Too many to list, but I can't find anyone that is doing it more than Jeremy Walsh of Soulbound Studios with their groundbreaking new MMO, Chronicles of Elyria
Too many to list, but I can't find anyone that is doing it more than Jeremy Walsh of Soulbound Studios with their groundbreaking new MMO, Chronicles of Elyria
My what a fervant supporter of CoE you are, three posts, on three threads all trumpeting CoE as the one game to save us all. Other than that nothing, at least since the new forum format.
Not contrived at all, I just don't post much here or anywhere else. I am old with better things to do :-), But I really am impressed by COE so I made a post
Not contrived at all, I just don't post much here or anywhere else. I am old with better things to do :-), But I really am impressed by COE so I made a post
Three posts actually, and two of those today. BTW don't make this a contest about whose beard is longer or whiter it will not end well. But I agree you are impressed by CoE.
Get rid of arenas and go back to OWPVP. No separate sets of gear or stats.
Why go back to an old unpopular design?
Old and unpopular?
Those "old unpopular" MMORPGs had 450K and 300K long-term, paying, monthly subs.
Your new MMORPGs couldn't hold old school MMORPGs jock when it comes to subs or longevity. So, I don't even know what exactly you are boasting about.
Few larger games have pulled off both acceptable PvE and open world PvP. UO comes to mind but it really had limited competition at the time. Other games like Eve have very llimited PvE. Other games with 2 serversets usually have many times the PvP server population on their PvE servers.
The arenas is a rather bad compromize.
That doesn't mean it can't be done anymore, PvP is probably the most common playstyle in gaming today over all genres and it is likely that it not being so popular in MMOs is due to the PvE centric mechanics and huge powergap almost all MMOs have.
Just adding open world PvP to a PvE game is not worth the work, and the class balancing you need to do just upset your main target but ain't enough to please the small PvP group. So what you need is mechanics that makes all PvP fights interesting and challenging, not just the people at your level with similar gear. The hard part is mixing that with character development.
I do think GW2s mechanics are good enough to make it possible to open an open world PvP server, the downleveling mechanics of it would take away any auto kills at least but to really make a huge open world PvP game you need to start from the beginning and make a system customized to be really fun in both playsets. That isn't easy but it can be done.
But it is not a question of going back to something, it is about moving forward to something instead.
Get rid of arenas and go back to OWPVP. No separate sets of gear or stats.
Why go back to an old unpopular design?
Old and unpopular?
Those "old unpopular" MMORPGs had 450K and 300K long-term, paying, monthly subs.
Your new MMORPGs couldn't hold old school MMORPGs jock when it comes to subs or longevity. So, I don't even know what exactly you are boasting about.
Few larger games have pulled off both acceptable PvE and open world PvP. UO comes to mind but it really had limited competition at the time. Other games like Eve have very llimited PvE. Other games with 2 serversets usually have many times the PvP server population on their PvE servers.
The arenas is a rather bad compromize.
That doesn't mean it can't be done anymore, PvP is probably the most common playstyle in gaming today over all genres and it is likely that it not being so popular in MMOs is due to the PvE centric mechanics and huge powergap almost all MMOs have.
Just adding open world PvP to a PvE game is not worth the work, and the class balancing you need to do just upset your main target but ain't enough to please the small PvP group. So what you need is mechanics that makes all PvP fights interesting and challenging, not just the people at your level with similar gear. The hard part is mixing that with character development.
I do think GW2s mechanics are good enough to make it possible to open an open world PvP server, the downleveling mechanics of it would take away any auto kills at least but to really make a huge open world PvP game you need to start from the beginning and make a system customized to be really fun in both playsets. That isn't easy but it can be done.
But it is not a question of going back to something, it is about moving forward to something instead.
Then they shouldn't add pvp to a pve game because pvpers get bored fighting in a box.
I agree with what you are saying, but there is room for a traditional MMORPG that is about pvp first and pve second. I like both and prefer games that include pvp. If people can't handle pvp outside mini-map instances, then they have plenty other games to choose from.
Few larger games have pulled off both acceptable PvE and open world PvP. UO comes to mind but it really had limited competition at the time. Other games like Eve have very llimited PvE. Other games with 2 serversets usually have many times the PvP server population on their PvE servers.
The arenas is a rather bad compromize.
That doesn't mean it can't be done anymore, PvP is probably the most common playstyle in gaming today over all genres and it is likely that it not being so popular in MMOs is due to the PvE centric mechanics and huge powergap almost all MMOs have.
Just adding open world PvP to a PvE game is not worth the work, and the class balancing you need to do just upset your main target but ain't enough to please the small PvP group. So what you need is mechanics that makes all PvP fights interesting and challenging, not just the people at your level with similar gear. The hard part is mixing that with character development.
I do think GW2s mechanics are good enough to make it possible to open an open world PvP server, the downleveling mechanics of it would take away any auto kills at least but to really make a huge open world PvP game you need to start from the beginning and make a system customized to be really fun in both playsets. That isn't easy but it can be done.
But it is not a question of going back to something, it is about moving forward to something instead.
Then they shouldn't add pvp to a pve game because pvpers get bored fighting in a box.
I agree with what you are saying, but there is room for a traditional MMORPG that is about pvp first and pve second. I like both and prefer games that include pvp. If people can't handle pvp outside mini-map instances, then they have plenty other games to choose from.
The problem is that traditional MMOs with PvP servers have so few players on them. I enjoy PvP as well, but only fights I can win or lose, fighting someone far below or above me just isn't fun and I think that is the problem, most players seems to agree.
Eve have the opposite problem, the PvP is fine but the PvE isn't good.
I do believe at least some MMOs should have open world PvP and PvE but you need the right mechanics for that to work or the PvP servers will be ghosttowns.
Few larger games have pulled off both acceptable PvE and open world PvP. UO comes to mind but it really had limited competition at the time. Other games like Eve have very llimited PvE. Other games with 2 serversets usually have many times the PvP server population on their PvE servers.
The arenas is a rather bad compromize.
That doesn't mean it can't be done anymore, PvP is probably the most common playstyle in gaming today over all genres and it is likely that it not being so popular in MMOs is due to the PvE centric mechanics and huge powergap almost all MMOs have.
Just adding open world PvP to a PvE game is not worth the work, and the class balancing you need to do just upset your main target but ain't enough to please the small PvP group. So what you need is mechanics that makes all PvP fights interesting and challenging, not just the people at your level with similar gear. The hard part is mixing that with character development.
I do think GW2s mechanics are good enough to make it possible to open an open world PvP server, the downleveling mechanics of it would take away any auto kills at least but to really make a huge open world PvP game you need to start from the beginning and make a system customized to be really fun in both playsets. That isn't easy but it can be done.
But it is not a question of going back to something, it is about moving forward to something instead.
Then they shouldn't add pvp to a pve game because pvpers get bored fighting in a box.
I agree with what you are saying, but there is room for a traditional MMORPG that is about pvp first and pve second. I like both and prefer games that include pvp. If people can't handle pvp outside mini-map instances, then they have plenty other games to choose from.
The problem is that traditional MMOs with PvP servers have so few players on them. I enjoy PvP as well, but only fights I can win or lose, fighting someone far below or above me just isn't fun and I think that is the problem, most players seems to agree.
Eve have the opposite problem, the PvP is fine but the PvE isn't good.
I do believe at least some MMOs should have open world PvP and PvE but you need the right mechanics for that to work or the PvP servers will be ghosttowns.
I have to agree with this too.
You know, I don't know why players that hate pvp choose to create characters on a pvp server when a pve server is offered. Then they complain.
I find pve servers boring. You run up to a pack of mobs, press 123, and thats it. With pvp, you're looking over your shoulder. You can kill that scumbag kid who just kill steal your mob. Or, you see someone across the field and say, meh, I'm ganking this guy. But, this is my style.
My point is, they choose to play on the pvp server instead of the pve server. You're right, something needs to be done because new players are no longer smart enough to choose. Maybe if they capped level ranges of who you can pvp without consent. Say no more or no less than 5 levels than you, or whatever is best for the mechanics. Your GW2 example is worth looking at. SWTOR did the same thing.
I think both can work if devs put better thought into it.
You know, I don't know why players that hate pvp choose to create characters on a pvp server when a pve server is offered. Then they complain.
I find pve servers boring. You run up to a pack of mobs, press 123, and thats it. With pvp, you're looking over your shoulder. You can kill that scumbag kid who just kill steal your mob. Or, you see someone across the field and say, meh, I'm ganking this guy. But, this is my style.
My point is, they choose to play on the pvp server instead of the pve server. You're right, something needs to be done because new players are no longer smart enough to choose. Maybe if they capped level ranges of who you can pvp without consent. Say no more or no less than 5 levels than you, or whatever is best for the mechanics. Your GW2 example is worth looking at. SWTOR did the same thing.
I think both can work if devs put better thought into it.
Now I feel responsible, way back I got my friends to roll characters on a EQ2 PvP server and you can't imagine the whining...
But a lot of the complains are about the balancing that affects people on PvE servers as well and that one have more substance to it. We seen changes either for PvP or PvE making a class totally useless in the other gametype.
I do think there is a lot more that needs to be improved for PvP servers, it turns into just random murder sprees far too often.
One things that would be interesting would be having say 9 different factions and having each faction in war with at least 1 other, giving you 2-4 sides fighting at any given time and a balancing system that matches up your current opponents and eventual allies.
Another thing would be guild owned dungeons where a guild could build traps, hire in npcs and moster and so on. That of course works with keeps, towns and so on depending what type of guild you have.
Far to often do PvP games and PvP servers offer little actual gameplay, just randomly kill other players all the time isn't enough to keep most players interested long term and the main game is usually still PvE but with the option to gank other players but PvP players also deserves actual content.
It's just difficult to imagine what "content" for PVP might be once you have siege castles and boats and such.
I don't think GMs limit PVP. I think it's just inherently a very limited, flawed, and narrow game; relying on PKs for entertainment.
Darkfall players obviously disagreed. All fifteen of them.
Most systems evade the problem by adding the "build up" minigame, first build your fleet, then PVP with it. First, build up your stats or your armor set, then PVP with it.
First, build you castle or your guild or your alliances, then PVP with it.
"Content" for PVP is probably Politics, there doesn't seem to be another real option.
It's just difficult to imagine what "content" for PVP might be once you have siege castles and boats and such.
I don't think GMs limit PVP. I think it's just inherently a very limited, flawed, and narrow game; relying on PKs for entertainment.
Darkfall players obviously disagreed. All fifteen of them.
Most systems evade the problem by adding the "build up" minigame, first build your fleet, then PVP with it. First, build up your stats or your armor set, then PVP with it.
First, build you castle or your guild or your alliances, then PVP with it.
"Content" for PVP is probably Politics, there doesn't seem to be another real option.
I don't see while making PvP content should be that hard. If you for example can make a PvE quest making a PvP one is not that hard, lets just call the PvP ones "objectives" instead of "quests".
That objective could be anything from entering enemy territory to pick up a message from a spy to assasination, to stealing resources, sabotage or whatever.
Note that I ain't taking about FFA PvP here but one with factions, I am not sure you can make a good FFA PvP game because it will just be a long chaotic murder spree no matter how you do it.
If you think it is easy to make PvE content but impossible to make it for PvPers you don't have much imagination.
As for building up your stats and armor, read my earlier posts. PvP combat needs to be exciting and spending 2 months running away from almost all fights while you build up your character isn't exciting and neither is attacking players who can't defend themselves because they havn't built themselves up.
We don't need another Darkfall, you have not read this thread if you think that is what I want. Far from it, we need a game that makes PvP at least as fun as PvE, something FPS. MOBAs and RTS games already succeeded with. That is not impossible for MMOs, the problem is that most games try to do this by copying UO and that always fail badly.
PvP is not inherently bad, but the MMOs never really tries to improve it. Not much have happened since Eve came out in 2003 and if PvE games would have done the same they would also be a small niche.
Yes, Narius. Now we can all sleep well tonight. I can only imagine how many rats' asses were given.
Enough so that you actually will comment on a simple statement of preference?
Do you use rising inflection often when you speak to people in RL? Are you one of those people?
Because you very often phrase statements as questions when you post.
Now you care about how i talk in real life? (note that question mark)
There you go, you used it properly. Good job.
And no, I don't care, it's just fun to talk about.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Since a lot of the discussion here has drifted towards quests, I thought I'd continue along that vein.
Quests are simply too static. Everyone gets to collect wolf spleens, troll tails or rat hankerchiefs, occasionally more than one time. Not everyone should be able to get the same quests as everyone else. If you know what content is available, it becomes a matter of pattern recognition, min-maxing and spoiler sites to find an 'optimum' path. Essentially, quests as a mechanism become predictable. I see a few distinct things that can help avoid this kind of predictability.
Dynamic Content Generation. Have the game engine generate quests (including dialog) to make content without requiring traditional patches and direct developer involvement. Initially, this could simply be a tool to develop content, but should advance to the point where the content generated can be truly dynamic -- without requiring developer intervention.
Personalized Quests. (advanced version of DCG). Have the system generate unique content for a specific individual, based on previous achievements in game. Farmer Will says "I hear you are the person to talk to about wolves...". This quest might spawn only for an individual that has previously helped killing wolves, and it could present a customized reward for that player.
Limited Participation. Each quest should have a limited number of participants. Farmer Will should only send out 5 search parties to find his lost rake, not offer the quest to everyone who comes along.
Finite Duration. Many quests need to have a duration. Not all need a specific timer, but could use relative events to terminate the quest -- end of the (game) month, start of the Harvest festival, etc. It doesn't do Farmer Will any good if you return his rake 10 days after he needed to plant the new crop.
Restricted repetition. A quest shouldn't always be available 24/7. What about a simple 'spawn' timer for quests? A quest becomes 'available' and people can take the quest, and when the quest become 'dormant', no one can start or complete the quest. Already, most games have spawn timer systems on most raid targets, it should be relatively simple to make quests 'available' or 'dormant' on a timer.
I think that adding these few mechanisms and changes to existing mechanisms could do a lot to prevent quests from becoming stale. The most difficult of these ideas to implement now I would judge to be the text creation element; computers don't write adequate stories... yet.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
I see comments regarding vets players having played a MMO for a while having an advantage over time Vs newbies. Let's face it, with over 1,000 MMO's to choose from, you can't have everyone play one MMO. So yes in the long run if "X" MMO title has been running for 5 years, then it is normal for newbies that decide to give the "X" title a shot after 5 years being at a big disadvantage. There is absolutely no way to correct this and is pointless to even try solving it, besides saying "Let's just reset the whole server back to level 1", right, and then 90% of your player base will quit the game and 2 weeks later the game shuts down for good.
No offense to the OP, a lot of respect and have been reading your posts for years, but like I typed above, with the thousands of choices we have today, there's a game to suit everyone. I've learned in the past months that there is no point anymore in trying to find the "perfect" MMO to suit everyone, I'll be wasting my lifetime and 2-3 more lifetimes. Instead, I found my new home in February 2016 and been playing hardcore ever since to this day and that home is Atlantica Online.
So yeah, my time for hating on a bunch of new titles has ended. I've learned that not because I find a title to be crap for me, that it means it will be crap for everyone. So I learned to take it up the butt and STFU about it. I don't like it, I move on. But I'll still be posting against fanbois praising a new title being the "next big thing". Someone needs to put these annoying fanbois down to earth.
P.S. : The perfect MMO to suit everyone would need options that you can check in game such as :
-Open world PvP -Full loot -Perma Death -Instanced -Not instanced -Theme park -Sandbox -Tab target -No tab Target - WASD movement -Arrows movement -1st person -3rd person - Cartoonish - Real life 3D -Controller enabled -Crafting centric -Non crafting centric -World Vs World -1 mega server -20+ servers -Auction house -No Auction house -Own a house -Own a pet -Mounts -Instant teleport - Auto move -Castle sieges -Turned based battles -No turned based battles -Sci Fi theme -Medieval theme -Real life theme
Pretty sure I'm missing over a dozen more features, but the point I'm trying to make here is that you'll never get the perfect MMO to suit everyone no matter how hard you try. So go what you like and be happy about it.
Some people hate cartoonish graphics, while others like me don't give a damn about it. So just with that point you'll never get the perfect MMO unless you give the option to the player to check in the game settings to pick real life graphics or cartoonish.
Not just with MMOs but, Loading Screens. When hardware got better over the years I thought games would ditch these screens altogether and developers would create vast and seamless worlds. Now it seems the opposite is true with newer MMOs having more and more loading screens. I hate them, I absolutely do. NOTHING is more immersion breaking then a loading screen. I can accept ONE when booting up the game, that is it. Even bloody WoW has less loading screens then 99% of the MMOs that came after it, WHY? Why are designers too lazy/dumb/stupid/technically incapable of doing this? I do not want more amazing graphics, I want more immersion. Having said that, when it comes to immersion, also ditch static NPCs, give me meaningful questing (like TSW but much longer and involving chains) and a dynamic world with weather, night and day cycles, seasons, migrating wildlife, disasters etc. But loading screens, just those damn loading screen, F them.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Not just with MMOs but, Loading Screens. When hardware got better over the years I thought games would ditch these screens altogether and developers would create vast and seamless worlds. Now it seems the opposite is true with newer MMOs having more and more loading screens. I hate them, I absolutely do. NOTHING is more immersion breaking then a loading screen. I can accept ONE when booting up the game, that is it. Even bloody WoW has less loading screens then 99% of the MMOs that came after it, WHY? Why are designers too lazy/dumb/stupid/technically incapable of doing this? I do not want more amazing graphics, I want more immersion. Having said that, when it comes to immersion, also ditch static NPCs, give me meaningful questing (like TSW but much longer and involving chains) and a dynamic world with weather, night and day cycles, seasons, migrating wildlife, disasters etc. But loading screens, just those damn loading screen, F them.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
Not just with MMOs but, Loading Screens. When hardware got better over the years I thought games would ditch these screens altogether and developers would create vast and seamless worlds. Now it seems the opposite is true with newer MMOs having more and more loading screens. I hate them, I absolutely do. NOTHING is more immersion breaking then a loading screen. I can accept ONE when booting up the game, that is it. Even bloody WoW has less loading screens then 99% of the MMOs that came after it, WHY? Why are designers too lazy/dumb/stupid/technically incapable of doing this? I do not want more amazing graphics, I want more immersion. Having said that, when it comes to immersion, also ditch static NPCs, give me meaningful questing (like TSW but much longer and involving chains) and a dynamic world with weather, night and day cycles, seasons, migrating wildlife, disasters etc. But loading screens, just those damn loading screen, F them.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
Shows what you know! haha
Loading makes sense.
Lots of things that make perfect sense are incredibly annoying.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Not just with MMOs but, Loading Screens. When hardware got better over the years I thought games would ditch these screens altogether and developers would create vast and seamless worlds. Now it seems the opposite is true with newer MMOs having more and more loading screens. I hate them, I absolutely do. NOTHING is more immersion breaking then a loading screen. I can accept ONE when booting up the game, that is it. Even bloody WoW has less loading screens then 99% of the MMOs that came after it, WHY? Why are designers too lazy/dumb/stupid/technically incapable of doing this? I do not want more amazing graphics, I want more immersion. Having said that, when it comes to immersion, also ditch static NPCs, give me meaningful questing (like TSW but much longer and involving chains) and a dynamic world with weather, night and day cycles, seasons, migrating wildlife, disasters etc. But loading screens, just those damn loading screen, F them.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
Loading screens is something that will be gone 10 years from now. Cellphones already use a technology that means harddrive and memory is the same thing. Cellphones have far smaller memory then a harddrive/SSD but the technology will eventually hit PCs as well. When that happens you wont need loading screens.
Few larger games have pulled off both acceptable PvE and open world PvP. UO comes to mind but it really had limited competition at the time. Other games like Eve have very llimited PvE. Other games with 2 serversets usually have many times the PvP server population on their PvE servers.
The arenas is a rather bad compromize.
That doesn't mean it can't be done anymore, PvP is probably the most common playstyle in gaming today over all genres and it is likely that it not being so popular in MMOs is due to the PvE centric mechanics and huge powergap almost all MMOs have.
Just adding open world PvP to a PvE game is not worth the work, and the class balancing you need to do just upset your main target but ain't enough to please the small PvP group. So what you need is mechanics that makes all PvP fights interesting and challenging, not just the people at your level with similar gear. The hard part is mixing that with character development.
I do think GW2s mechanics are good enough to make it possible to open an open world PvP server, the downleveling mechanics of it would take away any auto kills at least but to really make a huge open world PvP game you need to start from the beginning and make a system customized to be really fun in both playsets. That isn't easy but it can be done.
But it is not a question of going back to something, it is about moving forward to something instead.
Then they shouldn't add pvp to a pve game because pvpers get bored fighting in a box.
I agree with what you are saying, but there is room for a traditional MMORPG that is about pvp first and pve second. I like both and prefer games that include pvp. If people can't handle pvp outside mini-map instances, then they have plenty other games to choose from.
The problem is that traditional MMOs with PvP servers have so few players on them. I enjoy PvP as well, but only fights I can win or lose, fighting someone far below or above me just isn't fun and I think that is the problem, most players seems to agree.
Eve have the opposite problem, the PvP is fine but the PvE isn't good.
I do believe at least some MMOs should have open world PvP and PvE but you need the right mechanics for that to work or the PvP servers will be ghosttowns.
I have to agree with this too.
You know, I don't know why players that hate pvp choose to create characters on a pvp server when a pve server is offered. Then they complain.
I find pve servers boring. You run up to a pack of mobs, press 123, and thats it. With pvp, you're looking over your shoulder. You can kill that scumbag kid who just kill steal your mob. Or, you see someone across the field and say, meh, I'm ganking this guy. But, this is my style.
My point is, they choose to play on the pvp server instead of the pve server. You're right, something needs to be done because new players are no longer smart enough to choose. Maybe if they capped level ranges of who you can pvp without consent. Say no more or no less than 5 levels than you, or whatever is best for the mechanics. Your GW2 example is worth looking at. SWTOR did the same thing.
I think both can work if devs put better thought into it.
level cap is good. but what if the party has different levels?
Comments
Seems a little contrived to me.
Those "old unpopular" MMORPGs had 450K and 300K long-term, paying, monthly subs.
Your new MMORPGs couldn't hold old school MMORPGs jock when it comes to subs or longevity. So, I don't even know what exactly you are boasting about.
The arenas is a rather bad compromize.
That doesn't mean it can't be done anymore, PvP is probably the most common playstyle in gaming today over all genres and it is likely that it not being so popular in MMOs is due to the PvE centric mechanics and huge powergap almost all MMOs have.
Just adding open world PvP to a PvE game is not worth the work, and the class balancing you need to do just upset your main target but ain't enough to please the small PvP group. So what you need is mechanics that makes all PvP fights interesting and challenging, not just the people at your level with similar gear. The hard part is mixing that with character development.
I do think GW2s mechanics are good enough to make it possible to open an open world PvP server, the downleveling mechanics of it would take away any auto kills at least but to really make a huge open world PvP game you need to start from the beginning and make a system customized to be really fun in both playsets. That isn't easy but it can be done.
But it is not a question of going back to something, it is about moving forward to something instead.
I agree with what you are saying, but there is room for a traditional MMORPG that is about pvp first and pve second. I like both and prefer games that include pvp. If people can't handle pvp outside mini-map instances, then they have plenty other games to choose from.
Eve have the opposite problem, the PvP is fine but the PvE isn't good.
I do believe at least some MMOs should have open world PvP and PvE but you need the right mechanics for that to work or the PvP servers will be ghosttowns.
You know, I don't know why players that hate pvp choose to create characters on a pvp server when a pve server is offered. Then they complain.
I find pve servers boring. You run up to a pack of mobs, press 123, and thats it. With pvp, you're looking over your shoulder. You can kill that scumbag kid who just kill steal your mob. Or, you see someone across the field and say, meh, I'm ganking this guy. But, this is my style.
My point is, they choose to play on the pvp server instead of the pve server. You're right, something needs to be done because new players are no longer smart enough to choose. Maybe if they capped level ranges of who you can pvp without consent. Say no more or no less than 5 levels than you, or whatever is best for the mechanics. Your GW2 example is worth looking at. SWTOR did the same thing.
I think both can work if devs put better thought into it.
But a lot of the complains are about the balancing that affects people on PvE servers as well and that one have more substance to it. We seen changes either for PvP or PvE making a class totally useless in the other gametype.
I do think there is a lot more that needs to be improved for PvP servers, it turns into just random murder sprees far too often.
One things that would be interesting would be having say 9 different factions and having each faction in war with at least 1 other, giving you 2-4 sides fighting at any given time and a balancing system that matches up your current opponents and eventual allies.
Another thing would be guild owned dungeons where a guild could build traps, hire in npcs and moster and so on. That of course works with keeps, towns and so on depending what type of guild you have.
Far to often do PvP games and PvP servers offer little actual gameplay, just randomly kill other players all the time isn't enough to keep most players interested long term and the main game is usually still PvE but with the option to gank other players but PvP players also deserves actual content.
I don't think GMs limit PVP. I think it's just inherently a very limited, flawed, and narrow game; relying on PKs for entertainment.
Darkfall players obviously disagreed. All fifteen of them.
Most systems evade the problem by adding the "build up" minigame, first build your fleet, then PVP with it. First, build up your stats or your armor set, then PVP with it.
First, build you castle or your guild or your alliances, then PVP with it.
"Content" for PVP is probably Politics, there doesn't seem to be another real option.
That objective could be anything from entering enemy territory to pick up a message from a spy to assasination, to stealing resources, sabotage or whatever.
Note that I ain't taking about FFA PvP here but one with factions, I am not sure you can make a good FFA PvP game because it will just be a long chaotic murder spree no matter how you do it.
If you think it is easy to make PvE content but impossible to make it for PvPers you don't have much imagination.
As for building up your stats and armor, read my earlier posts. PvP combat needs to be exciting and spending 2 months running away from almost all fights while you build up your character isn't exciting and neither is attacking players who can't defend themselves because they havn't built themselves up.
We don't need another Darkfall, you have not read this thread if you think that is what I want. Far from it, we need a game that makes PvP at least as fun as PvE, something FPS. MOBAs and RTS games already succeeded with. That is not impossible for MMOs, the problem is that most games try to do this by copying UO and that always fail badly.
PvP is not inherently bad, but the MMOs never really tries to improve it. Not much have happened since Eve came out in 2003 and if PvE games would have done the same they would also be a small niche.
Sub-only games are no more precisely because dev don't care about 300-400k subs anymore.
And no, I don't care, it's just fun to talk about.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Quests are simply too static. Everyone gets to collect wolf spleens, troll tails or rat hankerchiefs, occasionally more than one time. Not everyone should be able to get the same quests as everyone else. If you know what content is available, it becomes a matter of pattern recognition, min-maxing and spoiler sites to find an 'optimum' path. Essentially, quests as a mechanism become predictable. I see a few distinct things that can help avoid this kind of predictability.
- Restricted repetition. A quest shouldn't always be available 24/7. What about a simple 'spawn' timer for quests? A quest becomes 'available' and people can take the quest, and when the quest become 'dormant', no one can start or complete the quest. Already, most games have spawn timer systems on most raid targets, it should be relatively simple to make quests 'available' or 'dormant' on a timer.
I think that adding these few mechanisms and changes to existing mechanisms could do a lot to prevent quests from becoming stale. The most difficult of these ideas to implement now I would judge to be the text creation element; computers don't write adequate stories... yet.Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
No offense to the OP, a lot of respect and have been reading your posts for years, but like I typed above, with the thousands of choices we have today, there's a game to suit everyone. I've learned in the past months that there is no point anymore in trying to find the "perfect" MMO to suit everyone, I'll be wasting my lifetime and 2-3 more lifetimes. Instead, I found my new home in February 2016 and been playing hardcore ever since to this day and that home is Atlantica Online.
So yeah, my time for hating on a bunch of new titles has ended. I've learned that not because I find a title to be crap for me, that it means it will be crap for everyone. So I learned to take it up the butt and STFU about it. I don't like it, I move on. But I'll still be posting against fanbois praising a new title being the "next big thing". Someone needs to put these annoying fanbois down to earth.
P.S. : The perfect MMO to suit everyone would need options that you can check in game such as :
-Open world PvP
-Full loot
-Perma Death
-Instanced
-Not instanced
-Theme park
-Sandbox
-Tab target
-No tab Target
- WASD movement
-Arrows movement
-1st person
-3rd person
- Cartoonish
- Real life 3D
-Controller enabled
-Crafting centric
-Non crafting centric
-World Vs World
-1 mega server
-20+ servers
-Auction house
-No Auction house
-Own a house
-Own a pet
-Mounts
-Instant teleport
- Auto move
-Castle sieges
-Turned based battles
-No turned based battles
-Sci Fi theme
-Medieval theme
-Real life theme
Pretty sure I'm missing over a dozen more features, but the point I'm trying to make here is that you'll never get the perfect MMO to suit everyone no matter how hard you try. So go what you like and be happy about it.
Some people hate cartoonish graphics, while others like me don't give a damn about it. So just with that point you'll never get the perfect MMO unless you give the option to the player to check in the game settings to pick real life graphics or cartoonish.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Shows what you know! haha
Loading makes sense.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer