Last time I played WoW with two or three hundred people in the immediate area it was a slide show.
Slide shows are a big reason why people like me tend to stay away from large scale PvP or PVE encounters.
When the number of concurrent user hurdle has been overcome, we will see the next generation of MMO's come to fruition.
Game worlds where 10's of thousands, 100's of thousands or even millions play in a single instance.
Were still in the baby steps phase of Massively Multiplayer games.
Prove me wrong
Wow released 13 years ago and with the upgraded graphics you can't expect it to run fine with hundreds of people in the same area. It was not originally built like this and when you add more and more stuff to an old engine you eventually get performance issues.
But hey, EQ2 had the same problem but worse since day 1 and it never got fixed.
Add the fact that many peoples hardware can't handle it. For instance I heard many guys complain about getting a slideshow in GW2 while my FPs have gone down to 45 a second (which isn't great but it certainly isn't bad either, it is very hard to notice the drop until it gets below 30).
Since we all use different hardware more then a few computers will have really bad performance around many people. High end users wont have a problem but for low end you either need to use culling or lower the view distance a lot and even wityh that it wont run well.
The third thing is that high end graphics and thousands of players in the same area does not mix well together.
So basically: If you make a new game with high hardware requirements and mid to low range graphics you can certainly make a massive game that runs fine. But it wont be pretty and need to sell only on gameplay instead of looks (as most MMOs been selling on for a long time).
You also need good mechanics that prevents chaotic zerging (zone of control and tactical formations should do the job). And if you are PvE focused you need enough content for all those players.
Can it be done? Certainly but will it ever be? Doubtful.
If someone ever does it with a "Worldly" game such as I've suggested, and does it well, I think it would rock the boat and change the course of MMORPGs.
By "zone of control", do you mean player factions controlling parts of the world? I think that along with other social game designs can fix those issues entirely. For example, if players spread out in the game world for their own benefit, and don't have a quick and easy way to cross the map, then the numbers for any area are limited. By "their own benefit" I mean access to loot and resources. If those are limited (maybe just for the better stuff), then players in a busy area would seek less traveled places. And to prevent player cities from growing too much also. Resources in short supply would certainly cause players to move on to better places.
In short, making a game that's more "realistic" in the social arenas can be a big benefit.
Last time I played WoW with two or three hundred people in the immediate area it was a slide show.
Slide shows are a big reason why people like me tend to stay away from large scale PvP or PVE encounters.
When the number of concurrent user hurdle has been overcome, we will see the next generation of MMO's come to fruition.
Game worlds where 10's of thousands, 100's of thousands or even millions play in a single instance.
Were still in the baby steps phase of Massively Multiplayer games.
Prove me wrong
Wow released 13 years ago and with the upgraded graphics you can't expect it to run fine with hundreds of people in the same area. It was not originally built like this and when you add more and more stuff to an old engine you eventually get performance issues.
But hey, EQ2 had the same problem but worse since day 1 and it never got fixed.
Add the fact that many peoples hardware can't handle it. For instance I heard many guys complain about getting a slideshow in GW2 while my FPs have gone down to 45 a second (which isn't great but it certainly isn't bad either, it is very hard to notice the drop until it gets below 30).
Since we all use different hardware more then a few computers will have really bad performance around many people. High end users wont have a problem but for low end you either need to use culling or lower the view distance a lot and even wityh that it wont run well.
The third thing is that high end graphics and thousands of players in the same area does not mix well together.
So basically: If you make a new game with high hardware requirements and mid to low range graphics you can certainly make a massive game that runs fine. But it wont be pretty and need to sell only on gameplay instead of looks (as most MMOs been selling on for a long time).
You also need good mechanics that prevents chaotic zerging (zone of control and tactical formations should do the job). And if you are PvE focused you need enough content for all those players.
Can it be done? Certainly but will it ever be? Doubtful.
If someone ever does it with a "Worldly" game such as I've suggested, and does it well, I think it would rock the boat and change the course of MMORPGs.
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?"
Just saying, and related to the topic of numbers control in zones, but I always loved UO's "recall runes" for fast travel.
For those who don't know, I'll explain that system first. A player could "mark a rune stone" in any place he is standing with a spell called "Mark". Using that rune stone, the player then could use a higher leveled spell call "Recall" on any rune stone and instantly recall back to the location. On top of that, there was a high level mage spell for opening gates where any number of players could walk through it and go to the place where the rune stone was marked.
But what I'd do if it were up to me, and for more control of numbers, I'd add some limits. -I'd limit a mage's number of "memorized" (this wasn't a limit in UO) rune stones to equal his Intelligence, or a fraction of it, depending on what that number is. So he'd have to destroy an old one to create a new one if he's reached his limit. -I'd allow "Recall" anytime, anywhere (subject to mana use and reagent costs) just like in UO. -I'd limit Gate spells to only allow a number of players/pets to go through it, again based on the mage's Intelligence (or maybe another stat like Constitution). -I'd cause a rune stone to be destroyed upon use for a Gate Spell. -I'd also make rune stones fairly expensive. And might have to consider a time limit on spell casting these spells.
What this means is that a player has to juggle the value of his "Marks" and decide what he wants to have access to for Fast Travel. It also means that he can't just keep opening Gates for large numbers of players and flood a zone.
Or any Fast Travel system, it would be good to control large number of players from instantly changing the zone populations.
Last time I played WoW with two or three hundred people in the immediate area it was a slide show.
Slide shows are a big reason why people like me tend to stay away from large scale PvP or PVE encounters.
When the number of concurrent user hurdle has been overcome, we will see the next generation of MMO's come to fruition.
Game worlds where 10's of thousands, 100's of thousands or even millions play in a single instance.
Were still in the baby steps phase of Massively Multiplayer games.
Prove me wrong
Wow released 13 years ago and with the upgraded graphics you can't expect it to run fine with hundreds of people in the same area. It was not originally built like this and when you add more and more stuff to an old engine you eventually get performance issues.
But hey, EQ2 had the same problem but worse since day 1 and it never got fixed.
Add the fact that many peoples hardware can't handle it. For instance I heard many guys complain about getting a slideshow in GW2 while my FPs have gone down to 45 a second (which isn't great but it certainly isn't bad either, it is very hard to notice the drop until it gets below 30).
Since we all use different hardware more then a few computers will have really bad performance around many people. High end users wont have a problem but for low end you either need to use culling or lower the view distance a lot and even wityh that it wont run well.
The third thing is that high end graphics and thousands of players in the same area does not mix well together.
So basically: If you make a new game with high hardware requirements and mid to low range graphics you can certainly make a massive game that runs fine. But it wont be pretty and need to sell only on gameplay instead of looks (as most MMOs been selling on for a long time).
You also need good mechanics that prevents chaotic zerging (zone of control and tactical formations should do the job). And if you are PvE focused you need enough content for all those players.
Can it be done? Certainly but will it ever be? Doubtful.
If someone ever does it with a "Worldly" game such as I've suggested, and does it well, I think it would rock the boat and change the course of MMORPGs.
I believe you think that.
Have you ever heard of "White Line Fever"?
Highway hypnosis, also known as white line fever, is a mental state in which a person can drive a truck or other automobile
great distances, responding to external events in the expected, safe
and correct manner with no recollection of having consciously done so.[1]
In this state, the driver's conscious mind is apparently fully focused
elsewhere, while seemingly still processing the information needed to
drive safely. Highway hypnosis is a manifestation of the common process
of automaticity, where the conscious and subconscious minds are able to concentrate on different things.
Last time I played WoW with two or three hundred people in the immediate area it was a slide show.
Slide shows are a big reason why people like me tend to stay away from large scale PvP or PVE encounters.
When the number of concurrent user hurdle has been overcome, we will see the next generation of MMO's come to fruition.
Game worlds where 10's of thousands, 100's of thousands or even millions play in a single instance.
Were still in the baby steps phase of Massively Multiplayer games.
Prove me wrong
Wow released 13 years ago and with the upgraded graphics you can't expect it to run fine with hundreds of people in the same area. It was not originally built like this and when you add more and more stuff to an old engine you eventually get performance issues.
But hey, EQ2 had the same problem but worse since day 1 and it never got fixed.
Add the fact that many peoples hardware can't handle it. For instance I heard many guys complain about getting a slideshow in GW2 while my FPs have gone down to 45 a second (which isn't great but it certainly isn't bad either, it is very hard to notice the drop until it gets below 30).
Since we all use different hardware more then a few computers will have really bad performance around many people. High end users wont have a problem but for low end you either need to use culling or lower the view distance a lot and even wityh that it wont run well.
The third thing is that high end graphics and thousands of players in the same area does not mix well together.
So basically: If you make a new game with high hardware requirements and mid to low range graphics you can certainly make a massive game that runs fine. But it wont be pretty and need to sell only on gameplay instead of looks (as most MMOs been selling on for a long time).
You also need good mechanics that prevents chaotic zerging (zone of control and tactical formations should do the job). And if you are PvE focused you need enough content for all those players.
Can it be done? Certainly but will it ever be? Doubtful.
If someone ever does it with a "Worldly" game such as I've suggested, and does it well, I think it would rock the boat and change the course of MMORPGs.
I believe you think that.
Have you ever heard of "White Line Fever"?
Highway hypnosis, also known as white line fever, is a mental state in which a person can drive a truck or other automobile
great distances, responding to external events in the expected, safe
and correct manner with no recollection of having consciously done so.[1]
In this state, the driver's conscious mind is apparently fully focused
elsewhere, while seemingly still processing the information needed to
drive safely. Highway hypnosis is a manifestation of the common process
of automaticity, where the conscious and subconscious minds are able to concentrate on different things.
And that's the state of MMO's. Have fun with that.
That's because of how the brain works in general. The mind forms habits or scripts so it can put activities on autopilot. The brain actually develops a pathway which becomes stronger the longer the habit is used. It takes less brain power to process a habit than in learning something new. Most people don't remember locking their door or lose things when they put something in a location that's different than usual.
It's also why we have fan loyalty. We get use to things being a certain way and hate changes in general. Finding a game we like is basically finding a game that reuses old habits formed from games we used to or still play.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
By "zone of control", do you mean player factions controlling parts of the world? I think that along with other social game designs can fix those issues entirely. For example, if players spread out in the game world for their own benefit, and don't have a quick and easy way to cross the map, then the numbers for any area are limited. By "their own benefit" I mean access to loot and resources. If those are limited (maybe just for the better stuff), then players in a busy area would seek less traveled places. And to prevent player cities from growing too much also. Resources in short supply would certainly cause players to move on to better places.
In short, making a game that's more "realistic" in the social arenas can be a big benefit.
No, a small zone around you that slows down enemies trying to run past you, the same zone that would award attacks of opportunity in a pen and paper game. It makes a shield wall possible (it's not my idea) and means people will have to use tactics to get an advantage instead of running around like madmen.
Without something like that all massive combat becomes a hopeless zerg. It is not at all about content but about combat mechanics that works for more then a single group. After all there is no point to have many people around if you only can interact with a few of them.
And yes, local resources is a good idea since it encourage travels. The age of exploration started because people wanted spices after all (that and gold but pepper was actually more worth then gold when the only route to it was the silk road),
Some common elements should certainly be all over the world, like iron, but it could be easier to get at some points and harder at others. There are other ways to get iron then just mining it, you could dig up bog iron like the vikings or collect old trash lying around. Torval said:
The other thing about having 1000 people on the screen is that it has to be meaningful. Having the screen cluttered with avatars sucks if it's only there to reassure players that there really are a lot of other people logged onto the same game they are.
Albion reminded me of that recently. There were a few hundred people jammed onto the screen real estate in town. It didn't add anything. Cut that down to a hundred or fifty or whatever number makes sense to promote decent social interaction.
Mark Jacobs has mentioned in previous forum posts that they want player interaction to be meaningful even in large battles. How that meaning takes shape may depend on the character's role, but the point is they're not shoving 500 people on the screen just so they can market the number. The intent is to have a meaningful large scale battle, and/or maybe several small and medium sized battles in close proximity.
Getting hung up on specific numbers or thresholds seems pointless.
Yeah, that was my point as well. If all the other people does is compete for the same resources and nothing else there is no need for that many people.
With massive content, PvE or PvP it works but only if you use some kind of anti zerg mechanics (read my answer to AM above).
Yes, a huge army attacking a city can be awesome fun, no matter if it is PvP or PvE but with the standard MMO mechanics we will just see 2 huge zergsrunning around and into eachother. No strategy, no tactics, no clue. That still can be somewhat fun but not nearly as fun as working together.
Anyways, My point to dear old nari is that the development of true MMORPGs are just as much stalled and stifled by current technology as much or more so then they are by popularity.
You obviously have not played Planetside 2 with a large number of players in the same area.
But hey .. popularity is more important than technology. Technology can always be done with enough money thrown at it. Without the demand, there is no money to be thrown at anything.
Anyways, My point to dear old nari is that the development of true MMORPGs are just as much stalled and stifled by current technology as much or more so then they are by popularity.
You obviously have not played Planetside 2 with a large number of players in the same area.
But hey .. popularity is more important than technology. Technology can always be done with enough money thrown at it. Without the demand, there is no money to be thrown at anything.nariusseldon said:
Anyways, My point to dear old nari is that the development of true MMORPGs are just as much stalled and stifled by current technology as much or more so then they are by popularity.
You obviously have not played Planetside 2 with a large number of players in the same area.
But hey .. popularity is more important than technology. Technology can always be done with enough money thrown at it. Without the demand, there is no money to be thrown at anything.
Actually I did try Planetside 2 a few years back, 2012 maybe. It certainly handled the number of players on screen a hell of a lot better than WoW.
Popularity is more important than technology? mmm....k . Usually the technology needs to be invented first. Kind of hard to be popular when you don't exist yet.
Technology can always be done with enough money thrown at it? Some things just haven't worked yet. Take perpetual motion as an example, super popular, countless people, countless dollars and countless man hours have been spent through the decades. To the best of my knowledge it hasn't worked out yet.
The problem with ignoring gear while rushing to endgame can be easily fixed. Make leveling slower (and interesting by ditching story driven themepark content) and make the difficulty so that characters can only advance if they have invested in getting geared (add to that unlocking, keying, attuning trials/quests and other scary words).
The problem with ignoring gear while rushing to endgame can be easily fixed. Make leveling slower (and interesting by ditching story driven themepark content) and make the difficulty so that characters can only advance if they have invested in getting geared (add to that unlocking, keying, attuning trials/quests and other scary words).
I have a different solution: fewer levels, same time to max out.
With 20 levels that takes the same time as the usual 80-120 you will stay at each level longer and gear will matter more. You have only 20 or so levels that actually matters anyways (gives skills and similar), the rest arre just fillers that give you HP. It is a simple fix that actually takes less work to implement then the current system and leveling will feel more fun when you don't do it every bleeding hour.
The problem with ignoring gear while rushing to endgame can be easily fixed. Make leveling slower (and interesting by ditching story driven themepark content) and make the difficulty so that characters can only advance if they have invested in getting geared (add to that unlocking, keying, attuning trials/quests and other scary words).
I have a different solution: fewer levels, same time to max out.
With 20 levels that takes the same time as the usual 80-120 you will stay at each level longer and gear will matter more. You have only 20 or so levels that actually matters anyways (gives skills and similar), the rest arre just fillers that give you HP. It is a simple fix that actually takes less work to implement then the current system and leveling will feel more fun when you don't do it every bleeding hour.
I agree about the difficulty.
I think most games, or at least they used to, start out like this. The number of levels was fairly arbitrary, and the leveling curve was set so the median player would hit max level in some long time period.
...that time period has been getting shorter and shorter over time.
There is also another factor at work, and why @Loke666 recommendation makes sense, and I agree on the surface, but it's not the ultimate fix.
Expansions.
Expansions represent a double whammy. You have to give the player some additional way to progress. Traditionally, that has just meant more character levels, which runs counter to the idea of just having fewer levels (regardless of the time it takes to gain them). That would have to take on some other form - and I think that could be a very good thing.
The other issue is catch up, and this is what I think has been accelerating leveling more than anything. You have been playing the game since release, you just got the 5th Xpac, and now your buddy just got the game and started playing. Again, this can be fixed via other mechanics, but often it isn't.
A parallel effect of expansions: It used to be, in Everquest and earlier games, expansions built on each other. When Velious came out, Kunark still had a place in the game because not everything was immediately obsolete. And it continued like that for a good while - older content was still relevant. Wow re-invented that - every expansion is a reset, sometimes literally with new zones/areas, skill retools and complete gear revamps - including even previous top tier end game gear. If expansions are treated like game resets, but the leveling curve still goes through the previous areas, it makes for a significant problem that only exaggerates these problems being discussed here.
I think most games, or at least they used to, start out like this. The number of levels was fairly arbitrary, and the leveling curve was set so the median player would hit max level in some long time period.
...that time period has been getting shorter and shorter over time.
There is also another factor at work, and why @Loke666 recommendation makes sense, and I agree on the surface, but it's not the ultimate fix.
Expansions.
Expansions represent a double whammy. You have to give the player some additional way to progress. Traditionally, that has just meant more character levels, which runs counter to the idea of just having fewer levels (regardless of the time it takes to gain them). That would have to take on some other form - and I think that could be a very good thing.
The other issue is catch up, and this is what I think has been accelerating leveling more than anything. You have been playing the game since release, you just got the 5th Xpac, and now your buddy just got the game and started playing. Again, this can be fixed via other mechanics, but often it isn't.
A parallel effect of expansions: It used to be, in Everquest and earlier games, expansions built on each other. When Velious came out, Kunark still had a place in the game because not everything was immediately obsolete. And it continued like that for a good while - older content was still relevant. Wow re-invented that - every expansion is a reset, sometimes literally with new zones/areas, skill retools and complete gear revamps - including even previous top tier end game gear. If expansions are treated like game resets, but the leveling curve still goes through the previous areas, it makes for a significant problem that only exaggerates these problems being discussed here.
Yeah, I am aware of that. And expansion usually adds 5 more levels, some even 10 making the levelcurve hopless.
You could help it somewhat if you start with 20 levels and add a single level that takes about the same time to complete as the 5 levels most games add. Also you need to be careful with newer lower zones so the gear wont be so good there that no-one ever visit the old zones again.
The main problem with expansions is really the tiered raid gear, not the number of levels. You expect people to spend 2 years hard work to get that gear that the instant the next expansion comes will be useless. That has made more then a few people quit the games.
The real problem is to motivate people to play after they maxed out their levels. Dungeon and raid gear used to work but more and more people have tired of it so I think we need a new kind of endgame if we want to solve that problem. And that is easier said then done.
I like quests to be real quests. Like kill that dragon, which would take a few months of journey and preparation and you'd have to go through a whole adventure to make it happen. Fuck side quests. I can never understand them. I'm on way to kill a dragon to save the kingdom but on my way I stop at an Inn to kill the freaking rats? Who does that?
It's nice to face the related problems and obstacles on the way. But no man has ever stopped to pick flowers for the village's idiot on his way to kill a dragon.
Just curious here, how would you want that Dragon quest designed? Repeatable on demand or one off as a world event? (In a one off, there'd need to be ways to make it better than just a mad dash of a massive hoard of players to the Dragon, as in finding it first, or defeating it's minions to get to it, or whatever other ideas.) I see "one off" quests like this as World Events and part of that quest is to seek out the goal, a race of sorts against every other group of players doing the same thing.
This is an interesting point and something I have always taken issue with as a player.
i can remember Naggy and Vox raids. It took several dozen people, a buff line, a lot of trash clearing, and it was a very community driven event (at least on my server) that I really enjoyed - it never got old to me.
We would form up, a few hours later finally get on and kill the dragon (not always but more often than not). Get our treasure and hope some kind Druid or wizard would give you a lift out (otherwise it was a painful run back out).
Seven days later, dragon is magically back alive again and everyone pretends we didn't just get done killing it a few days ago.
Instead, why didn't we just "severely injure" the dragon and it flies off - we get the treasure the same, and if that resets every 7 days, then ok, that totally makes sense, the dragon just came back home. Then, one day, Sleeper event - we finally have game wide event and get to actually kill the dragon. And after that, it's gone as an open world event forever (but could still be revisited later on as a nostalgic instanced content.
Just a lore/immersion thing. I think there is a big place for open world content. I think there's a place for instanced content, and I think there is a place for unique and one time world event content (and phasing and whatever else is out there I don't know about). A good writer will be able to use all of those tools effectively.
Yeah, make the game an utter pain to play, with a lot of micromanaging. That for sure is going to have huge success
The micromanaging thing is not really something difficult, all older games including Wow more or less required you to have at least acceptable gear and since it was easy to get acceptable or good gear as you leveled up (usually in dungeons) it did not impact the fun much.
The time it should take to reach the endgame is a different matter. Ignore how many levels a game have, 10 or 200 doesn't really matter for this, but the time it takes from start to max out.
There is probably an optimal time but it depends a bit on your game, the larger and less repetetive content you have the longer it can take without being a totally boring repitition.
But it also depends on how good your endgame is. If your endgame sucks or just is more boring then leveling it is probably wise to not rush all your players into it ASAP. If it is more fun you want them to level as little as possible and get into the really good part fast.
People would probably still complain that reaching the crap endgame takes so long time but the alternative is even worse, having them all stuck in terrible gameplay.
In a perfect world both leveling and endgame is awesome but that is rarely, if ever, true. SO I think you should have your players spend most of the time into the parts of the game that is best. That is why the time it should take to max out differs from game to game.
I think anything else is setting the game up for failure.
If a game is designed for level gaps, and content become useless, and players are divided by their level ranges, you will always have that end game wall. Because the game is designed for level-level-level-etc.
At some point you have to change the game play.
1) Now you can do that at the end of the level grind. ...1A) You still have zoned out content that's meaningless.
2) Or you can do it from the start and get away from the level grind right off the bat. ...2A) Now you have all content still available to all players.
In which of the above is the game going to be better for this alternate form of game play?
I like quests to be real quests. Like kill that dragon, which would take a few months of journey and preparation and you'd have to go through a whole adventure to make it happen. Fuck side quests. I can never understand them. I'm on way to kill a dragon to save the kingdom but on my way I stop at an Inn to kill the freaking rats? Who does that?
It's nice to face the related problems and obstacles on the way. But no man has ever stopped to pick flowers for the village's idiot on his way to kill a dragon.
Just curious here, how would you want that Dragon quest designed? Repeatable on demand or one off as a world event? (In a one off, there'd need to be ways to make it better than just a mad dash of a massive hoard of players to the Dragon, as in finding it first, or defeating it's minions to get to it, or whatever other ideas.) I see "one off" quests like this as World Events and part of that quest is to seek out the goal, a race of sorts against every other group of players doing the same thing.
This is an interesting point and something I have always taken issue with as a player.
i can remember Naggy and Vox raids. It took several dozen people, a buff line, a lot of trash clearing, and it was a very community driven event (at least on my server) that I really enjoyed - it never got old to me.
We would form up, a few hours later finally get on and kill the dragon (not always but more often than not). Get our treasure and hope some kind Druid or wizard would give you a lift out (otherwise it was a painful run back out).
Seven days later, dragon is magically back alive again and everyone pretends we didn't just get done killing it a few days ago.
Instead, why didn't we just "severely injure" the dragon and it flies off - we get the treasure the same, and if that resets every 7 days, then ok, that totally makes sense, the dragon just came back home. Then, one day, Sleeper event - we finally have game wide event and get to actually kill the dragon. And after that, it's gone as an open world event forever (but could still be revisited later on as a nostalgic instanced content.
Just a lore/immersion thing. I think there is a big place for open world content. I think there's a place for instanced content, and I think there is a place for unique and one time world event content (and phasing and whatever else is out there I don't know about). A good writer will be able to use all of those tools effectively.
How many quests, or zoned wilderness content, haven't you really liked in lower levels but had to move on from? Why oh why do we have to have this?
I love the idea of the Dragon escaping to live for another day. Why can't the game have a large number of possible such scenarios, and when a "lair" or dungeon is cleared out then have a random repopulation from this set?
Better yet, why not have wondering MOBs that find a home in cleared Dungeons? And let them grow in power when they have a "home".
So, you killed the Dragon and the lair/dungeon is empty. A band of wondering Orcs find it and move in, now beginning to grow over time to a max limit based on the lair/dungeon size. Another Dragon flies by. He's young and looking for a territory, and needs a home. He moves in and begins a new growth stage.
In both cases above, the new denizens dig out new loot over time inside their new home and gather loots from the surrounding areas. They also can go out into the surrounding area to pillage and loot, maybe running into players.
Better yet, why not have wondering MOBs that find a home in cleared Dungeons? And let them grow in power when they have a "home".
So, you killed the Dragon and the lair/dungeon is empty. A band of wondering Orcs find it and move in, now beginning to grow over time to a max limit based on the lair/dungeon size. Another Dragon flies by. He's young and looking for a territory, and needs a home. He moves in and begins a new growth stage.
In both cases above, the new denizens dig out new loot over time inside their new home and gather loots from the surrounding areas. They also can go out into the surrounding area to pillage and loot, maybe running into players.
A dragon that ancient and large would also have political allies and resources. The entire cause and effect system in mmorpgs needs a serious pass. There was a lot of that design going on in EQN. Too bad it got bogged down in all the other stuff because those ideas were good.
That's an excellent idea. MOB factions, that may expand into world-wide power structures under a system like this (or otherwise). And what if GMs can monitor this sort of thing and make use of it with GM Events? There's a lot of things they can do... -That one big Event to kill a "Boss" -Running side Events queued into the Mob Faction -Jump in as an allied deity -many smaller things like raids against player settlements and setting up all sorts of satellite Mob bases.
The problem with ignoring gear while rushing to endgame can be easily fixed. Make leveling slower (and interesting by ditching story driven themepark content) and make the difficulty so that characters can only advance if they have invested in getting geared (add to that unlocking, keying, attuning trials/quests and other scary words).
Yeah, make the game an utter pain to play, with a lot of micromanaging. That for sure is going to have huge success
I am not sure how you deducted the word "micromanaging" from what I wrote, to me micromanagement is more about unnecessary clunky game mechanics or ui. As for making the game "utter pain" I assume you refer to difficulty or gating content ? That is very much a matter of how you view gaming, if you put on WoW glasses and see leveling as something to get done with in order to get to endgame then sure "utter pain", but if you see the game as a journey where progression is the game experience then that challenge equals feeling of accomplishment and fun instead.
That's an excellent idea. MOB factions, that may expand into world-wide power structures under a system like this (or otherwise). And what if GMs can monitor this sort of thing and make use of it with GM Events? There's a lot of things they can do... -That one big Event to kill a "Boss" -Running side Events queued into the Mob Faction -Jump in as an allied deity -many smaller things like raids against player settlements and setting up all sorts of satellite Mob bases.
Guildwars already used a similar system with mob factions and you could taunt different factions to fight eachother only to mop up the survivals if you planned things right. It of course didn't have world events as such since the game is instanced but the mob faction thing works.
I don't think I seen a GM run event the last 10 years though (I think last time was in GW2: EoF). The companies have fired most paid GMs and rarely trust volunteers anymore.
That's an excellent idea. MOB factions, that may expand into world-wide power structures under a system like this (or otherwise). And what if GMs can monitor this sort of thing and make use of it with GM Events? There's a lot of things they can do... -That one big Event to kill a "Boss" -Running side Events queued into the Mob Faction -Jump in as an allied deity -many smaller things like raids against player settlements and setting up all sorts of satellite Mob bases.
Guildwars already used a similar system with mob factions and you could taunt different factions to fight eachother only to mop up the survivals if you planned things right. It of course didn't have world events as such since the game is instanced but the mob faction thing works.
I don't think I seen a GM run event the last 10 years though (I think last time was in GW2: EoF). The companies have fired most paid GMs and rarely trust volunteers anymore.
Yeah, and GM events were full of abuse, or at least the perception of it.
I'm glad to hear that MOB factions worked. If a more "dynamic" system with wondering Mobs and taking up lairs could be added, it would seem to me to be a better (more interesting, less predictable) game world.
Yeah, and GM events were full of abuse, or at least the perception of it.
I'm glad to hear that MOB factions worked. If a more "dynamic" system with wondering Mobs and taking up lairs could be added, it would seem to me to be a better (more interesting, less predictable) game world.
It did in Guildwars but that doesn't mean it will work in any game. GWs zones were all instanced so other groups didn't "contaminate" the area. How it actually works in an open world is still up to debate even if I think it will work. In a CORPG it works excellent.
As for GM events they usually worked as long as the GM actually were paid. When you have people doing the same work just for fun there will be abuse.
I think the real problem is more that today we have too many levels you pass too fast so gear just wont matter because of that. Also the difficulty is low, I maxed out characters with only starting gear in modern games just out of boredom, that would have been impossible even 12 years ago.
Take Wow for instance, today you get to max level several times faster then back in vanilla and you pass twice as many levels at that time. So Your cool lvl 25 bow will be useless almost 10 times faster today then just after launch. Also, you need it less since the lvl 25 content today is so easy a dog could complete it while you could still die rather easily if you messed up in december 2004.
So: Decrease the amount of levels a lot, to 20 or 30. Have a better difficulty curve then super easy to max level and hard after that so mid level gear is more useful and you easee people into the endgame better. Make maxing out 2-3 times as long as today. Your gear will last you longer and you will need it more. Problem solved.
I like you dynamic crafting idea though.
Or they could do like BDO does. You can start working on your "end game" gear from the moment you start playing. SWL has it as well, as do a few other MMOs.
Comments
By "zone of control", do you mean player factions controlling parts of the world?
I think that along with other social game designs can fix those issues entirely.
For example, if players spread out in the game world for their own benefit, and don't have a quick and easy way to cross the map, then the numbers for any area are limited.
By "their own benefit" I mean access to loot and resources. If those are limited (maybe just for the better stuff), then players in a busy area would seek less traveled places.
And to prevent player cities from growing too much also. Resources in short supply would certainly cause players to move on to better places.
In short, making a game that's more "realistic" in the social arenas can be a big benefit.
Once upon a time....
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?"
For those who don't know, I'll explain that system first.
A player could "mark a rune stone" in any place he is standing with a spell called "Mark".
Using that rune stone, the player then could use a higher leveled spell call "Recall" on any rune stone and instantly recall back to the location.
On top of that, there was a high level mage spell for opening gates where any number of players could walk through it and go to the place where the rune stone was marked.
But what I'd do if it were up to me, and for more control of numbers, I'd add some limits.
-I'd limit a mage's number of "memorized" (this wasn't a limit in UO) rune stones to equal his Intelligence, or a fraction of it, depending on what that number is.
So he'd have to destroy an old one to create a new one if he's reached his limit.
-I'd allow "Recall" anytime, anywhere (subject to mana use and reagent costs) just like in UO.
-I'd limit Gate spells to only allow a number of players/pets to go through it, again based on the mage's Intelligence (or maybe another stat like Constitution).
-I'd cause a rune stone to be destroyed upon use for a Gate Spell.
-I'd also make rune stones fairly expensive. And might have to consider a time limit on spell casting these spells.
What this means is that a player has to juggle the value of his "Marks" and decide what he wants to have access to for Fast Travel.
It also means that he can't just keep opening Gates for large numbers of players and flood a zone.
Or any Fast Travel system, it would be good to control large number of players from instantly changing the zone populations.
Once upon a time....
Highway hypnosis, also known as white line fever, is a mental state in which a person can drive a truck or other automobile great distances, responding to external events in the expected, safe and correct manner with no recollection of having consciously done so.[1] In this state, the driver's conscious mind is apparently fully focused elsewhere, while seemingly still processing the information needed to drive safely. Highway hypnosis is a manifestation of the common process of automaticity, where the conscious and subconscious minds are able to concentrate on different things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_hypnosis
And that's the state of MMO's.
Have fun with that.
Once upon a time....
It's also why we have fan loyalty. We get use to things being a certain way and hate changes in general. Finding a game we like is basically finding a game that reuses old habits formed from games we used to or still play.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Without something like that all massive combat becomes a hopeless zerg. It is not at all about content but about combat mechanics that works for more then a single group. After all there is no point to have many people around if you only can interact with a few of them.
And yes, local resources is a good idea since it encourage travels. The age of exploration started because people wanted spices after all (that and gold but pepper was actually more worth then gold when the only route to it was the silk road),
Some common elements should certainly be all over the world, like iron, but it could be easier to get at some points and harder at others. There are other ways to get iron then just mining it, you could dig up bog iron like the vikings or collect old trash lying around.
Torval said: Yeah, that was my point as well. If all the other people does is compete for the same resources and nothing else there is no need for that many people.
With massive content, PvE or PvP it works but only if you use some kind of anti zerg mechanics (read my answer to AM above).
Yes, a huge army attacking a city can be awesome fun, no matter if it is PvP or PvE but with the standard MMO mechanics we will just see 2 huge zergsrunning around and into eachother. No strategy, no tactics, no clue. That still can be somewhat fun but not nearly as fun as working together.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Popularity is more important than technology? mmm....k . Usually the technology needs to be invented first. Kind of hard to be popular when you don't exist yet.
Technology can always be done with enough money thrown at it? Some things just haven't worked yet. Take perpetual motion as an example, super popular, countless people, countless dollars and countless man hours have been spent through the decades. To the best of my knowledge it hasn't worked out yet.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
"I am my connectome" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7GwKXfJB0
With 20 levels that takes the same time as the usual 80-120 you will stay at each level longer and gear will matter more. You have only 20 or so levels that actually matters anyways (gives skills and similar), the rest arre just fillers that give you HP. It is a simple fix that actually takes less work to implement then the current system and leveling will feel more fun when you don't do it every bleeding hour.
I agree about the difficulty.
...that time period has been getting shorter and shorter over time.
There is also another factor at work, and why @Loke666 recommendation makes sense, and I agree on the surface, but it's not the ultimate fix.
Expansions.
Expansions represent a double whammy. You have to give the player some additional way to progress. Traditionally, that has just meant more character levels, which runs counter to the idea of just having fewer levels (regardless of the time it takes to gain them). That would have to take on some other form - and I think that could be a very good thing.
The other issue is catch up, and this is what I think has been accelerating leveling more than anything. You have been playing the game since release, you just got the 5th Xpac, and now your buddy just got the game and started playing. Again, this can be fixed via other mechanics, but often it isn't.
A parallel effect of expansions: It used to be, in Everquest and earlier games, expansions built on each other. When Velious came out, Kunark still had a place in the game because not everything was immediately obsolete. And it continued like that for a good while - older content was still relevant. Wow re-invented that - every expansion is a reset, sometimes literally with new zones/areas, skill retools and complete gear revamps - including even previous top tier end game gear. If expansions are treated like game resets, but the leveling curve still goes through the previous areas, it makes for a significant problem that only exaggerates these problems being discussed here.
You could help it somewhat if you start with 20 levels and add a single level that takes about the same time to complete as the 5 levels most games add. Also you need to be careful with newer lower zones so the gear wont be so good there that no-one ever visit the old zones again.
The main problem with expansions is really the tiered raid gear, not the number of levels. You expect people to spend 2 years hard work to get that gear that the instant the next expansion comes will be useless. That has made more then a few people quit the games.
The real problem is to motivate people to play after they maxed out their levels. Dungeon and raid gear used to work but more and more people have tired of it so I think we need a new kind of endgame if we want to solve that problem. And that is easier said then done.
i can remember Naggy and Vox raids. It took several dozen people, a buff line, a lot of trash clearing, and it was a very community driven event (at least on my server) that I really enjoyed - it never got old to me.
We would form up, a few hours later finally get on and kill the dragon (not always but more often than not). Get our treasure and hope some kind Druid or wizard would give you a lift out (otherwise it was a painful run back out).
Seven days later, dragon is magically back alive again and everyone pretends we didn't just get done killing it a few days ago.
Instead, why didn't we just "severely injure" the dragon and it flies off - we get the treasure the same, and if that resets every 7 days, then ok, that totally makes sense, the dragon just came back home. Then, one day, Sleeper event - we finally have game wide event and get to actually kill the dragon. And after that, it's gone as an open world event forever (but could still be revisited later on as a nostalgic instanced content.
Just a lore/immersion thing. I think there is a big place for open world content. I think there's a place for instanced content, and I think there is a place for unique and one time world event content (and phasing and whatever else is out there I don't know about). A good writer will be able to use all of those tools effectively.
The time it should take to reach the endgame is a different matter. Ignore how many levels a game have, 10 or 200 doesn't really matter for this, but the time it takes from start to max out.
There is probably an optimal time but it depends a bit on your game, the larger and less repetetive content you have the longer it can take without being a totally boring repitition.
But it also depends on how good your endgame is. If your endgame sucks or just is more boring then leveling it is probably wise to not rush all your players into it ASAP. If it is more fun you want them to level as little as possible and get into the really good part fast.
People would probably still complain that reaching the crap endgame takes so long time but the alternative is even worse, having them all stuck in terrible gameplay.
In a perfect world both leveling and endgame is awesome but that is rarely, if ever, true. SO I think you should have your players spend most of the time into the parts of the game that is best. That is why the time it should take to max out differs from game to game.
I think anything else is setting the game up for failure.
Because the game is designed for level-level-level-etc.
At some point you have to change the game play.
1) Now you can do that at the end of the level grind.
...1A) You still have zoned out content that's meaningless.
2) Or you can do it from the start and get away from the level grind right off the bat.
...2A) Now you have all content still available to all players.
In which of the above is the game going to be better for this alternate form of game play?
Once upon a time....
Why oh why do we have to have this?
I love the idea of the Dragon escaping to live for another day.
Why can't the game have a large number of possible such scenarios, and when a "lair" or dungeon is cleared out then have a random repopulation from this set?
Once upon a time....
And let them grow in power when they have a "home".
So, you killed the Dragon and the lair/dungeon is empty.
A band of wondering Orcs find it and move in, now beginning to grow over time to a max limit based on the lair/dungeon size.
Another Dragon flies by. He's young and looking for a territory, and needs a home. He moves in and begins a new growth stage.
In both cases above, the new denizens dig out new loot over time inside their new home and gather loots from the surrounding areas.
They also can go out into the surrounding area to pillage and loot, maybe running into players.
Once upon a time....
And what if GMs can monitor this sort of thing and make use of it with GM Events? There's a lot of things they can do...
-That one big Event to kill a "Boss"
-Running side Events queued into the Mob Faction
-Jump in as an allied deity
-many smaller things like raids against player settlements and setting up all sorts of satellite Mob bases.
Once upon a time....
"I am my connectome" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7GwKXfJB0
I don't think I seen a GM run event the last 10 years though (I think last time was in GW2: EoF). The companies have fired most paid GMs and rarely trust volunteers anymore.
I'm glad to hear that MOB factions worked. If a more "dynamic" system with wondering Mobs and taking up lairs could be added, it would seem to me to be a better (more interesting, less predictable) game world.
Once upon a time....
As for GM events they usually worked as long as the GM actually were paid. When you have people doing the same work just for fun there will be abuse.