Played an Engie and Ranger from 30- 80 in WVW , it was not very common ,you can switch map spawn Location (tools to avoid it in place) and you have nothing to lose , so just not the same as OWMMORPG
It's not the same situation, but it shows the mentality of PvP players, if given half a chance to spawn camp the Opponent, to demoralize and drive them out, they will.
Ergo.. you leaving that map, is the ultimate victory for them.
Funny how that works in PvP MMOs where driving others players out, making them cry and rage quit, is seen as success and victory, when all it does it kill the games population, which might explain why those kinds of games never thrive.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Played an Engie and Ranger from 30- 80 in WVW , it was not very common ,you can switch map spawn Location (tools to avoid it in place) and you have nothing to lose , so just not the same as OWMMORPG
It's not the same situation, but it shows the mentality of PvP players, if given half a chance to spawn camp the Opponent, to demoralize and drive them out, they will.
Ergo.. you leaving that map, is the ultimate victory for them.
Funny how that works in PvP MMOs where driving others players out, making them cry and rage quit, is seen as success and victory, when all it does it kill the games population, which might explain why those kinds of games never thrive.
well there is some truth to that , but each map in a campaign serves a purpose so if you are being camped on one , there are 4 other options to contribute , if someone "Was" being camped .. So , really a small victory that to be honest , they never knew or were aware of in most cases .. soo..
But like i said , i rarely saw that happen ..
But .. GW2 WvW is pretty bad .. Had some fun , and really wanted them to improve it .. But its really bad imo
Played an Engie and Ranger from 30- 80 in WVW , it was not very common ,you can switch map spawn Location (tools to avoid it in place) and you have nothing to lose , so just not the same as OWMMORPG
It's not the same situation, but it shows the mentality of PvP players, if given half a chance to spawn camp the Opponent, to demoralize and drive them out, they will.
Ergo.. you leaving that map, is the ultimate victory for them.
Funny how that works in PvP MMOs where driving others players out, making them cry and rage quit, is seen as success and victory, when all it does it kill the games population, which might explain why those kinds of games never thrive.
well there is some truth to that , but each map in a campaign serves a purpose so if you are being camped on one , there are 4 other options to contribute , if someone "Was" being camped .. So , really a small victory that to be honest , they never knew or were aware of in most cases .. soo..
But like i said , i rarely saw that happen ..
But .. GW2 WvW is pretty bad .. Had some fun , and really wanted them to improve it .. But its really bad imo
Had to play on the lower tiers, where the Glico Scales were more screwed up, it made for some massive lopsided matches. I was on ET for a while, before I said F-that and transferred, and the match ups were just hideous, like being outmanned on all maps kind of messed up gameplay. However they did give WvW a massive revamp, so that does not happen anymore, and the populations are far more balanced these days.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Well there we agree 100 % , I hate that in most games you can see level NPCS/Players etc..
It is really an immersion breaker for me , i have to tolerate it in many games ..
Its more of the wussifcation of gaming ..
Pissed me off when all the Whiners and snowflakes ruined Vanguard by insisting they add that hrmm feature .. fucking terrible
And thats strictly a PVE game so the PVErs whined on the forums beacause they wanted know if they could WIN before entering combat ..So fucking pathetic and weak minded
How about you try it find out , so much more fun , and better learning process, higher immersion , more realistic approach to combat ..
As far as power gaps , they dont bother me , ive been on both ends of that .
I dont see why a veteran player should be punished because they have been playing a long time ..
And if you are new , it never seemed like a big deal to catch up in any game and maybe take some licks along the way ..
Strange to me how emotionally attached players get to there pixels , and how upset they can get from dying , even in a PVE atmosphere....
And not just levels but names and classes. I don't think my character should be wearing a name tag. If someone wants to know my character's name, they can ask me. Otherwise, there can be default descriptors when we join parties/groups, like Dwarf Warrior, Elven Rogue. But a Thief may not necessarily want other people to know that he or she is a Thief. So maybe players should make their own descriptors that they want other players to see when they first join a party? Like Brawny Dwarf, Hooded Elf, Slim Human, Smelly Orc, Jovial Halfling, stuff like that. Then, if the player chooses to tell the party his or her character's name, the individual members of the party can change the descriptor of the other player's character in the party. (But they could also change the descriptor to anything they wanted. Like Ugly Dwarf, Arrogant Elf, Stupid Human, etc. Which only that individual player would see.) And next time they group up, if they do, they will still see the name they gave to the other player's character. But who knows if the player actually told them his character's real name or not?
Power Gaps
I'm not saying there should be no combat power gaps between Veteran players and Noobs. However, need they be quite so large as we find in many MMORPGs? Wherein max level/BIS-geared characters are as gods and noobs are as mere ants in comparison?
Is it not possible that there could be a limited and reasonable limit to Vertical Combat Power/Gear Progression? However, in order to compensate for the lack of basically Unlimited Combat Progression, there could be other ways in which characters could progress. Other types of power they might attain. Such as Reputation/Fame, Social & Economic status, Political & Military rank, and the accompanying level of Influence in a Faction or Alliance that these types of power bring.
For example, a character could start as a peasant pauper and eventually become a lord. Or a merchant prince. Or a master craftsmen with a high position in a trade guild. Or a high priest in the cult/religion of a specific deity. Or the captain of a mercenary company. Or the leader of a bandit gang. Etc.
These positions would bring them certain privileges and responsibilities. Reduced costs for training or buying items. The ability to own or control more property. Access to different NPCs, buildings, or locations. Increased freedom of travel. The ability to have more NPC hirelings/henchmen/retainers/subordinates. Gaining income by having NPC workers or craftsmen under one's command or supervision.
OR if players absolutely must have huge Power Gaps, why is that there aren't max level/BIS-geared NPCs and Mobs hunting players who start playing the game at launch? Why aren't Zergs of NPCs and Mobs roaming around attacking low level players who are gathering mats out in the wilderness? Why aren't high level NPC bandits lying in wait on roads ready to pounce on the unwary PC travelers in the first zone?
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
1. Don't inform the player upon whose character the bounty has been placed.
2. No universal Bounty List
3. Only player characters in the Faction in which the bounty was placed can check with the Bounty Master and view the list of people who have been placed on bounty. Then they can choose to accept the quest/mission to bring in the person dead, alive, dead or alive. Though there may be some cases where Wanted Posters are placed on walls in a town or city (for a person who has remained fugitive for a long period perhaps). Bounty hunters of Allied Factions might be allowed to join the hunt in the case of particularly infamous villains or criminals who have remained at large for long periods.
4. But if that system is still to easily abused, then only NPC bounty hunters would be allowed to claim the bounty.
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
1. Don't inform the player upon whose character the bounty has been placed.
2. No universal Bounty List
3. Only player characters in the Faction in which the bounty was placed can check with the Bounty Master and view the list of people who have been placed on bounty. Then they can choose to accept the quest/mission to bring in the person dead, alive, dead or alive. Though there may be some cases where Wanted Posters are placed on walls in a town or city (for a person who has remained fugitive for a long period perhaps). Bounty hunters of Allied Factions might be allowed to join the hunt in the case of particularly infamous villains or criminals who have remained at large for long periods.
4. But if that system is still to easily abused, then only NPC bounty hunters would be allowed to claim the bounty.
If im in East faction with my PK and kill you ( your in West Faction) , multiple times .. You get pissed and put a bounty on me ...
Now altho there is no list and i have no knowledge wether there is a bounty or not , i have my friend who as a West faction toon kill me to see if it trigger the Bounty .. It does we collect your gold and split it .. PK wins twice .. got to kill you and you paid him for it ..
I do not see any kind of fair NPC bounty hunter being tolerated or working correctly , or being beaten...
How would they work , tracking across the world searching .. that may be difficult to manage , i see some problems with that
Suddenly just appear on top of the PK and one shotting , (That wont be tolerated)
PK could just not log that toon on , there must be a timer on NPC Bounty HUnter or you could end up with thousands of them wandering around
Bounty systems have been tried in sevral games and exploited in several games , the community and PKs are quite clever .. They would find a way
You know what I see, a bunch of posters who spent little time in UO or EQ and think they are experts. In UO Felucca was the pvp area and I lived there 8 years and while there was pvp it was not as extensive and some like to portray it. One thing you learned that you used common equipment made by players, it worked fine in pvp and if you lost it, it was easily replaced. Certain areas were dangerous, most were not. If you went in groups you were much less likely to be attacked. Most pvpers were single or in very small groups. In 8 years I never lost anything significant.
The great difference between UO and EQ were skills, in EQ you were limited by the class you chose and at least in early EQ many classes were not very solo friendly. EQ limited what you wore and fought with to your class. In UO you chose the skills you wanted. If you wanted to play a mage who was also skilled with a sword and wore armor, you could, not so in EQ.
So UO was freedom to choose, EQ was very limiting to the class you chose to play.
My reason for liking UO much better than EQ was the end game. In EQ you needed to belong to a large and strong guild to do any of the end game content and it was scheduled, your guild could not just decide to do any dungeon when they felt like it as none of the dungeons were instanced.
Unfortunately, far too many people who play MMOs like the highly structured content, hence the dearth of the sandbox genre and the multiple copies of the EQ/Wow genre.
1. Don't inform the player upon whose character the bounty has been placed.
2. No universal Bounty List
3. Only player characters in the Faction in which the bounty was placed can check with the Bounty Master and view the list of people who have been placed on bounty. Then they can choose to accept the quest/mission to bring in the person dead, alive, dead or alive. Though there may be some cases where Wanted Posters are placed on walls in a town or city (for a person who has remained fugitive for a long period perhaps). Bounty hunters of Allied Factions might be allowed to join the hunt in the case of particularly infamous villains or criminals who have remained at large for long periods.
4. But if that system is still to easily abused, then only NPC bounty hunters would be allowed to claim the bounty.
If im in East faction with my PK and kill you ( your in West Faction) , multiple times .. You get pissed and put a bounty on me ...
Now altho there is no list and i have no knowledge wether there is a bounty or not , i have my friend who as a West faction toon kill me to see if it trigger the Bounty .. It does we collect your gold and split it .. PK wins twice .. got to kill you and you paid him for it ..
I do not see any kind of fair NPC bounty hunter being tolerated or working correctly , or being beaten...
How would they work , tracking across the world searching .. that may be difficult to manage , i see some problems with that
Suddenly just appear on top of the PK and one shotting , (That wont be tolerated)
PK could just not log that toon on , there must be a timer on NPC Bounty HUnter or you could end up with thousands of them wandering around
Bounty systems have been tried in sevral games and exploited in several games , the community and PKs are quite clever .. They would find a way
The friend doesn't get a reward without having the mission from the bounty master. Also has to bring the corpse of the character back to the bounty master to get the reward. Unless the character is supposed to be brought back alive.
What if Player Characters are always in the game world? So Players have to camp out/log out in a safe place. But the character is not actually logged out.
And it may not be such a great thing to let a friend kill the character depending on the severity of the Death Penalty in the game.
An NPC bounty hunter might just set up an ambush outside of a city the character is known to frequent. Though it wouldn't be a 24 hour ambush. The NPC would need to take time to eat and sleep. If the expense of the search became more than half of what the bounty hunter expected to earn, then he or she would probably give up. So yeah, there could be a time limit.
OR Just let a player hire an Assassin or Bounty Hunter that they know. Or a few of them.
EDIT: However, an NPC has to mediate the transaction so that the players won't receive the reward without actually fulfilling their part of the deal. Or have the game actually allow PCs to give other PCs official Quests/Missions which work the same as a Quest/Mission given out by an NPC.
Post edited by Ancient_Exile on
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
You know what I see, a bunch of posters who spent little time in UO or EQ and think they are experts. In UO Felucca was the pvp area and I lived there 8 years and while there was pvp it was not as extensive and some like to portray it. One thing you learned that you used common equipment made by players, it worked fine in pvp and if you lost it, it was easily replaced. Certain areas were dangerous, most were not. If you went in groups you were much less likely to be attacked. Most pvpers were single or in very small groups. In 8 years I never lost anything significant.
The great difference between UO and EQ were skills, in EQ you were limited by the class you chose and at least in early EQ many classes were not very solo friendly. EQ limited what you wore and fought with to your class. In UO you chose the skills you wanted. If you wanted to play a mage who was also skilled with a sword and wore armor, you could, not so in EQ.
So UO was freedom to choose, EQ was very limiting to the class you chose to play.
My reason for liking UO much better than EQ was the end game. In EQ you needed to belong to a large and strong guild to do any of the end game content and it was scheduled, your guild could not just decide to do any dungeon when they felt like it as none of the dungeons were instanced.
Unfortunately, far too many people who play MMOs like the highly structured content, hence the dearth of the sandbox genre and the multiple copies of the EQ/Wow genre.
I definitely agree that meaningful and important choices which will lead to different outcomes make an MMORPG much more interesting.
Some of the advantages that EQ had over UO were that 1) EQ was 3D 2) EQ had more races & factions 3) EQ had different starting zones.
Not sure why anyone would want to play a Gargoyle. Except for that they can fly. Kind of a strange choice for a playable race in UO.
I actually like Persistent Dungeons. There is a way to improve Persistent dungeons (and perhaps make them superior to Instanced Dungeons).
Transform Static Persistent Dungeons into Dynamic Persistent Dungeons.
If you enter the
dungeon solo, then it will be solo-able, but the rewards will be less.
If more player characters enter the dungeon, then it will become more
difficult, but the rewards will increase. If enough players enter the
dungeon, then it will become a raid. There should be wandering monsters
and patrols in dungeons. Depending on the exact nature of the dungeon,
of course. Mobs should be able to sound alarms and call more mobs to
reinforce them if they aren't slain in time. The number of bosses in a
dungeon should be able to increase depending on how many players are in
the dungeon.
It's a little unrealistic,
but I suppose the players could automatically be put into groups as more
player characters enter the dungeon. Unless they're of different
alignments and/or opposing factions. Then they could choose to refuse
the group when prompted. Different alignments and/or factions could
even choose to fight each other in the dungeon if the game allows full
PVP.
OR the Dungeon doesn't have to be solo-able at all, but if a dungeon normally requires a party of 5-6 people to complete, it could still transform into a raid in the same way. And if even more players show up, the raid could transform into a large-scale battle with hundreds of players involved.
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
You know what I see, a bunch of posters who spent little time in UO or EQ and think they are experts. In UO Felucca was the pvp area and I lived there 8 years and while there was pvp it was not as extensive and some like to portray it. One thing you learned that you used common equipment made by players, it worked fine in pvp and if you lost it, it was easily replaced. Certain areas were dangerous, most were not. If you went in groups you were much less likely to be attacked. Most pvpers were single or in very small groups. In 8 years I never lost anything significant.
The great difference between UO and EQ were skills, in EQ you were limited by the class you chose and at least in early EQ many classes were not very solo friendly. EQ limited what you wore and fought with to your class. In UO you chose the skills you wanted. If you wanted to play a mage who was also skilled with a sword and wore armor, you could, not so in EQ.
So UO was freedom to choose, EQ was very limiting to the class you chose to play.
My reason for liking UO much better than EQ was the end game. In EQ you needed to belong to a large and strong guild to do any of the end game content and it was scheduled, your guild could not just decide to do any dungeon when they felt like it as none of the dungeons were instanced.
Unfortunately, far too many people who play MMOs like the highly structured content, hence the dearth of the sandbox genre and the multiple copies of the EQ/Wow genre.
I definitely agree that meaningful and important choices which will lead to different outcomes make an MMORPG much more interesting.
Some of the advantages that EQ had over UO were that 1) EQ was 3D 2) EQ had more races & factions 3) EQ had different starting zones.
Not sure why anyone would want to play a Gargoyle. Except for that they can fly. Kind of a strange choice for a playable race in UO.
I actually like Persistent Dungeons. There is a way to improve Persistent dungeons (and perhaps make them superior to Instanced Dungeons).
Transform Static Persistent Dungeons into Dynamic Persistent Dungeons.
If you enter the
dungeon solo, then it will be solo-able, but the rewards will be less.
If more player characters enter the dungeon, then it will become more
difficult, but the rewards will increase. If enough players enter the
dungeon, then it will become a raid. There should be wandering monsters
and patrols in dungeons. Depending on the exact nature of the dungeon,
of course. Mobs should be able to sound alarms and call more mobs to
reinforce them if they aren't slain in time. The number of bosses in a
dungeon should be able to increase depending on how many players are in
the dungeon.
It's a little unrealistic,
but I suppose the players could automatically be put into groups as more
player characters enter the dungeon. Unless they're of different
alignments and/or opposing factions. Then they could choose to refuse
the group when prompted. Different alignments and/or factions could
even choose to fight each other in the dungeon if the game allows full
PVP.
OR the Dungeon doesn't have to be solo-able at all, but if a dungeon normally requires a party of 5-6 people to complete, it could still transform into a raid in the same way. And if even more players show up, the raid could transform into a large-scale battle with hundreds of players involved.
You are describing instance dungeons and calling them persistent.
Persistent Dungeons , just like persistent explorer zones, were dungeons that anyone could join, they were not designed for groups, they did not scale for solo, they were persistent, everyone walked into the same dungeon, and faced the same dungeon zone together, regardless if only 1 person was there or 40 people were there, it was persistent.
That is what separates persistent zones from instance zones, Instance Zones are set to be private to the group that enters them, persistent are open to anyone that goes in.
A Persistent Dungeon is like how in ESO anyone could enter a dungeon with you, regardless if they were in your group or not.
To give an example, of a persistent dungeon in EQ, there would be 40+ people in Mistmore, which was a Single Castle Dungeon, they would be off in their own private groups, but all the people would be in the same persistent dungeon, each group would take their spots to camp mobs and what have you, often with a puller as the rest of the team prepared for combat, and if a group screwed up their hunting spot, some of them would run to the zone to try and survive, mainly due to the death penalty in EQ like losing a huge chunk of EXP that would take hours to recover, a single death could negate the process from a whole day of hunting in EQ. So anyway, they would make a run for it, to survive, and this of course dragging all the mobs they were facing as well as every mob they aggroed between their camp spot and zone, to the Zone, steamrolling everyone between them and the zone.
Mistmore is odd because that felt like an Open Area, a Castle Dungeon, but the same situation happened in Blackburrow, Paw, Lower Guk, Sol A and B, etc. The idea, layout, method, and unfortunately antics and tactics of other players remained the same.
If you wanted a dungeon to scale by the number of people in it, then you are dealing with an Instance Dungeon.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
You know what I see, a bunch of posters who spent little time in UO or EQ and think they are experts. In UO Felucca was the pvp area and I lived there 8 years and while there was pvp it was not as extensive and some like to portray it. One thing you learned that you used common equipment made by players, it worked fine in pvp and if you lost it, it was easily replaced. Certain areas were dangerous, most were not. If you went in groups you were much less likely to be attacked. Most pvpers were single or in very small groups. In 8 years I never lost anything significant.
The great difference between UO and EQ were skills, in EQ you were limited by the class you chose and at least in early EQ many classes were not very solo friendly. EQ limited what you wore and fought with to your class. In UO you chose the skills you wanted. If you wanted to play a mage who was also skilled with a sword and wore armor, you could, not so in EQ.
So UO was freedom to choose, EQ was very limiting to the class you chose to play.
My reason for liking UO much better than EQ was the end game. In EQ you needed to belong to a large and strong guild to do any of the end game content and it was scheduled, your guild could not just decide to do any dungeon when they felt like it as none of the dungeons were instanced.
Unfortunately, far too many people who play MMOs like the highly structured content, hence the dearth of the sandbox genre and the multiple copies of the EQ/Wow genre.
I definitely agree that meaningful and important choices which will lead to different outcomes make an MMORPG much more interesting.
Some of the advantages that EQ had over UO were that 1) EQ was 3D 2) EQ had more races & factions 3) EQ had different starting zones.
Not sure why anyone would want to play a Gargoyle. Except for that they can fly. Kind of a strange choice for a playable race in UO.
I actually like Persistent Dungeons. There is a way to improve Persistent dungeons (and perhaps make them superior to Instanced Dungeons).
Transform Static Persistent Dungeons into Dynamic Persistent Dungeons.
If you enter the
dungeon solo, then it will be solo-able, but the rewards will be less.
If more player characters enter the dungeon, then it will become more
difficult, but the rewards will increase. If enough players enter the
dungeon, then it will become a raid. There should be wandering monsters
and patrols in dungeons. Depending on the exact nature of the dungeon,
of course. Mobs should be able to sound alarms and call more mobs to
reinforce them if they aren't slain in time. The number of bosses in a
dungeon should be able to increase depending on how many players are in
the dungeon.
It's a little unrealistic,
but I suppose the players could automatically be put into groups as more
player characters enter the dungeon. Unless they're of different
alignments and/or opposing factions. Then they could choose to refuse
the group when prompted. Different alignments and/or factions could
even choose to fight each other in the dungeon if the game allows full
PVP.
OR the Dungeon doesn't have to be solo-able at all, but if a dungeon normally requires a party of 5-6 people to complete, it could still transform into a raid in the same way. And if even more players show up, the raid could transform into a large-scale battle with hundreds of players involved.
You are describing instance dungeons and calling them persistent.
Persistent Dungeons , just like persistent explorer zones, were dungeons that anyone could join, they were not designed for groups, they did not scale for solo, they were persistent, everyone walked into the same dungeon, and faced the same dungeon zone together, regardless if only 1 person was there or 40 people were there, it was persistent.
That is what separates persistent zones from instance zones, Instance Zones are set to be private to the group that enters them, persistent are open to anyone that goes in.
A Persistent Dungeon is like how in ESO anyone could enter a dungeon with you, regardless if they were in your group or not.
To give an example, of a persistent dungeon in EQ, there would be 40+ people in Mistmore, which was a Single Castle Dungeon, they would be off in their own private groups, but all the people would be in the same persistent dungeon, each group would take their spots to camp mobs and what have you, often with a puller as the rest of the team prepared for combat, and if a group screwed up their hunting spot, some of them would run to the zone to try and survive, mainly due to the death penalty in EQ like losing a huge chunk of EXP that would take hours to recover, a single death could negate the process from a whole day of hunting in EQ. So anyway, they would make a run for it, to survive, and this of course dragging all the mobs they were facing as well as every mob they aggroed between their camp spot and zone, to the Zone, steamrolling everyone between them and the zone.
Mistmore is odd because that felt like an Open Area, a Castle Dungeon, but the same situation happened in Blackburrow, Paw, Lower Guk, Sol A and B, etc. The idea, layout, method, and unfortunately antics and tactics of other players remained the same.
If you wanted a dungeon to scale by the number of people in it, then you are dealing with an Instance Dungeon.
I know what a Persistent Dungeon is. I played Everquest 2. Everquest 2 had Persistent Dungeons.
What I'm saying is that the Difficulty of the Persistent Dungeon/Raid could increase based on how many player characters entered the Persistent Dungeon/Raid.
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
Actually.. I would love to see the idea of a dungeon being Persistent and Scaling by the number of people in the Dungeon getting made. That way if a large guild went into a dungeon, some poor sap that was trying to do the dungeon solo or a small group, who was there alone because it was off hours, would just get brutally stomped by the massive increase in difficulty that would happen, I mean I would never play a game that had that kind of system due to how easy it would be to abuse it and use it to troll people, but, I would love to see that unfold on the forums, people crying about how guilds would enter and leave a dungeon just to screw with the scaling and troll people. The tears and rage on the forums with be epic.
I mean I wager, if you put a time delay on the dungeon so that, say it took 5 to 10 min for the dungeon to scale up, the Large Guild would use that time to stomp the dungeon for loot and rewards, and then leave, leaving behind a few players, maybe a small group, getting the Dungeon to Scale back down again, and then repeating the process just to fram boss mobs or what have you. This of course would screw up the game for everyone else in that Dungeon.
But.. it would fun to watch how that would unfold.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Actually.. I would love to see the idea of a dungeon being Persistent and Scaling by the number of people in the Dungeon getting made. That way if a large guild went into a dungeon, some poor sap that was trying to do the dungeon solo or a small group, who was there alone because it was off hours, would just get brutally stomped by the massive increase in difficulty that would happen, I mean I would never play a game that had that kind of system due to how easy it would be to abuse it and use it to troll people, but, I would love to see that unfold on the forums, people crying about how guilds would enter and leave a dungeon just to screw with the scaling and troll people. The tears and rage on the forums with be epic.
I mean I wager, if you put a time delay on the dungeon so that, say it took 5 to 10 min for the dungeon to scale up, the Large Guild would use that time to stomp the dungeon for loot and rewards, and then leave, leaving behind a few players, maybe a small group, getting the Dungeon to Scale back down again, and then repeating the process just to fram boss mobs or what have you. This of course would screw up the game for everyone else in that Dungeon.
But.. it would fun to watch how that would unfold.
A time to delay would help. Automatic grouping. And the people in the dungeon first would be given top priority. So the people who enter afterward would get nothing if the first players or groups of players die or aren't participating in the boss battles. But the more people who are participating, the greater the rewards for everyone involved. So it would benefit players to have as many involved as possible.
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
I just looked into that, EQ2 had a very fun unique feature, that was Persistent Instances, which is an Instance autosaves for the group that started it, this is not to be confused with a Persistent Zone/Dungeon that stays open continually.
In any case you lost me at Autogrouping, shit feature, IMHO.
Your idea offers no motive for anyone to enter after the first group, so no advantage over a basic instance, if the first group can hold the instance hostage. I can see the abuse now, where groups would start instances and demand carries and loot or they would autofail the instance.
I can see guilds getting pissed about not being able to enter their own raid together as a guild do that Auto Grouping shit, and the demands to keep their private runs private would be all over the place.
But mainly.. the way players would be able to start instances and then demand a carry or they would fail it, would be epic to watch, just, the shitstorm that would unfold.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
EQ2 had persistent dungeons. I remember many groups running Stormhold at the same time. Everyone was always waiting for pops for Armor Quests and whatnot.
I just looked into that, EQ2 had a very fun unique feature, that was Persistent Instances, which is an Instance autosaves for the group that started it, this is not to be confused with a Persistent Zone/Dungeon that stays open continually.
In any case you lost me at Autogrouping, shit feature, IMHO.
Your idea offers no motive for anyone to enter after the first group, so no advantage over a basic instance, if the first group can hold the instance hostage. I can see the abuse now, where groups would start instances and demand carries and loot or they would autofail the instance.
I can see guilds getting pissed about not being able to enter their own raid together as a guild do that Auto Grouping shit, and the demands to keep their private runs private would be all over the place.
But mainly.. the way players would be able to start instances and then demand a carry or they would fail it, would be epic to watch, just, the shitstorm that would unfold.
What? So you never played EQ2. I'm telling you, it had Persistent Dungeons. I met up with people sometimes who were already in the Dungeon and decided to group with them. Or there were already people in the dungeon before I entered who were doing their own thing. Or there were people who entered the dungeon after me who did their own thing.
Okay, so Everquest 2 also had some Persistent Instances. This does not change the fact that it also had Persistent Dungeons.
Anyway, if the dungeon grants a reward to all players (all players can loot whatever treasure hoard) and all the loot is bound-on-pickup, what would be the problem? How or why would a group demand to be carried when the difficulty level increases so that everyone who is in the dungeon is required to fight in order to have a chance of achieving victory?
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
EQ2 had persistent dungeons. I remember many groups running Stormhold at the same time. Everyone was always waiting for pops for Armor Quests and whatnot.
Sounds like EQ then, where people would spawn camp mobs in Dungeons.
Anyway.. I love Ancient_Exile's idea, of being able screw with how hard a dungeon is, and holding the dungeon hostage if you were there first.
The ways players could abuse that would be hilarious to watch, in fact, I would love to see that idea happen, just to see what happens.
I know in GW2, they had scaling events, and, squads of players would run by an event and boost the scaling up, and then run off, making it so that it was near impossible for the remaining people to complete it. Total troll move, and not always malicious, sometimes they were just moving through, to another meta, but still screwed things up for those doing that event.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
You have it so that a group/solo player can open a new dungeon instance, which, ceases to make the dungeon persistent, but, in any case, a player/group can start a new Dungeon instance, this group is made up by Autogrouping, but the instance remains open, so, anyone can join that dungeon instance after that, (I wager more people forced to autogroup?) and this would scale up the dungeon but if the players that started the instance die or don't fight, No one gets any loot.
So, just to get my head around this, and being very benign here, if the people that started the instance go AFK, then suddenly no one else in the dungeon gets loot, on top of that, everyone else needs make sure the dungeon starters don't die otherwise they won't get any loot, turning the dungeon into some escort quest involving other players.
You also mentioned this would be in a game that has PvP enabled, so, say if someone came in and killed the dungeon starters, they screwed the loot over for everyone else.
I would LOVE to see how this plays out, the volume of tolling and about that could arise would be amazing. But even if I was to say this is a game full of wonderful players that don't troll each other, it would still be a game of players looking for loot.
Since loot is as you described, dependent upon the competence and activity of the dungeon instance starter, any following groups that joined the instance, for their own security would seek out the first group to make sure they were not AFK or incompetent. This would not be hostile, this would just be them wanting to ensure they were going to get loot in this dungeon, as if the starters were either incompetent, ergo unable to handle the up scaling of the dungeon to the level the new group/guild wanted to bring things, or AFK, they would have to kill them to get the dungeon to reset.
That would just be players being players looking for loot, and wanting to make sure the dungeon starters were able to handle the scale up and be active.
I mean, that's would not be abuse, or being mean, that would be just your normal MO of the game, and players looking out for their own rewards.
I would so love to see that idea unfold, I mean, I would never want to be involved with that kind of situation, but, I would love to see how that would play out.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
You have it so that a group/solo player can open a new dungeon instance, which, ceases to make the dungeon persistent, but, in any case, a player/group can start a new Dungeon instance, this group is made up by Autogrouping, but the instance remains open, so, anyone can join that dungeon instance after that, (I wager more people forced to autogroup?) and this would scale up the dungeon but if the players that started the instance die or don't fight, No one gets any loot.
So, just to get my head around this, and being very benign here, if the people that started the instance go AFK, then suddenly no one else in the dungeon gets loot, on top of that, everyone else needs make sure the dungeon starters don't die otherwise they won't get any loot, turning the dungeon into some escort quest involving other players.
You also mentioned this would be in a game that has PvP enabled, so, say if someone came in and killed the dungeon starters, they screwed the loot over for everyone else.
I would LOVE to see how this plays out, the volume of tolling and about that could arise would be amazing. But even if I was to say this is a game full of wonderful players that don't troll each other, it would still be a game of players looking for loot.
Since loot is as you described, dependent upon the competence and activity of the dungeon instance starter, any following groups that joined the instance, for their own security would seek out the first group to make sure they were not AFK or incompetent. This would not be hostile, this would just be them wanting to ensure they were going to get loot in this dungeon, as if the starters were either incompetent, ergo unable to handle the up scaling of the dungeon to the level the new group/guild wanted to bring things, or AFK, they would have to kill them to get the dungeon to reset.
That would just be players being players looking for loot, and wanting to make sure the dungeon starters were able to handle the scale up and be active.
I mean, that's would not be abuse, or being mean, that would be just your normal MO of the game, and players looking out for their own rewards.
I would so love to see that idea unfold, I mean, I would never want to be involved with that kind of situation, but, I would love to see how that would play out.
O.o
i would pay for at least a few months JUST to read the WTF QQ on the forums
Those open world dungeons , as far as i know .. No game has an actual persistent dungeon
Meaning Persistent , things you did in the dungeon remain even after you log out ..
As in a Persistent World which UO , Eve,DAOC ..
All games in which actions you take and things you do persist in the World long after you are not in it
UO may come close in a way , as you could go in Wrong for ex .. Build 300 Armoires and leave them in there .
And why some folks will go to Fel dungeon to train Carpentry , Faster gains in Dungeon and in Fel
Can leave quite a mess that deteriorates after a few hours ..
They would persist after you log out ..but barely constitutes as persitent dungeon ( a real stretch)
Persistent needs to really be a long term change to world that effects other players and changes the game world
EQ2 has open world Dungeons not persistent ..
You're right, Scorchien. The correct term would be Open-World Dungeon.
I enjoyed the Open World Dungeons in Everquest 2. Of course, I played on a low population server back in 2014. So I'm sure I didn't face many of the problems which EQ and EQ2 veterans faced when those games were new and more popular.
The reasons I liked them were as follows:
1) I could meet someone in a dungeon and decide to group with them
2) I could walk in and help or even save the life of someone in danger. Or I could be helped or saved by someone else who happened to be passing by.
However, I know that Open-World Dungeons and Raids had problems. Because people would camp boss spawns or guilds would have to schedule Raids. So I was thinking maybe Dynamic scaling of difficulty according to the number of people who entered a Dungeon or Raid might be a way of solving the problem without using instances.
Sadly, I see that maybe the idea wouldn't work after all. Also, auto-grouping might take away what I enjoyed about Open-World Dungeons in the first place. So, perhaps Instanced Dungeons and Raids are the best way to solve the problem after all.
But I have found that many of these Instanced Dungeons in newer games are far smaller and less complex than the Open World Dungeons of EQ2. Some of the Dungeons in EQ2 were so large that a player could actually get lost in them. Even with more than one entrance.
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
UO and EQ both had/have their upsides and downsides, good points and bad points.
However, taking everything into consideration, I believe I favor the overall concept of UO over EQ.
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
UO and EQ both had/have their upsides and downsides, good points and bad points.
However, taking everything into consideration, I believe I favor the overall concept of UO over EQ.
Necroing this one again since it's been going since 2006.
Here's my thought as someone that has played UO from 1999-2024 and a little bit of EQ sprinkled in there.
The original concept of UO was so unique at the time and can still be one of the most immersive experience in online gaming, but a lot has changed. Playing a bit of P1999, the official progression servers and modern/live EQ I can officially say that EQ in 2024 is in a much better place that UO is and has been for awhile.
As we all know MMO's change with time, but what's important to me is the amount of support that these titles receive through time. UO hasn't been developed on since about 2015, almost a decade. EQ on the other hand has a team that is fully behind the product and is developing content on a yearly basis. They even spent the money and time to create the classic progression experience. Something that UO players have been begging for on the official game (not including freeshards, they come and go) since the early 2000's.
So while I don't have anywhere near the amount of time in EQ that I do UO, I appreciate where EQ is today versus UO.
I love UO, but the version of UO that I love has been gone since about 2003 and there's really no way to play that again, officially. And the scripting has gotten so out of hand in UO that if we were able to play that experience again, it would be completely different from the original.
I honestly cherish being there when UO was new.
/played-mmorpgs
Total time played:9125 Days, 21 Hours, 29 Minutes, 27 Seconds Time played this level: 39 Days, 1 Hour, 24 Minutes, 5 Seconds
Comments
Ergo.. you leaving that map, is the ultimate victory for them.
Funny how that works in PvP MMOs where driving others players out, making them cry and rage quit, is seen as success and victory, when all it does it kill the games population, which might explain why those kinds of games never thrive.
The great difference between UO and EQ were skills, in EQ you were limited by the class you chose and at least in early EQ many classes were not very solo friendly. EQ limited what you wore and fought with to your class. In UO you chose the skills you wanted. If you wanted to play a mage who was also skilled with a sword and wore armor, you could, not so in EQ.
So UO was freedom to choose, EQ was very limiting to the class you chose to play.
My reason for liking UO much better than EQ was the end game. In EQ you needed to belong to a large and strong guild to do any of the end game content and it was scheduled, your guild could not just decide to do any dungeon when they felt like it as none of the dungeons were instanced.
Unfortunately, far too many people who play MMOs like the highly structured content, hence the dearth of the sandbox genre and the multiple copies of the EQ/Wow genre.
Persistent Dungeons , just like persistent explorer zones, were dungeons that anyone could join, they were not designed for groups, they did not scale for solo, they were persistent, everyone walked into the same dungeon, and faced the same dungeon zone together, regardless if only 1 person was there or 40 people were there, it was persistent.
That is what separates persistent zones from instance zones, Instance Zones are set to be private to the group that enters them, persistent are open to anyone that goes in.
A Persistent Dungeon is like how in ESO anyone could enter a dungeon with you, regardless if they were in your group or not.
To give an example, of a persistent dungeon in EQ, there would be 40+ people in Mistmore, which was a Single Castle Dungeon, they would be off in their own private groups, but all the people would be in the same persistent dungeon, each group would take their spots to camp mobs and what have you, often with a puller as the rest of the team prepared for combat, and if a group screwed up their hunting spot, some of them would run to the zone to try and survive, mainly due to the death penalty in EQ like losing a huge chunk of EXP that would take hours to recover, a single death could negate the process from a whole day of hunting in EQ. So anyway, they would make a run for it, to survive, and this of course dragging all the mobs they were facing as well as every mob they aggroed between their camp spot and zone, to the Zone, steamrolling everyone between them and the zone.
Mistmore is odd because that felt like an Open Area, a Castle Dungeon, but the same situation happened in Blackburrow, Paw, Lower Guk, Sol A and B, etc. The idea, layout, method, and unfortunately antics and tactics of other players remained the same.
If you wanted a dungeon to scale by the number of people in it, then you are dealing with an Instance Dungeon.
I mean I wager, if you put a time delay on the dungeon so that, say it took 5 to 10 min for the dungeon to scale up, the Large Guild would use that time to stomp the dungeon for loot and rewards, and then leave, leaving behind a few players, maybe a small group, getting the Dungeon to Scale back down again, and then repeating the process just to fram boss mobs or what have you. This of course would screw up the game for everyone else in that Dungeon.
But.. it would fun to watch how that would unfold.
A time to delay would help. Automatic grouping. And the people in the dungeon first would be given top priority. So the people who enter afterward would get nothing if the first players or groups of players die or aren't participating in the boss battles. But the more people who are participating, the greater the rewards for everyone involved. So it would benefit players to have as many involved as possible.
In any case you lost me at Autogrouping, shit feature, IMHO.
Your idea offers no motive for anyone to enter after the first group, so no advantage over a basic instance, if the first group can hold the instance hostage. I can see the abuse now, where groups would start instances and demand carries and loot or they would autofail the instance.
I can see guilds getting pissed about not being able to enter their own raid together as a guild do that Auto Grouping shit, and the demands to keep their private runs private would be all over the place.
But mainly.. the way players would be able to start instances and then demand a carry or they would fail it, would be epic to watch, just, the shitstorm that would unfold.
Anyway.. I love Ancient_Exile's idea, of being able screw with how hard a dungeon is, and holding the dungeon hostage if you were there first.
The ways players could abuse that would be hilarious to watch, in fact, I would love to see that idea happen, just to see what happens.
I know in GW2, they had scaling events, and, squads of players would run by an event and boost the scaling up, and then run off, making it so that it was near impossible for the remaining people to complete it. Total troll move, and not always malicious, sometimes they were just moving through, to another meta, but still screwed things up for those doing that event.
No, I have not played EQ2.
But just so I get this idea, in all its glory.
You have it so that a group/solo player can open a new dungeon instance, which, ceases to make the dungeon persistent, but, in any case, a player/group can start a new Dungeon instance, this group is made up by Autogrouping, but the instance remains open, so, anyone can join that dungeon instance after that, (I wager more people forced to autogroup?) and this would scale up the dungeon but if the players that started the instance die or don't fight, No one gets any loot.
So, just to get my head around this, and being very benign here, if the people that started the instance go AFK, then suddenly no one else in the dungeon gets loot, on top of that, everyone else needs make sure the dungeon starters don't die otherwise they won't get any loot, turning the dungeon into some escort quest involving other players.
You also mentioned this would be in a game that has PvP enabled, so, say if someone came in and killed the dungeon starters, they screwed the loot over for everyone else.
I would LOVE to see how this plays out, the volume of tolling and about that could arise would be amazing. But even if I was to say this is a game full of wonderful players that don't troll each other, it would still be a game of players looking for loot.
Since loot is as you described, dependent upon the competence and activity of the dungeon instance starter, any following groups that joined the instance, for their own security would seek out the first group to make sure they were not AFK or incompetent. This would not be hostile, this would just be them wanting to ensure they were going to get loot in this dungeon, as if the starters were either incompetent, ergo unable to handle the up scaling of the dungeon to the level the new group/guild wanted to bring things, or AFK, they would have to kill them to get the dungeon to reset.
That would just be players being players looking for loot, and wanting to make sure the dungeon starters were able to handle the scale up and be active.
I mean, that's would not be abuse, or being mean, that would be just your normal MO of the game, and players looking out for their own rewards.
I would so love to see that idea unfold, I mean, I would never want to be involved with that kind of situation, but, I would love to see how that would play out.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
i would pay for at least a few months JUST to read the WTF QQ on the forums
Necroing this one again since it's been going since 2006.
Here's my thought as someone that has played UO from 1999-2024 and a little bit of EQ sprinkled in there.
The original concept of UO was so unique at the time and can still be one of the most immersive experience in online gaming, but a lot has changed. Playing a bit of P1999, the official progression servers and modern/live EQ I can officially say that EQ in 2024 is in a much better place that UO is and has been for awhile.
As we all know MMO's change with time, but what's important to me is the amount of support that these titles receive through time. UO hasn't been developed on since about 2015, almost a decade. EQ on the other hand has a team that is fully behind the product and is developing content on a yearly basis. They even spent the money and time to create the classic progression experience. Something that UO players have been begging for on the official game (not including freeshards, they come and go) since the early 2000's.
So while I don't have anywhere near the amount of time in EQ that I do UO, I appreciate where EQ is today versus UO.
I love UO, but the version of UO that I love has been gone since about 2003 and there's really no way to play that again, officially. And the scripting has gotten so out of hand in UO that if we were able to play that experience again, it would be completely different from the original.
I honestly cherish being there when UO was new.
Total time played: 9125 Days, 21 Hours, 29 Minutes, 27 Seconds
Time played this level: 39 Days, 1 Hour, 24 Minutes, 5 Seconds