Well, your first example of 1 vs 1 is flawed IMO. Essentially you are giving tokens for failure. Many people will have issue with this. One extra token for winning? All the other guy has to do is lose more than the other guy wins and he comes out ahead. And we all know how hard losing is.
Example 2 is a bit more punishing for the badguys. However I would have to ask, just how does the game determine a fair fight? It might be possible via levels but there could be gear and weapons involved too. What if you thought you were going against a fair opponent and the game determined it to be unfair in the other persons favor? Would you have the opportunity to decline the fight or would you just accept the punishment? People might be deterred from fighting in some cases.
And as for asking what I would wish changed in a game that I play, my answer is that I don't look at things that way. A game, like anything, is what it is. Either you like it or you don't, or something in between. But why change it? You may not like something and someone else might think that is just perfect. Now the game is better for you and worse for someone else. The best example I have of that is Voyage Century. That was a wonderful explore / craft game where crafting and levels had meaning. Then Snail games went and butchered it to pieces with patch after patch that basically gave everyone level 20 gear at level 1. They turned an amazing and intersting game into a faceroll. The game was perfect as it was and somehow they got the crazy idea they were improving it for players. Some maybe. Most no.
So I say quit worrying about how you think things should be and accept games for what they are. Make the most of what they offer. And if the devs change something and it sucks, well move on. If they make something better, let them know you like it. Simple as that.
But al this wishing for "oh if only they made a game like this" is really just wasted effort IMO. Its not going to change anything and in the end only makes you more frustrated.
It's just one idea and may not be the answer that works because everything that sounds good doesn't always work in practice.
If I was just a gamer I might agree with you, the problem is that I'm also a dev. So when you say the dev's should make something better, well I'm in that pool.
The goal I'd like to achieve at some point is making combat fun, at a core within an mmo setting. The issue is how do you do that? How do you bridge the gap between sandbox and themepark to create something new? How do you encourage people to try pvp who don't normally participate in pvp because they aren't good at it (because they haven't done it enough just like you're not good at basketball if you never played) or because they feel like they get griefed or what have you.
It's hard to make a world feel alive if you put handcuffs on the players, I am interested in breaking those handcuffs in a way that doesn't feel penalizing.
This might actually be impossible, though I am pretty optimistic that it can be done.
It's just one idea and may not be the answer that works because everything that sounds good doesn't always work in practice.
If I was just a gamer I might agree with you, the problem is that I'm also a dev. So when you say the dev's should make something better, well I'm in that pool.
The goal I'd like to achieve at some point is making combat fun, at a core within an mmo setting. The issue is how do you do that? How do you bridge the gap between sandbox and themepark to create something new? How do you encourage people to try pvp who don't normally participate in pvp because they aren't good at it (because they haven't done it enough just like you're not good at basketball if you never played) or because they feel like they get griefed or what have you.
It's hard to make a world feel alive if you put handcuffs on the players, I am interested in breaking those handcuffs in a way that doesn't feel penalizing.
This might actually be impossible, though I am pretty optimistic that it can be done.
I pretty firmly believe that the highlighted area is pretty much impossible. The analogy is more like: I don't like to eat spinach and nothing you can do is going to change that fact.
I learned early on, by playing the old Age of Empires, that in PvP I was terrible. I studied that game and learned all the openings, and strengths of the different units etc. I wanted to be good at it, I really did. But sadly I had to accept that I never would be. I watched my son play one time and I was amazed at how much faster he was at micromanaging. And then there was the fact that when I got into pressure situations my brain would just shutdown. I could not think of the right response. And at the end of the day it was frustrating and just not fun. However I could play against the computer on the right settings and win and have a blast. It was then I had to admit that my skills as a competitive gamer were never going to be good enough
So you might get people to try your PvP and some might even enjoy it. But if you think that you can convert gamers who are not true PvP players and don't have and never will have the skills to compete in it, then I think you are mistaken.
I mean it would be like putting the Yankees baseball team in hockey uniforms and having them play the Rangers. Or vice versa. It just doesn't work anyway you cut it.
IMO
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
It's just one idea and may not be the answer that works because everything that sounds good doesn't always work in practice.
If I was just a gamer I might agree with you, the problem is that I'm also a dev. So when you say the dev's should make something better, well I'm in that pool.
The goal I'd like to achieve at some point is making combat fun, at a core within an mmo setting. The issue is how do you do that? How do you bridge the gap between sandbox and themepark to create something new? How do you encourage people to try pvp who don't normally participate in pvp because they aren't good at it (because they haven't done it enough just like you're not good at basketball if you never played) or because they feel like they get griefed or what have you.
It's hard to make a world feel alive if you put handcuffs on the players, I am interested in breaking those handcuffs in a way that doesn't feel penalizing.
This might actually be impossible, though I am pretty optimistic that it can be done.
I pretty firmly believe that the highlighted area is pretty much impossible. The analogy is more like: I don't like to eat spinach and nothing you can do is going to change that fact.
I learned early on, by playing the old Age of Empires, that in PvP I was terrible. I studied that game and learned all the openings, and strengths of the different units etc. I wanted to be good at it, I really did. But sadly I had to accept that I never would be. I watched my son play one time and I was amazed at how much faster he was at micromanaging. And then there was the fact that when I got into pressure situations my brain would just shutdown. I could not think of the right response. And at the end of the day it was frustrating and just not fun. However I could play against the computer on the right settings and win and have a blast. It was then I had to admit that my skills as a competitive gamer were never going to be good enough
So you might get people to try your PvP and some might even enjoy it. But if you think that you can convert gamers who are not true PvP players and don't have and never will have the skills to compete in it, then I think you are mistaken.
I mean it would be like putting the Yankees baseball team in hockey uniforms and having them play the Rangers. Or vice versa. It just doesn't work anyway you cut it.
IMO
You make a valid point. It may just be that the type of people that enjoy the challenge pvp awards will just always be the minority in the gaming community.
Which is sad imo because the strongest memorable moments I've had from many years as a gamer always involved turning the tides in what first appeared a hopeless situation. Usually outnumbered situations.
It would be nice to share those types of experiences with people who may not know what it's like.
Hell I can think of one off the top of my head from when I played Mortal Online, back when it relied more on player skill than numbers (they've since changed the stamina system so that you physically don't have enough stamina to fight more than one or two people at once). A guild mate and I ran across a group of approximately 8 pk's. We didn't have horses at the time, they did. We managed to get on top of some rocks that only had one way to get up onto them. They were forced to come up 1 and 2 at a time, they all died. We were able to use terrain to our advantage to even the odds and simply out played them.
There were also plenty of situations where we died but those moments aren't the ones that stick in memory for long.
Yawn, another "Back in my day son we had no quests" thread.
^This... or insert any other line of the s called "Old School" rants.
Problem is I see right through most of the "Old School" crap as being CRAP!. Made up memories of days gone by. You weren't there. Just using that excuse to argue what's wrong.
OP's whole post shows that.
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
You make a valid point. It may just be that the type of people that enjoy the challenge pvp awards will just always be the minority in the gaming community.
Which is sad imo because the strongest memorable moments I've had from many years as a gamer always involved turning the tides in what first appeared a hopeless situation. Usually outnumbered situations.
It would be nice to share those types of experiences with people who may not know what it's like.
Hell I can think of one off the top of my head from when I played Mortal Online, back when it relied more on player skill than numbers (they've since changed the stamina system so that you physically don't have enough stamina to fight more than one or two people at once). A guild mate and I ran across a group of approximately 8 pk's. We didn't have horses at the time, they did. We managed to get on top of some rocks that only had one way to get up onto them. They were forced to come up 1 and 2 at a time, they all died. We were able to use terrain to our advantage to even the odds and simply out played them.
There were also plenty of situations where we died but those moments aren't the ones that stick in memory for long.
And I think there is a very simple explanation Why PvP players are a minority. Because the reality of competive gaming means that only a minority of that minority will be really good at it. And that really good minority relishes in destroying that small minority that like to try PvP, but are not as competitive and end up leaving the game eventually when they have had enough of defeat.
The reason it never works long term is the strong always end up grouping together and preying on the weak, like a pack of wolves. Eventually the deer and the sheep are consumed and the wolves move on.
MMO PvP in a nutshell.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
If I was just a gamer I might agree with you, the problem is that I'm also a dev. So when you say the dev's should make something better, well I'm in that pool.
Since you brought it up, what game did you release?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
If I was just a gamer I might agree with you, the problem is that I'm also a dev. So when you say the dev's should make something better, well I'm in that pool.
Since you brought it up, what game did you release?
If I was just a gamer I might agree with you, the problem is that I'm also a dev. So when you say the dev's should make something better, well I'm in that pool.
Since you brought it up, what game did you release?
I don't want this to turn into a thread picking apart games I worked on, particularly where I wasn't making design decisions. The last two projects I worked on were Marvel IP's as an artist.
I only mentioned I was a dev because it was relevant to my response to that particular post since "leaving it alone and let the dev's handle it" doesn't really apply in my case. Please don't make me regret disclosing that information lol, as it doesn't matter in context with what I'd like to discuss.
It is seeming like the consensus is basically that casuals may simply just not be interested in an experience that involves pvp even if it was presented in a way that wasn't punitive. So perhaps the idea of a casual sandbox mmo with freedom of combat just isn't appealing.
You make a valid point. It may just be that the type of people that enjoy the challenge pvp awards will just always be the minority in the gaming community.
Which is sad imo because the strongest memorable moments I've had from many years as a gamer always involved turning the tides in what first appeared a hopeless situation. Usually outnumbered situations.
It would be nice to share those types of experiences with people who may not know what it's like.
Hell I can think of one off the top of my head from when I played Mortal Online, back when it relied more on player skill than numbers (they've since changed the stamina system so that you physically don't have enough stamina to fight more than one or two people at once). A guild mate and I ran across a group of approximately 8 pk's. We didn't have horses at the time, they did. We managed to get on top of some rocks that only had one way to get up onto them. They were forced to come up 1 and 2 at a time, they all died. We were able to use terrain to our advantage to even the odds and simply out played them.
There were also plenty of situations where we died but those moments aren't the ones that stick in memory for long.
And I think there is a very simple explanation Why PvP players are a minority. Because the reality of competive gaming means that only a minority of that minority will be really good at it. And that really good minority relishes in destroying that small minority that like to try PvP, but are not as competitive and end up leaving the game eventually when they have had enough of defeat.
The reason it never works long term is the strong always end up grouping together and preying on the weak, like a pack of wolves. Eventually the deer and the sheep are consumed and the wolves move on.
MMO PvP in a nutshell.
This may be true in a lot of cases, but not always. There are actually groups of players in many games, even in games like Darkfall, who are very good PvPers and actually enjoy teaching others and helping them hone their skills.
In Darkfall for example there was a clan named New, which was specifically for new players who wanted to learn the game, build up their stats, and get some pvp training. An alliance of clans helped protect New and their holdings / cities from the griefers when asked, or would step down and let the New players defend themselves when asked so they could get some PvP experience against stronger forces. The New city was generally considered neutral territory and all were welcome in the city unless they attacked people living there, which would quickly result in them being killed and exiled from the city from then on. You of course had some clans who were just out to cause problems and would attempt to raid the city regularly in groups which gave those living there a chance to have some real fights against much more developed characters and learn how to take them on. There were also some nearby dungeons which were a great training / skill up area for the New members but would also draw lots of PvP since enemies new there would pretty much alays be people there for them to come attack and profit if successful.
One of the great things about it was you had a large number of very experienced players coming to the city regularly to assist with training sessions for large groups of players, dueling practice, team vs team events, etc. On a pretty much daily basis you had some of the more famous PvPers offering their services to train anyone who desired on how to become better PvPers and would spend hours practicing tactics and combat styles with them.
New was a sanctuary for new people to get pretty good at pvp and develop their characters up to a certain point at which you would be removed from the clan and left to seek a regular clan to join. The majority of the time players would wind up joining one of the clans allied or friendly towards New since they had often communicated with and fought alongside members of those clans in the couple of months they had spent in New.
As a result, you didn't have a bunch of new players left to their own devices, struggling to get by on their own against a bunch of PKers and making them want to quit the game. It produced a large number of skilled players who were able to really learn the game and build relationships with other people until they were able to fend for themselves.
I would disagree. MMOs might not be in decline, even though I think they are, they most certainly have been stagnant. The market trends show this. EQ1 is still going, and still has a solid subscription base. Some might argue more than EQ2. Look at the new MMO's released. Warhammer, 750k sales, closed. Star Wars the old republic, over 1 million sales. Had to go to a free to play, cash shop model to save their game. Massive, massive decline in players. Elder Scrolls Online, same deal. It will go FTP soon enough, the games are being pushed out with the same ideas, slightly altered, and pushed down your throat.
Every MMO that drops, sells record numbers of copies.. yet within 3 months the player base has dropped, 40% sometimes as high as 70%.
That said, there is some MMO's coming out that might be trying to move closer to what the OP is talking about, The Repopulation and Camelot Unchained represent a couple that I am keen to play and try.
I also disagree about some people just can't PVP. I started my PVP or PK in text based MUDs. When I started I was getting wrecked, my hands would shake from the adrenaline because when you lost, you lost everything. It took over 12 months of getting hammered before I really started to get better and better. It took two years from start to finish where I was actually counted as a top pker and not to be triffled with unless you are ready to go.
You can train yourself through practice to PK, I have helped dozens of friends learn and adapt, the more you play the more you get comfortable. The less you panic and the easier it all comes. I will agree it takes more time for some people, but I disagree entirely that you can't get good if you put in the time. The question here is, the desire and motivation to put in the time.
I am one of those MMO players who hops from MMO to MMO hoping from something refreshing, me and millions of others do the same thing, anyone who ignores the purchasing trend, is ignoring the truth.
There is only one or two MMO's that come out in the last 5 years I had any fun in. Guild Wars 2, which I got bored of and stopped playing, and Warhammer. I enjoyed the RVR, it was new for me in that format and it kept me going. Sadly I left that game because the community of players I socialised with, also left. I didn't feel like carrying on without my buddies, or making new friends. So I left the game.
OP look at the repopulation and camelot unchained. It is where my hopes are, and that more companies push the boundries and say enough, we will make the game, but you make the world and create its story.
I agree quite abit with the OP. There's no sense of danger anymore in MMO's. I remember playing SWG, even post-NGE, and every time you died in pvp or if you killed someone in pvp, there was the possibility of someone putting a bounty on you. Up to three BH's could take the same mission and they would often roll together and try and clear all the bounties, it was the ultimate adrenaline rush when your hanging out with your guild and then suddenly wham, 3 bh's come and force pvp on you, and your left to your wits trying to figure out how to escape or defeat them - it's just little things like that, that element of danger that can happen at any moment that modern MMO's have completely gutted out. There's no danger anymore, there's no risk vs reward.
The MMO im playing currently is FFIV:ARR - its literally just candy-land. You login, run on the hamster wheel for a few hours, save up your golden tickets, cash them in for your slippers, then log off. While I'm fun with the casual and zero-danger experience, it's just sad to see MMO's become like this. If it weren't for the fact that I actually like the story and the lore, I wouldn't be paying a sub for this game
I enjoy undercutting people in the market place - it's the only PvP a crafter gets.
Take a shooter from 2000 and tell us how that's different from a shooter today? Take a MMO from 2000 and you barley recognise the gameplay. The easymode, solo, ultra themeparks of today are not MMOs. They are not in decline, they are dead Jim.
Take a shooter from 2000 and tell us how that's different from a shooter today? Take a MMO from 2000 and you barley recognise the gameplay. The easymode, solo, ultra themeparks of today are not MMOs. They are not in decline, they are dead Jim.
nah .. they are just evolving to something else to better serve the market. I thought people here are for innovations and changes. I guess not.
Originally posted by MadFrenchie While I'm not going to assume MMOs are in the decline or imply it..
Is there any data to support the genre is on the rise?
If not, while one may criticize the OP for his claim of decline, you cannot then commit the same mistake he does and claim growth based on anecdotal evidence. At least, not without egg on your face.
One would think that, if the genre is on the rise, major titles would gain increasingly larger average playerbases past the first 1-3 months after release. Is there any data to support a claim that the average number of players per major entry into the genre has been consistently growing over the past 5-10 years?
Or that the average number of players over a game's lifetime has held while the number of major titles have increased significantly?
With the rise of F2P, this becomes increasingly muddy. Players can, without spending a dime in support of the genre, be included in the playerbases of 3-4 MMOs every month by a single login to each. Now, according to the data, one player has become four. All without actually supporting any development or studio in the genre whatsoever. Does that still count as a rise?
I was never a big believer in the (edited) "population growth equals success" mode of thought.
Because it's just not sustainable. There is always going to be a somewhat finite amount of customers for any given enterprise.
I would offer that with the ever increasing amount of games, if they can stay open and running then the genre can accommodate it and the "rise" is the ability to accept and maintain new games.
This is not to say that the population that is interested in mmo's won't/can't grow or shrink but I would say that if additional mmo offerings continue to crop up and continue to "stay afloat" (at the very least) then the genre is "on the rise".
If mmo's go under more than new mmo's appear then that's a decline.
Granted that's a little simplistic but with more and more mmo's being offered and very few (in comparison) going under it seems that there is game growth even if there isn't population growth. Which probably has some finite limit.
I get your point, and I agree that it has merit in that successful (financially) games breed more of the same. However, I would argue a more accurate indication of the genre's health be examined by its growth rate in comparison to gaming's overall growth rate. Obviously adjusted for individual platform populations, if the genre growth rate matches or exceeds the industry's growth rate, the genre is healthy. One could argue that, if the rate was below the industry standard, the genre's market share is decreasing and the genre needs a boost. However, I don't have any stats to back that up for either case. And with F2P, things become muddy once again. But this is all good food for thought and beyond flaming the OP, which I'm always for (food for thought I mean, not OP flaming :P)!
nah .. they are just evolving to something else to better serve the market. I thought people here are for innovations and changes. I guess not.
Only an idiot is blindly for innovation and change without asking "Will this change and innovation actually make this better for me?" first.
I think the it is more idiotic (not to mention illogical) to ask for innovation and change on one hand, and ask for going back to old, tried and failed ideas on another.
And if the games evolves to serve the market better, of course it is better for many ... may not be an particular individual, but the gaming business is seldom about that anyway.
Take a shooter from 2000 and tell us how that's different from a shooter today? Take a MMO from 2000 and you barley recognise the gameplay. The easymode, solo, ultra themeparks of today are not MMOs. They are not in decline, they are dead Jim.
If you are going to start shooters at 2000, then start MMOs at an equivalent point in their timeline, which would be about 2005-2007. There ya go.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Like someone else said. I don't think there're in decline, I think the market is saturated. The little counter at the top of this site has Games: 731, A few months ago it had Games: 637, MMO's are constantly being released.
Are you saying more people should be playing MMO's or more people should be playing the same MMO?
"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
Take a shooter from 2000 and tell us how that's different from a shooter today? Take a MMO from 2000 and you barley recognise the gameplay. The easymode, solo, ultra themeparks of today are not MMOs. They are not in decline, they are dead Jim.
If you are going to start shooters at 2000, then start MMOs at an equivalent point in their timeline, which would be about 2005-2007. There ya go.
I think it could be said without hyperbole that Shooters are less complex games than MMORPGs. They progressed a lot faster to their steady state than MMORPGs did. Even so.
Wolfenstein 3D released in 1992 could really be credited with creating what we consider the FPS genre though. Doom was released a year later in 1993, and it pushed things forward by having environments with more than just doors that opened and closed. The controls were incredibly primitive by our standards though. You could look left and right with your mouse, but not up and down. Movement was either with the arrow keys on the keyboard or by laboriously sliding your mouse around on your desktop.
By 2000 AD shooters had eight years of development under their belt. Shooters had a story, companions, WASD + Mouse movement, voiced audio and actual three dimensional environments and actors instead of flat surfaces painted to look three dimensional. From 2000 forward, things have improved, but there are basic features in shooters that seem to be the basis for all shooters now.
Eight years after the introduction of MMORPGs in 1997, it would seem like technology was improved, but there are basic features in MMORPGs that are the basis for nearly all MMORPGs. The main difference here is that shooters would seem to be much simpler games overall, so removing the build in complexities (like laboriously sliding your mouse around to move) were removed quickly. A lot of these advancements happened in the MMORPG genre without actually having to go through the "hard" stage.
But why are we comparing Shooters and MMORPGs? Wouldn't it make more sense to compare RPGs to MMORPGs? Would someone playing Pools of Radiance recognize the elements there that have made it into World of Warcraft? PoR was release in 1988. Ultima Online was released in 1997, so from 1997 to now we have 17 years. Would someone playing an RPG in 2005 recognize that game as a descendant of a game like Pools of Radiance, written in 1998? It would certainly be much easier to play and would take a lot less time, not to mention having 3D graphics.
Is there a point to this? Is it that some genres of games are pretty simple, and so they stabilize on a feature set pretty quickly, while other genres have more complexity, and so can have more variation in game play?
**
I will say that the pictures I can find of Pools of Radiance do not do justice to the memory of playing the game.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
But why are we comparing Shooters and MMORPGs? Wouldn't it make more sense to compare RPGs to MMORPGs? Would someone playing Pools of Radiance recognize the elements there that have made it into World of Warcraft? PoR was release in 1988. Ultima Online was released in 1997, so from 1997 to now we have 17 years. Would someone playing an RPG in 2005 recognize that game as a descendant of a game like Pools of Radiance, written in 1998? It would certainly be much easier to play and would take a lot less time, not to mention having 3D graphics.
OK I think the difference is Single player RPGs got way deeper and more complex. Neverwinter Nights 2 (2006) is on a whole different magnitude of depth compared to Pool of Radiance despite both being RPGs based on (different editions of) D&D. This is what usually happens with games. As the computer hardware can handle more we get more complexity, more choice and a deeper experience.
MMOs are weird though in this way. Sure, Ultima Online is way more complex than some MUD you would have played in 1988 but in the last few years they've gone in the other direction, now they have less depth, less classes and less mechanics than MMOs released 10 or 15 years ago. That's why you have some people at least feeling the genre is going backwards.
nah .. they are just evolving to something else to better serve the market. I thought people here are for innovations and changes. I guess not.
Only an idiot is blindly for innovation and change without asking "Will this change and innovation actually make this better for me?" first.
I think the it is more idiotic (not to mention illogical) to ask for innovation and change on one hand, and ask for going back to old, tried and failed ideas on another.
And if the games evolves to serve the market better, of course it is better for many ... may not be an particular individual, but the gaming business is seldom about that anyway.
I disagree, I don't think it's idiotic or illogical to ask why aren't developers workings towards redefining the mmorpg space in vastly different ways.
League of Legends is a result of innovation, of doing something that had been done before in an entirely different way and look how successful it has become. It played a very large space in defining a whole new type of game, MOBAS. From what I know the gameplay type started as a player made mod to warcraft 3?
I only example the past because I feel that if the gap between sandbox and themepark was bridged it could result in something that truly hasn't really been done before. I'm not asking to "go back to the good ol days".
I think the it is more idiotic (not to mention illogical) to ask for innovation and change on one hand, and ask for going back to old, tried and failed ideas on another.
And if the games evolves to serve the market better, of course it is better for many ... may not be an particular individual, but the gaming business is seldom about that anyway.
Yeah which is why I'd never just ask for "change" without qualification. if you can't actually *improve* something you should leave it alone. Like you and pretty much pretty much anyone else here I can only speak about games based on what I like and my preferences not some amorphous "market majority".
I think the it is more idiotic (not to mention illogical) to ask for innovation and change on one hand, and ask for going back to old, tried and failed ideas on another.
And if the games evolves to serve the market better, of course it is better for many ... may not be an particular individual, but the gaming business is seldom about that anyway.
Yeah which is why I'd never just ask for "change" without qualification. if you can't actually *improve* something you should leave it alone. Like you and pretty much pretty much anyone else here I can only speak about games based on what I like and my preferences not some amorphous "market majority".
So, why is i that your personal preference has any bearing on what developers should do when making games? This would be like saying that since you like anchovies on your pizza, pizza makers should not allow this to be an optional topping.
Just like pizza makers list toppings based on demand, game makers put in features and use designes based on demand. How do they measure demand? Well, just like every dollar spend on pizzas with pepperoni shows demand for this topping, every dollar spent on themeparks show demand for this type of gameplay. If there is a lot of money being spent on something, then more people make that product to fill that need. If not much money is being spent, then people will not rush to make that product, and it will remain niche.
The free market is pretty efficient. The only cache is marketing. Marketing is the art of convincing you to pay for somthing, without actually knowing if it is what you want. This is what has caused the rise of F2P. So many people paid for games, and found that they were NOT what they wanted.... that they started spending money on games that were not as great as the original games SOUNDED, but were actually what they wanted.
I would disagree. MMOs might not be in decline, even though I think they are, they most certainly have been stagnant. The market trends show this. EQ1 is still going, and still has a solid subscription base. Some might argue more than EQ2. Look at the new MMO's released. Warhammer, 750k sales, closed. Star Wars the old republic, over 1 million sales. Had to go to a free to play, cash shop model to save their game. Massive, massive decline in players. Elder Scrolls Online, same deal. It will go FTP soon enough, the games are being pushed out with the same ideas, slightly altered, and pushed down your throat.
Every MMO that drops, sells record numbers of copies.. yet within 3 months the player base has dropped, 40% sometimes as high as 70%.
That said, there is some MMO's coming out that might be trying to move closer to what the OP is talking about, The Repopulation and Camelot Unchained represent a couple that I am keen to play and try.
I also disagree about some people just can't PVP. I started my PVP or PK in text based MUDs. When I started I was getting wrecked, my hands would shake from the adrenaline because when you lost, you lost everything. It took over 12 months of getting hammered before I really started to get better and better. It took two years from start to finish where I was actually counted as a top pker and not to be triffled with unless you are ready to go.
You can train yourself through practice to PK, I have helped dozens of friends learn and adapt, the more you play the more you get comfortable. The less you panic and the easier it all comes. I will agree it takes more time for some people, but I disagree entirely that you can't get good if you put in the time. The question here is, the desire and motivation to put in the time.
I am one of those MMO players who hops from MMO to MMO hoping from something refreshing, me and millions of others do the same thing, anyone who ignores the purchasing trend, is ignoring the truth.
There is only one or two MMO's that come out in the last 5 years I had any fun in. Guild Wars 2, which I got bored of and stopped playing, and Warhammer. I enjoyed the RVR, it was new for me in that format and it kept me going. Sadly I left that game because the community of players I socialised with, also left. I didn't feel like carrying on without my buddies, or making new friends. So I left the game.
OP look at the repopulation and camelot unchained. It is where my hopes are, and that more companies push the boundries and say enough, we will make the game, but you make the world and create its story.
I would agree with you that not everyone is as hopeless as me, when it comes to PvP. In your case you are about 10 years younger than me when I was trying my hand at it. Not everyone is blessed with the finger dexterity required for certain types of action combat. And when you are talking reaction times making the difference, then I think you are talking of games where, an elite few will always dominate. However if you make it easy for all , there is no reason for serious PvP players to bother with the game.
I will admit also there are times when I wish there was a bit more of a danger aspect to MMO's. But in most cases where PvP is allowed, there is no break from that. You can't just say ok, I have had enough of that fun I just wnat to go over here and not be bothered. Nope, sorry, any Tom Dick and Harry can come along and spoil your day on a whim. And usually once they know you are easy prey , they will be back to constantly harrass you, and claim their prize.
People talk a lot about risk vs reward in these games. Well that is what it is all about. And it seems to be the big question for the OP in his mind. How do you make the reward for the casual player, great enough so that they will not be discouraged from playing. Because in most PvP the wolf will get the reward and the sheep will get eaten. And in my opinion, if you start making a game where the wolf gets the reward, and the sheep also gets a reward, then you have lost that risk / reward ratio. The whole point of PvP becomes moot. If the wolf keeps trying to eat the sheep, and they keep grazing as if nothing has happened, then pretty soon the wolf will move on as well.
So, in my opinion its an all or nothing thing. Sheep and wolves cannot coexist together. It goes against the laws of nature.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
Comments
It's just one idea and may not be the answer that works because everything that sounds good doesn't always work in practice.
If I was just a gamer I might agree with you, the problem is that I'm also a dev. So when you say the dev's should make something better, well I'm in that pool.
The goal I'd like to achieve at some point is making combat fun, at a core within an mmo setting. The issue is how do you do that? How do you bridge the gap between sandbox and themepark to create something new? How do you encourage people to try pvp who don't normally participate in pvp because they aren't good at it (because they haven't done it enough just like you're not good at basketball if you never played) or because they feel like they get griefed or what have you.
It's hard to make a world feel alive if you put handcuffs on the players, I am interested in breaking those handcuffs in a way that doesn't feel penalizing.
This might actually be impossible, though I am pretty optimistic that it can be done.
I pretty firmly believe that the highlighted area is pretty much impossible. The analogy is more like: I don't like to eat spinach and nothing you can do is going to change that fact.
I learned early on, by playing the old Age of Empires, that in PvP I was terrible. I studied that game and learned all the openings, and strengths of the different units etc. I wanted to be good at it, I really did. But sadly I had to accept that I never would be. I watched my son play one time and I was amazed at how much faster he was at micromanaging. And then there was the fact that when I got into pressure situations my brain would just shutdown. I could not think of the right response. And at the end of the day it was frustrating and just not fun. However I could play against the computer on the right settings and win and have a blast. It was then I had to admit that my skills as a competitive gamer were never going to be good enough
So you might get people to try your PvP and some might even enjoy it. But if you think that you can convert gamers who are not true PvP players and don't have and never will have the skills to compete in it, then I think you are mistaken.
I mean it would be like putting the Yankees baseball team in hockey uniforms and having them play the Rangers. Or vice versa. It just doesn't work anyway you cut it.
IMO
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
Yawn, another "Back in my day son we had no quests" thread.
Played-Everything
Playing-LoL
You make a valid point. It may just be that the type of people that enjoy the challenge pvp awards will just always be the minority in the gaming community.
Which is sad imo because the strongest memorable moments I've had from many years as a gamer always involved turning the tides in what first appeared a hopeless situation. Usually outnumbered situations.
It would be nice to share those types of experiences with people who may not know what it's like.
Hell I can think of one off the top of my head from when I played Mortal Online, back when it relied more on player skill than numbers (they've since changed the stamina system so that you physically don't have enough stamina to fight more than one or two people at once). A guild mate and I ran across a group of approximately 8 pk's. We didn't have horses at the time, they did. We managed to get on top of some rocks that only had one way to get up onto them. They were forced to come up 1 and 2 at a time, they all died. We were able to use terrain to our advantage to even the odds and simply out played them.
There were also plenty of situations where we died but those moments aren't the ones that stick in memory for long.
^This... or insert any other line of the s called "Old School" rants.
Problem is I see right through most of the "Old School" crap as being CRAP!. Made up memories of days gone by. You weren't there. Just using that excuse to argue what's wrong.
OP's whole post shows that.
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
And I think there is a very simple explanation Why PvP players are a minority. Because the reality of competive gaming means that only a minority of that minority will be really good at it. And that really good minority relishes in destroying that small minority that like to try PvP, but are not as competitive and end up leaving the game eventually when they have had enough of defeat.
The reason it never works long term is the strong always end up grouping together and preying on the weak, like a pack of wolves. Eventually the deer and the sheep are consumed and the wolves move on.
MMO PvP in a nutshell.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
Since you brought it up, what game did you release?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
does that matter?
I don't want this to turn into a thread picking apart games I worked on, particularly where I wasn't making design decisions. The last two projects I worked on were Marvel IP's as an artist.
I only mentioned I was a dev because it was relevant to my response to that particular post since "leaving it alone and let the dev's handle it" doesn't really apply in my case. Please don't make me regret disclosing that information lol, as it doesn't matter in context with what I'd like to discuss.
It is seeming like the consensus is basically that casuals may simply just not be interested in an experience that involves pvp even if it was presented in a way that wasn't punitive. So perhaps the idea of a casual sandbox mmo with freedom of combat just isn't appealing.
This may be true in a lot of cases, but not always. There are actually groups of players in many games, even in games like Darkfall, who are very good PvPers and actually enjoy teaching others and helping them hone their skills.
In Darkfall for example there was a clan named New, which was specifically for new players who wanted to learn the game, build up their stats, and get some pvp training. An alliance of clans helped protect New and their holdings / cities from the griefers when asked, or would step down and let the New players defend themselves when asked so they could get some PvP experience against stronger forces. The New city was generally considered neutral territory and all were welcome in the city unless they attacked people living there, which would quickly result in them being killed and exiled from the city from then on. You of course had some clans who were just out to cause problems and would attempt to raid the city regularly in groups which gave those living there a chance to have some real fights against much more developed characters and learn how to take them on. There were also some nearby dungeons which were a great training / skill up area for the New members but would also draw lots of PvP since enemies new there would pretty much alays be people there for them to come attack and profit if successful.
One of the great things about it was you had a large number of very experienced players coming to the city regularly to assist with training sessions for large groups of players, dueling practice, team vs team events, etc. On a pretty much daily basis you had some of the more famous PvPers offering their services to train anyone who desired on how to become better PvPers and would spend hours practicing tactics and combat styles with them.
New was a sanctuary for new people to get pretty good at pvp and develop their characters up to a certain point at which you would be removed from the clan and left to seek a regular clan to join. The majority of the time players would wind up joining one of the clans allied or friendly towards New since they had often communicated with and fought alongside members of those clans in the couple of months they had spent in New.
As a result, you didn't have a bunch of new players left to their own devices, struggling to get by on their own against a bunch of PKers and making them want to quit the game. It produced a large number of skilled players who were able to really learn the game and build relationships with other people until they were able to fend for themselves.
I would disagree. MMOs might not be in decline, even though I think they are, they most certainly have been stagnant. The market trends show this. EQ1 is still going, and still has a solid subscription base. Some might argue more than EQ2. Look at the new MMO's released. Warhammer, 750k sales, closed. Star Wars the old republic, over 1 million sales. Had to go to a free to play, cash shop model to save their game. Massive, massive decline in players. Elder Scrolls Online, same deal. It will go FTP soon enough, the games are being pushed out with the same ideas, slightly altered, and pushed down your throat.
Every MMO that drops, sells record numbers of copies.. yet within 3 months the player base has dropped, 40% sometimes as high as 70%.
That said, there is some MMO's coming out that might be trying to move closer to what the OP is talking about, The Repopulation and Camelot Unchained represent a couple that I am keen to play and try.
I also disagree about some people just can't PVP. I started my PVP or PK in text based MUDs. When I started I was getting wrecked, my hands would shake from the adrenaline because when you lost, you lost everything. It took over 12 months of getting hammered before I really started to get better and better. It took two years from start to finish where I was actually counted as a top pker and not to be triffled with unless you are ready to go.
You can train yourself through practice to PK, I have helped dozens of friends learn and adapt, the more you play the more you get comfortable. The less you panic and the easier it all comes. I will agree it takes more time for some people, but I disagree entirely that you can't get good if you put in the time. The question here is, the desire and motivation to put in the time.
I am one of those MMO players who hops from MMO to MMO hoping from something refreshing, me and millions of others do the same thing, anyone who ignores the purchasing trend, is ignoring the truth.
There is only one or two MMO's that come out in the last 5 years I had any fun in. Guild Wars 2, which I got bored of and stopped playing, and Warhammer. I enjoyed the RVR, it was new for me in that format and it kept me going. Sadly I left that game because the community of players I socialised with, also left. I didn't feel like carrying on without my buddies, or making new friends. So I left the game.
OP look at the repopulation and camelot unchained. It is where my hopes are, and that more companies push the boundries and say enough, we will make the game, but you make the world and create its story.
I agree quite abit with the OP. There's no sense of danger anymore in MMO's. I remember playing SWG, even post-NGE, and every time you died in pvp or if you killed someone in pvp, there was the possibility of someone putting a bounty on you. Up to three BH's could take the same mission and they would often roll together and try and clear all the bounties, it was the ultimate adrenaline rush when your hanging out with your guild and then suddenly wham, 3 bh's come and force pvp on you, and your left to your wits trying to figure out how to escape or defeat them - it's just little things like that, that element of danger that can happen at any moment that modern MMO's have completely gutted out. There's no danger anymore, there's no risk vs reward.
The MMO im playing currently is FFIV:ARR - its literally just candy-land. You login, run on the hamster wheel for a few hours, save up your golden tickets, cash them in for your slippers, then log off. While I'm fun with the casual and zero-danger experience, it's just sad to see MMO's become like this. If it weren't for the fact that I actually like the story and the lore, I wouldn't be paying a sub for this game
I enjoy undercutting people in the market place - it's the only PvP a crafter gets.
"They're MMO's, Jim, but not as we know them."
Take a shooter from 2000 and tell us how that's different from a shooter today? Take a MMO from 2000 and you barley recognise the gameplay. The easymode, solo, ultra themeparks of today are not MMOs. They are not in decline, they are dead Jim.
nah .. they are just evolving to something else to better serve the market. I thought people here are for innovations and changes. I guess not.
Only an idiot is blindly for innovation and change without asking "Will this change and innovation actually make this better for me?" first.
I was never a big believer in the (edited) "population growth equals success" mode of thought.
Because it's just not sustainable. There is always going to be a somewhat finite amount of customers for any given enterprise.
I would offer that with the ever increasing amount of games, if they can stay open and running then the genre can accommodate it and the "rise" is the ability to accept and maintain new games.
This is not to say that the population that is interested in mmo's won't/can't grow or shrink but I would say that if additional mmo offerings continue to crop up and continue to "stay afloat" (at the very least) then the genre is "on the rise".
If mmo's go under more than new mmo's appear then that's a decline.
Granted that's a little simplistic but with more and more mmo's being offered and very few (in comparison) going under it seems that there is game growth even if there isn't population growth. Which probably has some finite limit.
I get your point, and I agree that it has merit in that successful (financially) games breed more of the same. However, I would argue a more accurate indication of the genre's health be examined by its growth rate in comparison to gaming's overall growth rate. Obviously adjusted for individual platform populations, if the genre growth rate matches or exceeds the industry's growth rate, the genre is healthy. One could argue that, if the rate was below the industry standard, the genre's market share is decreasing and the genre needs a boost. However, I don't have any stats to back that up for either case. And with F2P, things become muddy once again. But this is all good food for thought and beyond flaming the OP, which I'm always for (food for thought I mean, not OP flaming :P)!I think the it is more idiotic (not to mention illogical) to ask for innovation and change on one hand, and ask for going back to old, tried and failed ideas on another.
And if the games evolves to serve the market better, of course it is better for many ... may not be an particular individual, but the gaming business is seldom about that anyway.
If you are going to start shooters at 2000, then start MMOs at an equivalent point in their timeline, which would be about 2005-2007. There ya go.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Like someone else said. I don't think there're in decline, I think the market is saturated. The little counter at the top of this site has Games: 731, A few months ago it had Games: 637, MMO's are constantly being released.
Are you saying more people should be playing MMO's or more people should be playing the same MMO?
"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
I think it could be said without hyperbole that Shooters are less complex games than MMORPGs. They progressed a lot faster to their steady state than MMORPGs did. Even so.
Wolfenstein 3D released in 1992 could really be credited with creating what we consider the FPS genre though. Doom was released a year later in 1993, and it pushed things forward by having environments with more than just doors that opened and closed. The controls were incredibly primitive by our standards though. You could look left and right with your mouse, but not up and down. Movement was either with the arrow keys on the keyboard or by laboriously sliding your mouse around on your desktop.
By 2000 AD shooters had eight years of development under their belt. Shooters had a story, companions, WASD + Mouse movement, voiced audio and actual three dimensional environments and actors instead of flat surfaces painted to look three dimensional. From 2000 forward, things have improved, but there are basic features in shooters that seem to be the basis for all shooters now.
Eight years after the introduction of MMORPGs in 1997, it would seem like technology was improved, but there are basic features in MMORPGs that are the basis for nearly all MMORPGs. The main difference here is that shooters would seem to be much simpler games overall, so removing the build in complexities (like laboriously sliding your mouse around to move) were removed quickly. A lot of these advancements happened in the MMORPG genre without actually having to go through the "hard" stage.
But why are we comparing Shooters and MMORPGs? Wouldn't it make more sense to compare RPGs to MMORPGs? Would someone playing Pools of Radiance recognize the elements there that have made it into World of Warcraft? PoR was release in 1988. Ultima Online was released in 1997, so from 1997 to now we have 17 years. Would someone playing an RPG in 2005 recognize that game as a descendant of a game like Pools of Radiance, written in 1998? It would certainly be much easier to play and would take a lot less time, not to mention having 3D graphics.
Is there a point to this? Is it that some genres of games are pretty simple, and so they stabilize on a feature set pretty quickly, while other genres have more complexity, and so can have more variation in game play?
**
I will say that the pictures I can find of Pools of Radiance do not do justice to the memory of playing the game.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
OK I think the difference is Single player RPGs got way deeper and more complex. Neverwinter Nights 2 (2006) is on a whole different magnitude of depth compared to Pool of Radiance despite both being RPGs based on (different editions of) D&D. This is what usually happens with games. As the computer hardware can handle more we get more complexity, more choice and a deeper experience.
MMOs are weird though in this way. Sure, Ultima Online is way more complex than some MUD you would have played in 1988 but in the last few years they've gone in the other direction, now they have less depth, less classes and less mechanics than MMOs released 10 or 15 years ago. That's why you have some people at least feeling the genre is going backwards.
I disagree, I don't think it's idiotic or illogical to ask why aren't developers workings towards redefining the mmorpg space in vastly different ways.
League of Legends is a result of innovation, of doing something that had been done before in an entirely different way and look how successful it has become. It played a very large space in defining a whole new type of game, MOBAS. From what I know the gameplay type started as a player made mod to warcraft 3?
I only example the past because I feel that if the gap between sandbox and themepark was bridged it could result in something that truly hasn't really been done before. I'm not asking to "go back to the good ol days".
Yeah which is why I'd never just ask for "change" without qualification. if you can't actually *improve* something you should leave it alone. Like you and pretty much pretty much anyone else here I can only speak about games based on what I like and my preferences not some amorphous "market majority".
So, why is i that your personal preference has any bearing on what developers should do when making games? This would be like saying that since you like anchovies on your pizza, pizza makers should not allow this to be an optional topping.
Just like pizza makers list toppings based on demand, game makers put in features and use designes based on demand. How do they measure demand? Well, just like every dollar spend on pizzas with pepperoni shows demand for this topping, every dollar spent on themeparks show demand for this type of gameplay. If there is a lot of money being spent on something, then more people make that product to fill that need. If not much money is being spent, then people will not rush to make that product, and it will remain niche.
The free market is pretty efficient. The only cache is marketing. Marketing is the art of convincing you to pay for somthing, without actually knowing if it is what you want. This is what has caused the rise of F2P. So many people paid for games, and found that they were NOT what they wanted.... that they started spending money on games that were not as great as the original games SOUNDED, but were actually what they wanted.
I would agree with you that not everyone is as hopeless as me, when it comes to PvP. In your case you are about 10 years younger than me when I was trying my hand at it. Not everyone is blessed with the finger dexterity required for certain types of action combat. And when you are talking reaction times making the difference, then I think you are talking of games where, an elite few will always dominate. However if you make it easy for all , there is no reason for serious PvP players to bother with the game.
I will admit also there are times when I wish there was a bit more of a danger aspect to MMO's. But in most cases where PvP is allowed, there is no break from that. You can't just say ok, I have had enough of that fun I just wnat to go over here and not be bothered. Nope, sorry, any Tom Dick and Harry can come along and spoil your day on a whim. And usually once they know you are easy prey , they will be back to constantly harrass you, and claim their prize.
People talk a lot about risk vs reward in these games. Well that is what it is all about. And it seems to be the big question for the OP in his mind. How do you make the reward for the casual player, great enough so that they will not be discouraged from playing. Because in most PvP the wolf will get the reward and the sheep will get eaten. And in my opinion, if you start making a game where the wolf gets the reward, and the sheep also gets a reward, then you have lost that risk / reward ratio. The whole point of PvP becomes moot. If the wolf keeps trying to eat the sheep, and they keep grazing as if nothing has happened, then pretty soon the wolf will move on as well.
So, in my opinion its an all or nothing thing. Sheep and wolves cannot coexist together. It goes against the laws of nature.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!