to make it appear there's difference.
Well if I generalize enough, I guess I can be blind to innovation in just about every game too. I feel sad for these people because they don't even realize how innovation actually has worked within the gaming industry overall, by these standards set, almost every game is a clone of another game. Games innovate slowly, and this is why I get sick of the overused term "WoW clone". I'm sorry but every MMO using a theme park style would be a WoW clone but lets be more politically correct and call them Everquest clones because realistically speaking, WoW did absolutely nothing innovative, just took all the great ideas that currently existed at the time and brought them out with more polish.
Innovation comes with introduction of 1 or 2 new features, not a completely new system that is independent of anything conceived (which is impossible). And please, when throwing around words like innovation, actually define what you mean by it, because to different people it can mean different things. To me, innovation means introducing something new, WoW brought instancing (at least to me), not spectacular but innovative. It still ran with a basic class system, with races and moves and required you to smash things in the face and heal others that needed it. Guild Wars 1 brought mixing and matching skill sets which also wasn't that "unique" because it was ripped from Magic the Gathering and the idea of deck building, but it was innovative because it was introduced into the MMO realm. Everything else was pretty much the same as most of the other MMO's at the time, skills/spells, classes, smash things in the face.
I can actually do more now in FFXIV ARR as a theme park game than I could in the game previous to it because of "innovations" they brought in which weren't unique to them but the innovation comes in a specific combination of features (that other MMO's have implemented before) and implementing them in ways I prefer or like. In ARR they couldn't afford any more innovation so they plainly took what has worked across the industry and brought them in and now their game lives on through this 2nd chance (which many people don't get or pull off properly).
If you are looking for something completely unique (as a whole system) in terms of innovation, you are going to be disappointed most of the time. Games evolve slowly, you don't call modern shooters Doom clones because all you do is point and shoot guns so it fair to treat MMO's in the same light.
Incorrect.
What I mean is that prior to WoW, the 3 big MMO's. Asheron's Call, Everquest and Ultima Online were so vastly different it wasn't even funny. Add on SWG and you have another game so different that is what I mean. For the most part MMO's prior to WoW were innovative and tried NOT to copy other games systems. Not so today. Especially considering themeparks follow the same path.
What we need in MMO's todays are more AC's, UO's and SWG's. Not more WoW's. If that isn't hard to understand then I have no clue how to express it further.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
Originally posted by azzamasin Incorrect. What I mean is that prior to WoW, the 3 big MMO's. Asheron's Call, Everquest and Ultima Online were so vastly different it wasn't even funny. Add on SWG and you have another game so different that is what I mean. For the most part MMO's prior to WoW were innovative and tried NOT to copy other games systems. Not so today. Especially considering themeparks follow the same path. What we need in MMO's todays are more AC's, UO's and SWG's. Not more WoW's. If that isn't hard to understand then I have no clue how to express it further.
Then that's technically not innovation but merely trying to relive what you had in the past and again forgetting anything bad about those particular MMO's. Those MMO's weren't without its own flaws. The innovations brought on today by more modern MMO's far outweigh the experiences I have had in at least UO and SWG. I never mentioned anything about having more WoW's, but I guess my post was a little hard for you to understand So I guess you never wanted anything with innovation, you just want more of the same 15 years ago.
1 "Ganking of lower levels is griefing" - . Back in the good old days, when people got flayed by a higher level, they simply called out help to deal with the enemy.
2 "All content should be accessible to all of the players" - A statement that sounds good on paper.
3 Group finder tools - Sure, this answers directly to the demand for immediate satisfaction consumers.
4 Effort-based progression - Read: Time-based progression. When did all of the MMOs progression shift to a simple pattern: Time spent in the game = progression.
5 Progression should never go backwards - This is a double-edged sword.
6 Fairness and balance for everyone! - Sounds like a declaration of presidental canditates speech. Yet today this is actually a subject to moaning. MMO balance used to follow a simple statement: "If its balanced in group play, or has a relatively simple counter - no matter how powerful it is, as long as it can be countered, its in balance."
7 Lack of blueprints - I call this plague by the term. No longer are players required to do any sorts of planning, no matter the content. You just play.
1, Pure BS, the term "griefing" came from Ultima Online as did "ganking" and people MOANED enough to get Origin to end FFA PVP! And boy its clear you never played on Bloodtide in Asherons Call 1 because if you did you would remember it got so bad on that server that the Blood had to keep high level people in the start towns so new players could actually play, the server was stagnant for a long time because people would start playing and quit because people wouldn't even give them a chance to do anything to get started.
I guess someone forgot that early MMOs didn't have that thing called "global" chat to ask for help if no one was actually in the starter areas...oops.
2. And no game has content that everyone can solo so stop bitching.
3. Immediate satisfaction of not standing around in town for an hour HOPING to form a group...as if doing that somehow made the game better?
4. That answer is simple, with the first MMO YOU PLAYED. EverQuest was the PoS game that started that crap which is why it has the nickname EverCAMP, the stay in one spot for hours hoping for the mob to spawn for a chance at something or other game!
5. No, actually it isn't. Something is not true just because you believe it is and even if that was the case then your belief COULD NOT trump another persons belief because it would be true also!
6. So you are going to try to tell us that nerfs are a new thing? Or that no game ever received a nerf for PvP reasons?!? You have no actual experience with old MMOs do you? Or did your memory fade?
7. Sounds more like YOU have issues and were never a good MMORPG player because I have not seen a decrease in raid or PvP planning at all. Maybe you have a crap guild? Do you always join new guilds with each MMO? Sure sounds like one of the two.
As the title states, todays immediate-rewards society has shifted MMO trends to allow players to complete all of the games content without an effort. No longer you are required to socialize to gain friends, guild or clan mates, or even rivals.
This, among other things has shifted the typical MMO player into not thinking through possibilities, and shift the blame on previously obvious solutions to faults at game design (it can never be an user error). This new school way of thinking is damaging MMOs and dumping them down.
Prime examples:
"Ganking of lower levels is griefing" - So a player of enemy faction slays his enemy. On paper this doesn't sound bad at all, its in the games design. Enemy is enemy, and should be put down. However for a solo player, who happens to be the low level, and the victim in this assault, it creates negative thoughts around the game. Back in the good old days, when people got flayed by a higher level, they simply called out help to deal with the enemy. Nowadays though, they state that such behavior is "Not ok" or that it is "Griefing of players" when the solution is absolutely simple: If you cannot handle something solo, you call out for help to deal with the problem.
Actually, here it is the silly level mechanics that hurt the game. You have zero chance of losing to someone a few levels under you and that frankly isn't fun. The simple solution really is to lower the level gap a lot so that a good lowbie actually can win but so called "hardcore PvP fans" rarely want to hear anything about that.
"All content should be accessible to all of the players" - A statement that sounds good on paper. Why shouldn't all players have access to all of the games content, especially if they are paying a subscription to the game. The reason is quite simple,. actually. The moment you open up the content to everyone, you automatically dumb down the games difficulty so less than average skill player can complete it. This dumps down not only the games difficulty, but the mechanics and strategies required to complete the game. Good example of such behavior is Diablo 3. While its only an RPG, the Inferno difficulty was drastically dumped down in the later "Inferno nerf" patch so everyone could complete the said content, this was based on player statements that it was simply too difficult. Yet during the time the nerf came, every class had completed the Inferno difficulty, some with better gear than others. Surely it was extremely difficult for some, but wasn't the original idea of Inferno that you are faced with a grim reaper punching you in the face, not you punching the grim reaper into the face repeatedly? Remember those lovely, difficult raids that weren't necessarily gear dependent, but man did they require cordination to complete? Well, with todays trend those things are history.
Here I agree with you. If all content can be played by the lousiest player nothing have the difficulty I like. That sucks.
Group finder tools - Sure, this answers directly to the demand for immediate satisfaction consumers, but what it truly does is annihilating the last remaining socializing of solo players in MMO. These days people select the content, and press "Search". They join a group, at maximum state a greeting, go the select content and if something goes wrong, they just bail the ship and look for a group that can complete the select content faster. Whats more rewarding, wiping multiple times in a dungeon and finally completing it with a group, or pressing "search" enough times to get a group that gets the job done fast, when both take actually equal amount of time to complete? This also applies to PvP content. I still recall the good old days when someone just yelled in the streets that he is forming a raid to enemy territory, and requesting people to join him. Today, you press H/J/K whatever the PvP finder button is, and press "search" so you will be immediately taken into PvP action with no socializing required.
Whatever. I never use those tools anyways so I don't see how they hurt me. There are other better ways to promote socializing like player owned stores for example.
Effort-based progression - Read: Time-based progression. When did all of the MMOs progression shift to a simple pattern: Time spent in the game = progression. This is the real killer, and is tied directly to contents avaibility. Why do people seem to think its a good solution that your character gains power, regardless of players individual skills as a player if the player plays enough? What's the point in that exactly. The best PvP gear can be attained by afking your way in the PvP content, the best gear from PvE comes directly from resources you gain for even trying to complete the content. It's gotten to extremely ridiculous point. So many are looking for challenge, and everything is catered to the sheep flock of todays consumers I'd like to call with all names possible.
We do agree about the diffulty and things like "everyone gets rewards no matter what they do" just is bad since it doesn't really forces the players to become better.
Progression should never go backwards - This is a double-edged sword. If players can shift in their progression backwards too much, it really hurts the enjoyement of the game. But is it really the sharper edge of the two? Players not having any set backs nullifies the possibility of risk. Having no risk in MMO content means there's really nothing at stake, making the games casual strolls around the park in acid when nothing matters. Which one would you prefer: Your heart beating out of your chest when you play in adrenaline infused rage, or wiping drool from your cheek every 5 minutes when you have to slap yourself not to fall a sleep during content? Best part is, in the 90's losing all your gear wasn't actually considered that severe of a punishment for dying. Ask that from typical immediate-rewards gamer.
You mean respeccing? On one hand as a pen and paper player I do like some permanent decisions but at times it actually is fun to try something new with a character I have become bored with playing. A new build can completely change the experience.
Fairness and balance for everyone! - Sounds like a declaration of presidental canditates speech. Yet today this is actually a subject to moaning. MMO balance used to follow a simple statement: "If its balanced in group play, or has a relatively simple counter - no matter how powerful it is, as long as it can be countered, its in balance." Today, nope. Everything gets dumped down so brainless player can match the set up, even if he has no counter to it. It just happened in the Elder Scrolls Online with Devouring Swarm ability. Those who do not know what it is: It was ultimate ability, costly point-blank AoE that dealt damage and gave you health based on the damage dealt. The trick was to utilize this ability by wearing gear that made the ability extremely cheap; Allowing people to spam it. Now, the ability was bugged in two ways: It could be stacked, and its healing worked in a damage-shield that should have disallowed healing. Yet the counter to this ability was so simple even a trained monkey would realize it after a while: Do not stand in the AoE, especially with a group since the abilitys efficiency is obviously tied to number of players it hits. What happened? People cried the ability was OP, and instead of fixing the bugs tied to the ability: Zenimax nerfed the whole vampire skill tree to the ground. Absolutely disgusting. What would have been the other option? Zenimax could have simply fixed the bugs and stated that the ability was easily countered by not standing in the AoE. Surely if a player could win a 1 v 10 it sounds shifty, but really, when the solution to win a fight was so simple, all you can blame are the players, not the ability.
Balance do matter in PvP, if I never can defeat someone because they are the wrong class no matter how good I play something is wrong. That some classes have an advantage against my class is fine however. In PvE the important thing is just that all classes are useful so your class suddenly don't get nerfed and you can't find a party no matter what you do.
What does this do? It kills the strategies and out-of-box thinking in MMOs. Remember when you were about to set foot in a game, and you had a whole paper sheet ready where you had theorycrafted ideas for your character, what he's going to use with what? Non-existent. That brings us to:
Lack of blueprints - I call this plague by the term. No longer are players required to do any sorts of planning, no matter the content. You just play, there's no real reason to put those brain cells to good use. And why, its catered to the immediate reward society where you shouldn't be really wasting your time planning, but only to do something. Again it lowers the value of gameplay.
Sound again like it is the difficulty that is too blame.
TL;DR Todays MMO features that cater to make the content more easy and accessible are hurting the value of said content by lowering the standards in todays game play. And people just accept that without swallowing.
I do agree with you on some points, a MMO should have both open world zones and dungeons that are hard to beat because players differs in skill and playing something way below you just isn't fun.
Pretty sure the reason games have changed from what they were to what they are now is because of money.
It costs more money to make and fund games nowadays and on top of that it's more about making money then making something exceptional.
If there are 2 million dummies ready to buy your "casual", instant gratification, pile of garbage that will just accommodate to the needs of everyone that cries that, "things are too hard", "this isn't fair", "I'm stupid, make things simpler". Etc.
There are 250,000 "hardcore" gamers ready to buy your intense and challenging game that makes you think and work to get somewhere. That requires effort and teamwork. Etc.
What game are you going to make? It may sound a little harsh to say it the way I did for the first example, but it is more true than not. We've all seen people playing games that just, really shouldn't be playing that type of game. People that are too simple minded and impatient.
You've seen people that just.. aren't good at something yet they keep trying, keep going at it. Like someone who is trying to draw but they just don't have it in them, and the best looking thing they can draw is a stick figure.
Someone who wants to play sports but just isn't.. that good or smart when it comes to playing the game.
Does the rest of the world dumb everything down for those people? No, that's just the way things are.
MMO developers will do it because of the money. There are way more dummies out there than geniuses.
Realistically MMOs could be made that can accommodate everyone. So dummies and elitists can play together. But doing something like that will take more effort, time, innovations and the biggest of all, money. Why bother to do that for 250,000 when they have 2 million idiots throwing cash out for advantages and character slots and bags and etc.
Someone who wants to play sports but just isn't.. that good or smart when it comes to playing the game.
Does the rest of the world dumb everything down for those people? No, that's just the way things are.
MMO developers will do it because of the money. There are way more dummies out there than geniuses.
Actually, yes, they do. There are amateur sports leagues. Where regular people (some of them *gasp* Kinesthetically stupid, out of shape, and overweight) can play the sports they enjoy for fun.
There are writing groups with people who will never be published and know it. They just show up to do what they love the best they can. There are painters who can't paint but happily spend all their spare money on canvas and brushes.
I've even heard there are conventions for people who want to play detective and/or the role of a cunning murderer (hopefully most of the latter will never give the real thing a whirl.)
And then there's Karaoke. Okay, you might have a point if you argue only people who can sing should attempt this one. But it still has its tone deaf participants and audiences who refrain from throwing rotten fruit at them.
In fact, if you have to be good at MMOs to play them, perhaps the devs should be paying the gamers and not the other way around.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
Someone who wants to play sports but just isn't.. that good or smart when it comes to playing the game.
Does the rest of the world dumb everything down for those people? No, that's just the way things are.
MMO developers will do it because of the money. There are way more dummies out there than geniuses.
Actually, yes, they do. There are amateur sports leagues. Where regular people (some of them *gasp* Kinesthetically stupid, out of shape, and overweight) can play the sports they enjoy for fun.
There are writing groups with people who will never be published and know it. They just show up to do what they love the best they can. There are painters who can't paint but happily spend all their spare money on canvas and brushes.
I've even heard there are conventions for people who want to play detective and/or the role of a cunning murderer (hopefully most of the latter will never give the real thing a whirl.)
And then there's Karaoke. Okay, you might have a point if you argue only people who can sing should attempt this one. But it still has its tone deaf participants and audiences who refrain from throwing rotten fruit at them.
In fact, if you have to be good at MMOs to play them, perhaps the devs should be paying the gamers and not the other way around.
I played Church League softball one year, and my favorite game was us, a bunch of office workers versus them, apparently a bunch of firemen, ex-marines, and possibly super heroes in their civilian clothing. There was no slaughter rule, but at one point during the game they literally brought up conceding the game because they were getting so tired from running around the bases. So yes, the world of sports will work to accommodate the less athletically inclined people who are interested, but it doesn't always go so well. :-)
This wasn't in support of any particular point of view, it was just a True Story Of Real Life.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
People buy the game of chess... they know what chess is, but buy it nonetheless. They then proceed to turn it into tetris because they really don't like chess. Those that do like chess are like, wtf, this used to be a game of chess, what happened to this game. The tetris lovers are all like, you are playing the game wrong. Well no kidding, I was playing chess, you turned it into tetris and now I AM playing it wrong. You look at the store shelves, chess here, chess there, but none of them are actually games of chess... just tetris with the chess name.
Reality is, if you never liked MMOs, changing it doesn't mean you do like them. In the end we have a misnamed game. That is what we have here today... games that call themselves MMOs that aren't really MMOs all because someone preferred tetris over chess. Too late now, the cats out of the bag. It's not going to be turned back into chess now. Tetris it is, like it or not. We got screwed. Plain and simple. Time to turn CoD into UO or the like because that is the only way you're going to get your game back, by screwing the players in another genre out of their game just like those did to ours.
Unfortunately I have agree with this. I don't want to but it's the honest truth. Spot on.
The very second I come across the phrase 'without any effort' or 'dumbing down', I can immediately tell that the rest of the opinion piece will be filled with a diatribe of tryhard nonsense. It's a philosophy that will very occasionally make me miss something worth seeing, but more makes me miss a repeat of the many posts that bemoan how pvp isn't pvp anymore, ganking is fine, 'you should be forced to socialize' nonsense, and a handful of assumptions that can't withstand any real scrutiny.
Originally posted by FoobarxPeople buy the game of chess... they know what chess is, but buy it nonetheless. They then proceed to turn it into tetris because they really don't like chess. Those that do like chess are like, wtf, this used to be a game of chess, what happened to this game. The tetris lovers are all like, you are playing the game wrong. Well no kidding, I was playing chess, you turned it into tetris and now I AM playing it wrong. You look at the store shelves, chess here, chess there, but none of them are actually games of chess... just tetris with the chess name.Reality is, if you never liked MMOs, changing it doesn't mean you do like them. In the end we have a misnamed game. That is what we have here today... games that call themselves MMOs that aren't really MMOs all because someone preferred tetris over chess. Too late now, the cats out of the bag. It's not going to be turned back into chess now. Tetris it is, like it or not. We got screwed. Plain and simple. Time to turn CoD into UO or the like because that is the only way you're going to get your game back, by screwing the players in another genre out of their game just like those did to ours.
Unfortunately I have agree with this. I don't want to but it's the honest truth. Spot on.
Actually the analogy is entirely off because it neglects to look at the history of chess and chess in its current form isn't how it was originally conceived and it also was derived from other previous versions of itself. It evolved just like the MMORPG industry has evolved today and there's even many different types of chess around the world. Chess isn't just chess in any given part of the country. European chess sharply contrasts with Chinese chess and Japanese chess. The reality is you're too ignorant to accept that everything is derived from something and it continues on and continues to shift and mold and branches off into different styles and preferences. Nothing, even in games (or perhaps especially in games) is static.
It's quite honestly not anyone else's fault here that you are stuck 15 years in the past. You don't see anyone begging to play what came before European chess over what chess has become today. I quite honestly am enjoying what MMORPG's have turned into today.
BTW these are the reasons why analogies just don't work for most arguments, applications are too loose and it can be shifted and bent to fit anyone's arugment just like Foobarx did and just like I did.
Someone who wants to play sports but just isn't.. that good or smart when it comes to playing the game.
Does the rest of the world dumb everything down for those people? No, that's just the way things are.
MMO developers will do it because of the money. There are way more dummies out there than geniuses.
Actually, yes, they do. There are amateur sports leagues. Where regular people (some of them *gasp* Kinesthetically stupid, out of shape, and overweight) can play the sports they enjoy for fun.
There are writing groups with people who will never be published and know it. They just show up to do what they love the best they can. There are painters who can't paint but happily spend all their spare money on canvas and brushes.
I've even heard there are conventions for people who want to play detective and/or the role of a cunning murderer (hopefully most of the latter will never give the real thing a whirl.)
And then there's Karaoke. Okay, you might have a point if you argue only people who can sing should attempt this one. But it still has its tone deaf participants and audiences who refrain from throwing rotten fruit at them.
In fact, if you have to be good at MMOs to play them, perhaps the devs should be paying the gamers and not the other way around.
I played Church League softball one year, and my favorite game was us, a bunch of office workers versus them, apparently a bunch of firemen, ex-marines, and possibly super heroes in their civilian clothing. There was no slaughter rule, but at one point during the game they literally brought up conceding the game because they were getting so tired from running around the bases. So yes, the world of sports will work to accommodate the less athletically inclined people who are interested, but it doesn't always go so well. :-)
This wasn't in support of any particular point of view, it was just a True Story Of Real Life.
Aw come on, it's like pug vs pug pvp. You have to take the good with the bad and have a sense of humor when it all turns ridiculous!
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
People buy the game of chess... they know what chess is, but buy it nonetheless. They then proceed to turn it into tetris because they really don't like chess. Those that do like chess are like, wtf, this used to be a game of chess, what happened to this game. The tetris lovers are all like, you are playing the game wrong. Well no kidding, I was playing chess, you turned it into tetris and now I AM playing it wrong. You look at the store shelves, chess here, chess there, but none of them are actually games of chess... just tetris with the chess name.
Reality is, if you never liked MMOs, changing it doesn't mean you do like them. In the end we have a misnamed game. That is what we have here today... games that call themselves MMOs that aren't really MMOs all because someone preferred tetris over chess. Too late now, the cats out of the bag. It's not going to be turned back into chess now. Tetris it is, like it or not. We got screwed. Plain and simple. Time to turn CoD into UO or the like because that is the only way you're going to get your game back, by screwing the players in another genre out of their game just like those did to ours.
Unfortunately I have agree with this. I don't want to but it's the honest truth. Spot on.
Nah .. whether one is "screwed" or not is just a matter of perspective. In this analogy, i like tetris much more than chess, so it is a good thing for me.
Comments
You know, we could solve a lot of the problems with community by a very simple change:
Declare some servers "TeamSpeak Servers" where people who prefer TeamSpeak can play on...
Declare some servers "Ventrillo Servers" where people who prefer Ventrillo can play on...
And declare some servers "Text Only" servers where people who prefer text only can play on.
One of the prerequisites for a community is the ability to communicate. This has been hard to rectify, since we have a stable demographic of one-third who won't play without voicechat, one-third who won't play with voicechat, and one-third who are neutral. By having players self-select a community who all communicates in the same way, we solve a lot of the problem that prevents community from taking shape.
I say we should start with that sort of "server ruleset" before going to more hardcoded rulesets (though those might show promise too).
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
Obvious not true .. by the same example you use. D3 adds in a difficulty slider .. and the SAME content can be as easy or as difficult as the play see fit.
The trick is to put in a difficulty slider, and all content can be enjoyed by all. The statement ""All content should be accessible to all of the players" sounds good because it is good, as demonstrated by D3 after the difficulty slider is in.
I'm a little too sauced to know if you're serious, or making fun, but as an older gamer, I like my text chat, darn it. Get off my lawn!
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
~Albert Einstein
FWIW, I definitely disagree about ArcheAge, and probably future sandboxes as well.
If you're going to have open world PVP in an MMO (as opposed to the diversion that are auto-balanced arenas) it needs to be a fundamental part of the game design and play an important role in the progression.
I'm a PVE player, but if you took PVP out of AA trade runs... what would you have? The whole game is built around trade packs and dangerous sea chases (not to mention the risk-reward of unprotected farming and thieving).
I think (hope?) that ArcheAge is leading the genre toward a vision of coexistance between PVE and PVP players. The key I think is that every player can precisely determine his degree of exposure to PVP based on risk/reward. I can farm unsafely or do cross-faction trade runs 0% of the time, 100% of the time, or any fraction in between. (It's true I can be ganked by same-faction players, but if they do this often enough they'll be booted to pirate faction... assuming the constant jail sentences don't deter them first.)
TL;DR PVP rulesets lead to multiple bad games instead of 1 good one.
You could be right. I suppose it depends on the mandatory or not nature of the trade run and the option for doing more trade runs at less profit per run in safer circumstances. I have read posts implying this exists for ArcheAge (safe trade runs for less per run) but haven't played the Russian version enough to know.
I'm a poor church mouse and I'm certainly not shelling out $150 to find out about that in the Trion version, so it's just a matter of wait and see and read.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
~Albert Einstein
Well my primary point behind the reply I made was that having high levels of exclusivity its simply just bad for business. I mean would you want to pay box price $40-50 and then a $15 per month sub and then have access to only 1 of 4-5 40-man raids? Not only that will you continue to pay $15 a month and then spend 6-8 hours per day trying to acquire the gear to progress? Then on top of that run the risk of losing your main tank to the appeal of the "higher tiered" guilds. Many might of forgotten how it was like, but this was the state of 40-man WoW raids in Vanilla/Burning Crusade. I played the game often and spent many weekend trying to get 40 people (usually 38 or 39 after waiting 1-2 hours after posted times). We progressed have done well, but it took us a lot of time to figure out each fight after we finally figure out another one even with guides etc. and then when we finally got to Rag and couldn't take him down the first 2-3 weeks, our main tank up and left with all the gear we let him have, which generally places the guild back on square 1 in teaching another main tank and then getting him gear only to run that risk again.
Now after all of that being said, would the average joe want to continue paying $15 and then potentially not get anywhere because the average joe isn't the elite gamer and spends a lot less time on the game (but could be just as capable of learning the encounters, just limited by its gear). It's a bad deal overall and the reason why WoW had to change its model if it cared about its retention (especially as newer MMO's were coming out).
In regards to your post, its a matter how much you want to extrapolate out what is being said, no one said to make the game easy, but you can make a game accessible without making it easy. I like FFXIV current system, which seems to add more challenges while still allowing things to be within reach and generally their higher tiered things are a challenge to get to but not impossible and then the barriers tend to go down when the next set of dungeons come out (but the difficulty remains the same). This way I don't have to decide between leaving a group of friends/family because they are too casual and join up with "elite" gamers who socially I could care less about.
For the record I personally don't want to go back to those vanilla days, it might look good on paper but there's a reason why MMO's have progressed into where they are at today and it's not because people aren't a little bit happier with the newer variation of the systems as opposed to using the old ones. When you nostalgia remember the bad as well as the good.
No what's wrong with today's MMO's is that there is no innovation. 75% of all MMO's today are a direct cut and paste of WoW and the Themepark ilk with just a bit of change to make it appear there's difference.
Ganking at lower levels is fine if your into PvP or allow Differing rule set servers. What isn't ok is using an one size fits all game design. I played Asheron's Call from 1999 till 2004 and again from 2010 till 2012 with a break in-between for WoW all on a strictly White PvE server and It worked and worked well.ll. Even WoW and Everquest had differing rule set servers to segment and suit the differing play styles. Options and freedom is what will dig the genre out of a hole not your narrow views on what should or should not be allowed.
If you think playing a game like WoW where only 5% of the population ever experienced endgame content is fine then we're at an empasse in this debate. No small subset of gamers like this should be your games primary development designs. Inferno was dumbed downed in D3 because it was stupid to make and design a game that relied on luck in RNG to overcome. The D3 of today is a much better game then what it released as. Coordination is still required what is missing is the social aspect and the reliance on PvP endgame to carry the day. Not that I am a raider but you absolutely need some of that game design in your MMO to appeal to a larger and broader audience.
Any MMO that releases with Instance dungeons or PvP absolutely must include some form of Social dungeon/group finder or you alienate what I would consider the average gamer. Shy, awkward and introverted. Forcing players like that (including me) is #1 the surest way to force us to quit and #2 kill your games growth potential. I have quit 4 MMO's in the last 3 years because of their broken or lack of dungeon finder. Yet you insist I stand around spamming a chat channel.....1 DPS LFG PST......over and over and over, flooding chat channels. No it is a stupid thing to not include. But then again I suppose you belong to some sort of guild that always drops what their doing and invites you to their dungeon runs. No sir, this isn't fair nor is it healthy for a game to not include some method to facilitate the grouping/social aspects of MMO's.
When studios release content geared toward such a small subset of gamers, they have to do a hundred times the work to ensure it isn't just beaten in the first week of release. This further snowballs the lack of timely content releases.
What single MMO element do you hardly ever dabble in? For the sake of my argument let's assume it is Crafting. Say you need to spend 6 hours every day crafting just to be able to progress any other activity you wish to do but first the 6 hours per day must be reached. The game has just alienated you from enjoyment and forced you to do something you don't wish to participate in. Fairness and balance is something all MMO's should strive for. Again not the one size fits all design principles that plague the genre currently. All you are asking for is more of the same and forgoing fairness for 1 style over another is what we've been doing the last 8+ years in MMO land.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
A wonderful post. perfectly explained the situation that "old school" mmo put us through. /bow.
Boobs are LIFE, Boobs are LOVE, Boobs are JUSTICE, Boobs are mankind's HOPES and DREAMS. People who complain about boobs have lost their humanity.
Well if I generalize enough, I guess I can be blind to innovation in just about every game too. I feel sad for these people because they don't even realize how innovation actually has worked within the gaming industry overall, by these standards set, almost every game is a clone of another game. Games innovate slowly, and this is why I get sick of the overused term "WoW clone". I'm sorry but every MMO using a theme park style would be a WoW clone but lets be more politically correct and call them Everquest clones because realistically speaking, WoW did absolutely nothing innovative, just took all the great ideas that currently existed at the time and brought them out with more polish.
Innovation comes with introduction of 1 or 2 new features, not a completely new system that is independent of anything conceived (which is impossible). And please, when throwing around words like innovation, actually define what you mean by it, because to different people it can mean different things. To me, innovation means introducing something new, WoW brought instancing (at least to me), not spectacular but innovative. It still ran with a basic class system, with races and moves and required you to smash things in the face and heal others that needed it. Guild Wars 1 brought mixing and matching skill sets which also wasn't that "unique" because it was ripped from Magic the Gathering and the idea of deck building, but it was innovative because it was introduced into the MMO realm. Everything else was pretty much the same as most of the other MMO's at the time, skills/spells, classes, smash things in the face.
I can actually do more now in FFXIV ARR as a theme park game than I could in the game previous to it because of "innovations" they brought in which weren't unique to them but the innovation comes in a specific combination of features (that other MMO's have implemented before) and implementing them in ways I prefer or like. In ARR they couldn't afford any more innovation so they plainly took what has worked across the industry and brought them in and now their game lives on through this 2nd chance (which many people don't get or pull off properly).
If you are looking for something completely unique (as a whole system) in terms of innovation, you are going to be disappointed most of the time. Games evolve slowly, you don't call modern shooters Doom clones because all you do is point and shoot guns so it fair to treat MMO's in the same light.
This is why I assaulted the time-based progression pattern, todays gamers don't have 6-8 hours a day to crawl through dungeons. Why cannot the dungeon encounters be 15 minute fights, that are extremely difficult. That way they do not require time, but reward player skill. Naturally, the difficulty wouldn't be such a wall at the beginning of end-game content, but the difficulty should rise steadily. The progression would be then tied to player skill, and not time spent in the dungeon. I hate nothing more as a PvPer to run into Pve content, which I admit can be fun at the times, but why do the dungeons have hundreds of trash mobs to clear, that you'll clear with 100% efficiency, the only problem is that these trash mobs add few extra hours to the dungeon run, its actually counter-productive to what you're stating.
So let's say the end-game has 3 dungeons, 5 bosses each, on difficulty scale of 1-100:
I think it works well on paper but what would be considered an encounter that "required skill"? I think that's somewhat arbitrary and this is probably part of the challenge a lot of designers face.
It's much easier to scale an encounter based on an expected gear set, but how do you scale up an encounter based on skill and how do you make it hard enough to not be almost impossible but hard enough to still satisfy the "elite"? I also think the 15 minute timer for a dungeon would be an issue unless its like a separate feature aside from the traditional dungeon runs.
Otherwise relying on 15 min dungeon runs as a primary method to acquiring gear, first of all doesn't eat into player's time enough i.e. keep them engaged into the game and if you're constantly doing 15 min dungeons, it'll get stale as people start surpassing it. I mean it could work,but we really wouldn't know unless its tried and it also depends how its implemented into the overall system like would it hold players back that just cannot defeat the final boss because of "lack of skill" etc. or do they get to see the other encounters/content etc. just not be able to reap the rewards of defeating the last encounter.
Incorrect.
What I mean is that prior to WoW, the 3 big MMO's. Asheron's Call, Everquest and Ultima Online were so vastly different it wasn't even funny. Add on SWG and you have another game so different that is what I mean. For the most part MMO's prior to WoW were innovative and tried NOT to copy other games systems. Not so today. Especially considering themeparks follow the same path.
What we need in MMO's todays are more AC's, UO's and SWG's. Not more WoW's. If that isn't hard to understand then I have no clue how to express it further.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
Then that's technically not innovation but merely trying to relive what you had in the past and again forgetting anything bad about those particular MMO's. Those MMO's weren't without its own flaws. The innovations brought on today by more modern MMO's far outweigh the experiences I have had in at least UO and SWG. I never mentioned anything about having more WoW's, but I guess my post was a little hard for you to understand
So I guess you never wanted anything with innovation, you just want more of the same 15 years ago.
1, Pure BS, the term "griefing" came from Ultima Online as did "ganking" and people MOANED enough to get Origin to end FFA PVP! And boy its clear you never played on Bloodtide in Asherons Call 1 because if you did you would remember it got so bad on that server that the Blood had to keep high level people in the start towns so new players could actually play, the server was stagnant for a long time because people would start playing and quit because people wouldn't even give them a chance to do anything to get started.
I guess someone forgot that early MMOs didn't have that thing called "global" chat to ask for help if no one was actually in the starter areas...oops.
2. And no game has content that everyone can solo so stop bitching.
3. Immediate satisfaction of not standing around in town for an hour HOPING to form a group...as if doing that somehow made the game better?
4. That answer is simple, with the first MMO YOU PLAYED. EverQuest was the PoS game that started that crap which is why it has the nickname EverCAMP, the stay in one spot for hours hoping for the mob to spawn for a chance at something or other game!
5. No, actually it isn't. Something is not true just because you believe it is and even if that was the case then your belief COULD NOT trump another persons belief because it would be true also!
6. So you are going to try to tell us that nerfs are a new thing? Or that no game ever received a nerf for PvP reasons?!? You have no actual experience with old MMOs do you? Or did your memory fade?
7. Sounds more like YOU have issues and were never a good MMORPG player because I have not seen a decrease in raid or PvP planning at all. Maybe you have a crap guild? Do you always join new guilds with each MMO? Sure sounds like one of the two.
I do agree with you on some points, a MMO should have both open world zones and dungeons that are hard to beat because players differs in skill and playing something way below you just isn't fun.
Pretty sure the reason games have changed from what they were to what they are now is because of money.
It costs more money to make and fund games nowadays and on top of that it's more about making money then making something exceptional.
If there are 2 million dummies ready to buy your "casual", instant gratification, pile of garbage that will just accommodate to the needs of everyone that cries that, "things are too hard", "this isn't fair", "I'm stupid, make things simpler". Etc.
There are 250,000 "hardcore" gamers ready to buy your intense and challenging game that makes you think and work to get somewhere. That requires effort and teamwork. Etc.
What game are you going to make? It may sound a little harsh to say it the way I did for the first example, but it is more true than not. We've all seen people playing games that just, really shouldn't be playing that type of game. People that are too simple minded and impatient.
You've seen people that just.. aren't good at something yet they keep trying, keep going at it. Like someone who is trying to draw but they just don't have it in them, and the best looking thing they can draw is a stick figure.
Someone who wants to play sports but just isn't.. that good or smart when it comes to playing the game.
Does the rest of the world dumb everything down for those people? No, that's just the way things are.
MMO developers will do it because of the money. There are way more dummies out there than geniuses.
Realistically MMOs could be made that can accommodate everyone. So dummies and elitists can play together. But doing something like that will take more effort, time, innovations and the biggest of all, money. Why bother to do that for 250,000 when they have 2 million idiots throwing cash out for advantages and character slots and bags and etc.
Actually, yes, they do. There are amateur sports leagues. Where regular people (some of them *gasp* Kinesthetically stupid, out of shape, and overweight) can play the sports they enjoy for fun.
There are writing groups with people who will never be published and know it. They just show up to do what they love the best they can. There are painters who can't paint but happily spend all their spare money on canvas and brushes.
I've even heard there are conventions for people who want to play detective and/or the role of a cunning murderer (hopefully most of the latter will never give the real thing a whirl.)
And then there's Karaoke. Okay, you might have a point if you argue only people who can sing should attempt this one. But it still has its tone deaf participants and audiences who refrain from throwing rotten fruit at them.
In fact, if you have to be good at MMOs to play them, perhaps the devs should be paying the gamers and not the other way around.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
~Albert Einstein
Of course .. you haven't heard of soft-ball?
touch football?
Different leagues to accommodate the better and the worse?
Non-competitive soccer and not keeping score?
Or better yet .. playing Madden football instead of real ones.
I played Church League softball one year, and my favorite game was us, a bunch of office workers versus them, apparently a bunch of firemen, ex-marines, and possibly super heroes in their civilian clothing. There was no slaughter rule, but at one point during the game they literally brought up conceding the game because they were getting so tired from running around the bases. So yes, the world of sports will work to accommodate the less athletically inclined people who are interested, but it doesn't always go so well. :-)
This wasn't in support of any particular point of view, it was just a True Story Of Real Life.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Unfortunately I have agree with this. I don't want to but it's the honest truth. Spot on.
The very second I come across the phrase 'without any effort' or 'dumbing down', I can immediately tell that the rest of the opinion piece will be filled with a diatribe of tryhard nonsense. It's a philosophy that will very occasionally make me miss something worth seeing, but more makes me miss a repeat of the many posts that bemoan how pvp isn't pvp anymore, ganking is fine, 'you should be forced to socialize' nonsense, and a handful of assumptions that can't withstand any real scrutiny.
How many did I get right?
Actually the analogy is entirely off because it neglects to look at the history of chess and chess in its current form isn't how it was originally conceived and it also was derived from other previous versions of itself. It evolved just like the MMORPG industry has evolved today and there's even many different types of chess around the world. Chess isn't just chess in any given part of the country. European chess sharply contrasts with Chinese chess and Japanese chess. The reality is you're too ignorant to accept that everything is derived from something and it continues on and continues to shift and mold and branches off into different styles and preferences. Nothing, even in games (or perhaps especially in games) is static.
It's quite honestly not anyone else's fault here that you are stuck 15 years in the past. You don't see anyone begging to play what came before European chess over what chess has become today. I quite honestly am enjoying what MMORPG's have turned into today.
BTW these are the reasons why analogies just don't work for most arguments, applications are too loose and it can be shifted and bent to fit anyone's arugment just like Foobarx did and just like I did.
Aw come on, it's like pug vs pug pvp. You have to take the good with the bad and have a sense of humor when it all turns ridiculous!
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
~Albert Einstein
Nah .. whether one is "screwed" or not is just a matter of perspective. In this analogy, i like tetris much more than chess, so it is a good thing for me.