As I see it, there are two instances when vertical progression becomes a problem:
1) The first, and biggest, is when it renders old content obsolete too quickly. As instance I can think of where this didn't happen was in EQ1 for the first several years of its life. For example, in 2003, when Planes of Power was the current expansion, people were still grouping and raiding in zones from vanilla, which came out in 1999. That means you had people spread out over four years of content and four expansions. I think WoW changed this where basically every time new content came out, it essentially replaced all existing content. EQ1 more or less adopted this model later in its life as well, and I am not a fan of it as it tends to make the game world feel very small as there are large portions of the world that nobody ever visits.
2) The second, is when the gap between the hardcore and mid range players is too large. I will leave the ultra casual players out of this point, because they will be behind in every game, regardless of what the progression looks like. But when the gap between someone who plays 35 hours a week in a hardcore guild, and someone who puts in 10 hours a week but is still a good player is so huge that the two can't even compete with each other, it just makes a lot of people frustrated.
Originally posted by lobotaru For clarification, I am referring specifically to end game vertical progression, not leveling.
For me, any MMO that has an "end game" is one I will avoid. Dailies, Raiding, and other "end game" activities have no appeal to me. If I reach the "End Game", I retire my character. So, in my case, any vertical progression beyond leveling is considered "destructive."
So many gerbils working their "progression wheels" that I lose sight of the real game
- 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
As I see it, there are two instances when vertical progression becomes a problem:
1) The first, and biggest, is when it renders old content obsolete too quickly. As instance I can think of where this didn't happen was in EQ1 for the first several years of its life. For example, in 2003, when Planes of Power was the current expansion, people were still grouping and raiding in zones from vanilla, which came out in 1999. That means you had people spread out over four years of content and four expansions. I think WoW changed this where basically every time new content came out, it essentially replaced all existing content. EQ1 more or less adopted this model later in its life as well, and I am not a fan of it as it tends to make the game world feel very small as there are large portions of the world that nobody ever visits.
depends on the content you were doing
in EQ1, w Luclin in 2001, SOE did a gear reset with Raid gear
- it was gear up, conquer new raid content
the Luclin raid gear outclassed the NTOV gear
and POP raid gear outclassed the Luclin raid gear, etc, etc
also, SOE unlike many mmos including WOW,
had a few expansions where new leveling content was added for ALL LEVELS
this happened in 3 expansions: Kunark, Luclin, The Serpent Spire
and partially for LDON levels 20-60, LOY levels 36-60
EQ1 easily had too much content under 60 preWOW
it was rare to see players in Luclin 2 years later, with exception to Paludal Caverns,
-- even tho Luclin supported leveling from 1-60
=====================
this is one of the reasons i enjoyed the original GuildWars so much
no endless gear grinds (there were grinds for cosmetic gear tho)
For me it depends on how the vertical progression is handled. I like to play a lot of alts, so I prefer games where time spent on my alts counts toward advancing my main/s. An example is Marvel Heroes, where as I level my alts I unlock points and currencies I can spend on all my characters.
Vertical progression is not so bad when it is shared between game modes, zones, and characters. When you the player have the freedom to chose where you will "grind" and with what character.
When you tie progression to a specific zone or game mode, you find players who don't like that particular content trying to rush through it. When progression is on a per-character basis, you find a shortage of geared healers or whatever because they aren't as much fun to play solo.
Originally posted by lobotaru For clarification, I am referring specifically to end game vertical progression, not leveling.
For me, any MMO that has an "end game" is one I will avoid. Dailies, Raiding, and other "end game" activities have no appeal to me. If I reach the "End Game", I retire my character. So, in my case, any vertical progression beyond leveling is considered "destructive."
So many gerbils working their "progression wheels" that I lose sight of the real game
That, obviously, is just you because progression after max level is popular, and many spent many hours on it.
Dallies and raiding are old ancient game modes. May be MMOs should learn some new ones (like Greater Rifts in D3).
The point is .. "destructive" for you ... "fun and entertaining" for many others.
Originally posted by Bladestrom One of the benefits of horizontal games is that it is not so critical that you balance it - that's why it's more stable and flexible, there's meta build, but often people play builds that they find fun and forego 'top' dps etc. In vertical progression you are crucified for this, being 'top' is what the game us all about, an impossibility to balance ad we can see all too often.
Horizontal progression is extremely hard keep player's interests. Without vertical progression content can easily become stale.
So.. content become not stale, because you got some new numbers? Because basicly.. that's it. You get better stats more or less the same as your enemies(NPCs, Mobs).
Or is it the "ding" feeling that let you forget that the content is already stale? At least form some it works for a while.
Vertical Progression is usually just the carrot on the stick on your hamster wheel. Well.. i will not argue, that horizontal progression more often than not does have the same purpose. However.. sometimes horizontal progression can actually add something new to the game, to the experience, like new skills, new possible tactics and stuff like that.. but that kind of horizontal progression is rather limited... there is just no way in hell to come up with always new, and actually different abilities.
Progression is in most cases just a way to reward players, to give them a feeling of accomplishment. The question remains, if the disadvantages of a steep vertical progression make them a rather bad source of rewards. However the possibility to gate content is easier, and let's say more natural with vertical progression, than with other form of progression. But, is ultimately not bound on vertical progression.
If you want to gate your content(and there are a few good reasons to do so), you can it absolutely do with other ways.
And in GW2.. is it not the problem, that you don't get anything new regulary? (lack of further gated content after lvl80) In comparsion to the numbers game and increase, what vertical progression actually is?
I will admit, i am not a huge fan of steep vertical progression.
Originally posted by lobotaru For clarification, I am referring specifically to end game vertical progression, not leveling.
For me, any MMO that has an "end game" is one I will avoid. Dailies, Raiding, and other "end game" activities have no appeal to me. If I reach the "End Game", I retire my character. So, in my case, any vertical progression beyond leveling is considered "destructive."
So many gerbils working their "progression wheels" that I lose sight of the real game
That, obviously, is just you because progression after max level is popular, and many spent many hours on it.
Dallies and raiding are old ancient game modes. May be MMOs should learn some new ones (like Greater Rifts in D3).
The point is .. "destructive" for you ... "fun and entertaining" for many others.
I'm with AlBQuirky on this. End game should be something optional if you have somehow managed to do everything else a game has to offer.
Game developers want make us to believe the real game is the end game. Content is easier and cheaper to deliver, if you can forget everything you did in last patch/expansion. 'Old content is old', these new players say. New generation of MMO players talk about 'questing' or 'leveling' as it was something they have to do before they can play; a sort of 'attunement' to the MMO. These games are popular, indeed, among the 'gerbils'
I've played MMO's where gear progression was extreme (Rift, WoW) and I've also played MMO's that had no gear progression at all for 5 years (FFXI). The answer is somewhere in the middle and also with implementation.
Gear in XI was extremely difficult to acquire and often took years due to the poor open world spawn camp system that dropped them. Once you got them you were set for years and years down the line. While it was great to know that if i stopped playing for a few years my gear would still be the best, it was terrible for anyone not in the top 5%. This drove players away and into the arms of WoW.
At the same time, the way previous tiers of gear are instantly replaced once a new expansion launches in newer MMO's is also a terrible system. Just spent 2 years gearing up? Here have a fetch quest that immediately replaces what you have. I understand why they do it, otherwise no one would do the new quests that were implemented, but there has to be a better system.
I'd like to think that there is but i'm not sure it would be popular. Fans of both systems like what they're used to and trying to combine both so that everyone is happy will never work. Perhaps we have what we have because it's what works and keeps people playing?
Originally posted by lobotaru For clarification, I am referring specifically to end game vertical progression, not leveling.
For me, any MMO that has an "end game" is one I will avoid. Dailies, Raiding, and other "end game" activities have no appeal to me. If I reach the "End Game", I retire my character. So, in my case, any vertical progression beyond leveling is considered "destructive."
So many gerbils working their "progression wheels" that I lose sight of the real game
That, obviously, is just you because progression after max level is popular, and many spent many hours on it.
Dallies and raiding are old ancient game modes. May be MMOs should learn some new ones (like Greater Rifts in D3).
The point is .. "destructive" for you ... "fun and entertaining" for many others.
I'm with AlBQuirky on this. End game should be something optional if you have somehow managed to do everything else a game has to offer.
Game developers want make us to believe the real game is the end game. Content is easier and cheaper to deliver, if you can forget everything you did in last patch/expansion. 'Old content is old', these new players say. New generation of MMO players talk about 'questing' or 'leveling' as it was something they have to do before they can play; a sort of 'attunement' to the MMO. These games are popular, indeed, among the 'gerbils'
I'm not one of them.
Wow! That's a pretty bold statement. Creating content is easier and cheaper than building "sandbox" features (I'm assuming)? I don't know about that. I've done some work with procedurally-generated content in the past and it's not rocket science. Building worlds, animating, modelling, all that sounds like super-serious work to me.
The nice thing about a sandbox is that I can basically build something so random that it will do nothing but prove I'm doing sandbox. For instance, I could just spawn random monsters. So we could have some big ass dragon walking through the starter area, just breathing fire on all the newbs. And the sandbox crowd would think that's eff'n awesome! I can build horizontal progression, so once someone actually defeats that dragon, maybe some guy that literally signed up 30 minutes ago gets some of the best gear in the game and, again, the sandbox crowd would love it.
I don't think that there is, really, that much of a difference between the two, when it comes to work required. What is different is that progression, and I don't really think that sandbox games have figured out how to handle progression in such a way that it makes someone give a sh!t about the game. Whereas, themepark games have the progression part nailed down, but everything is just a little predictable (or a lot predictable).
Originally posted by lobotaru For clarification, I am referring specifically to end game vertical progression, not leveling.
For me, any MMO that has an "end game" is one I will avoid. Dailies, Raiding, and other "end game" activities have no appeal to me. If I reach the "End Game", I retire my character. So, in my case, any vertical progression beyond leveling is considered "destructive."
So many gerbils working their "progression wheels" that I lose sight of the real game
That, obviously, is just you because progression after max level is popular, and many spent many hours on it.
Dallies and raiding are old ancient game modes. May be MMOs should learn some new ones (like Greater Rifts in D3).
The point is .. "destructive" for you ... "fun and entertaining" for many others.
I'm with AlBQuirky on this. End game should be something optional if you have somehow managed to do everything else a game has to offer.
Game developers want make us to believe the real game is the end game. Content is easier and cheaper to deliver, if you can forget everything you did in last patch/expansion. 'Old content is old', these new players say. New generation of MMO players talk about 'questing' or 'leveling' as it was something they have to do before they can play; a sort of 'attunement' to the MMO. These games are popular, indeed, among the 'gerbils'
I'm not one of them.
resorting to calling players who like different stuff name? I don't see your preference to be "superior" than theirs. We are talking about time wasting entertainment here.
End game is already optional. You can always just level up alts. Isn't that what AlBQuirky said he did? That is, by definition, what optional means.
Originally posted by lobotaru For clarification, I am referring specifically to end game vertical progression, not leveling.
For me, any MMO that has an "end game" is one I will avoid. Dailies, Raiding, and other "end game" activities have no appeal to me. If I reach the "End Game", I retire my character. So, in my case, any vertical progression beyond leveling is considered "destructive."
So many gerbils working their "progression wheels" that I lose sight of the real game
That, obviously, is just you because progression after max level is popular, and many spent many hours on it.
Dallies and raiding are old ancient game modes. May be MMOs should learn some new ones (like Greater Rifts in D3).
The point is .. "destructive" for you ... "fun and entertaining" for many others.
I'm with AlBQuirky on this. End game should be something optional if you have somehow managed to do everything else a game has to offer.
Game developers want make us to believe the real game is the end game. Content is easier and cheaper to deliver, if you can forget everything you did in last patch/expansion. 'Old content is old', these new players say. New generation of MMO players talk about 'questing' or 'leveling' as it was something they have to do before they can play; a sort of 'attunement' to the MMO. These games are popular, indeed, among the 'gerbils'
I'm not one of them.
Wow! That's a pretty bold statement. Creating content is easier and cheaper than building "sandbox" features (I'm assuming)? I don't know about that. I've done some work with procedurally-generated content in the past and it's not rocket science. Building worlds, animating, modelling, all that sounds like super-serious work to me.
The nice thing about a sandbox is that I can basically build something so random that it will do nothing but prove I'm doing sandbox. For instance, I could just spawn random monsters. So we could have some big ass dragon walking through the starter area, just breathing fire on all the newbs. And the sandbox crowd would think that's eff'n awesome! I can build horizontal progression, so once someone actually defeats that dragon, maybe some guy that literally signed up 30 minutes ago gets some of the best gear in the game and, again, the sandbox crowd would love it.
I don't think that there is, really, that much of a difference between the two, when it comes to work required. What is different is that progression, and I don't really think that sandbox games have figured out how to handle progression in such a way that it makes someone give a sh!t about the game. Whereas, themepark games have the progression part nailed down, but everything is just a little predictable (or a lot predictable).
You got me wrong, mate.
What i meant was this 'WoW-model' where you create new bulk of content and forget all the previous content and let it become obsolate, and brainwash your players to think it's perfectly OK that more than 75% of the content is no longer relevant and becomes only an obstacle they have to get through.
However, i don't think 100% horizontal progression is the answer. I believe the progression should look more like a pyramid. For every step of vertical progression there should be the same amount of horizontal progression, thus making the pyramid larger but staying the same in shape. No vertical progression could make the game bland if your character's power remains the same, while no horizontal progression puts you in the 'hamster wheel', repeating the same stuff over and over again.
What i meant was this 'WoW-model' where you create new bulk of content and forget all the previous content and let it become obsolate, and brainwash your players to think it's perfectly OK that more than 75% of the content is no longer relevant and becomes only an obstacle they have to get through.
"brainwash"?
So what if 75% of the content is no longer relevant. It is a game .. if the 25% is fun, what is the problem here?
So what if 75% of the content is no longer relevant. It is a game .. if the 25% is fun, what is the problem here?
So most of the players are using 25% of the zones and then in a month they get bored with it and demand new content. It'd be much less costly for the dev and more fun for the players if all the zones stayed relevant.
Vertical progression can easily destroy a PvP game if the gap becomes too high, and that gap is not so huge at all.
In PvE it is easier, the balance doesn't work if you need raid gear to get the starting raid gear, or no-one would like to even consider inviting you on the starter raids. A few games are actually like that, you more or less have to beg your friends to get help to get the gear so you can start raiding.
Me personally want a rather small vertical progression over all, but that might be since I do like to do some PvP and it annoys me when I have to spend months if not more to get gear good enough to be able to beat people who plays worse, and in some games that is considerable worse. And it is not just about me getting killed all the time, it is also once I got the gear most fights still isn't fun since I can kill other players with less gear without much of a challenge. I just don't see the fun in that.
Originally posted by iridescence So most of the players are using 25% of the zones and then in a month they get bored with it and demand new content. It'd be much less costly for the dev and more fun for the players if all the zones stayed relevant.
Erm no. Players do want to move from zone to zone, it is a part of progression and people do want vertical progression.
Originally posted by iridescenceSo most of the players are using 25% of the zones and then in a month they get bored with it and demand new content. It'd be much less costly for the dev and more fun for the players if all the zones stayed relevant.
Erm no. Players do want to move from zone to zone, it is a part of progression and people do want vertical progression.
Players want to have changes in scenery, but this does not necessarily mean changes in zone... and most definately does not mean that zones must become obsolete.
A good zone design will have you returning many times over the progression of your character. This provides the best return for the development time for the zone, and increases socialization within the zone.
Originally posted by Bladestrom Eve doesn't have vertical progression and it is extremely stable and offers loads to do. As for gw2, a lot of people enjoy and play if - it does not have vertical progression - there is a max level of gear - ascended, and has been for a long time. progression is moving towards gw1 style - collecting, world adventuring and pvp, the way it should be I.e content not made meaningless. As for self destruction, well wow is the extreme example , thou upgrade on a weekly basis now and the game is totally screwed up - pvp broken, world content meaningless, balancing hell and dungeons that rely on dbm to provide cooldowns all over the place.
There really isn't much EVE has to offer in gameplay. You have; farm resources, create ships, sell ships/resources, quest, and pvp. Also, last time I checked EVE isn't doing so well. Here's a snip from their Financial report in 2013.
That's CCP financials not EvE. EvE is doing fine, however, CCP is not. With the failure of DUST and the cancellation of WoD (World of Darkness) all those put a strain on CCP as they basically threw money away. As a company they have to be careful on how they invest their earnings. I think they sort of jumped the gun on trying to diversify the company.
However, EvE Online is stable and doing fine. The game has a lot of things to do with a lot of opportunities. I do wish however, they would fix their bounty system though, among a few other things but overall you can do pretty much whatever you wish in EVE as long as it requires flying a space ship .
Players want to have changes in scenery, but this does not necessarily mean changes in zone... and most definately does not mean that zones must become obsolete.
A good zone design will have you returning many times over the progression of your character. This provides the best return for the development time for the zone, and increases socialization within the zone.
Yes and also no dev can possibly produce new content at the rate the vast majority of players consume it so outgrowing a lot of the zones quickly actually means a lot more repetition in the long run. Not to mention lower level zones feeling dead soon after the initial launch buzz wears off.
This has been something on my mind for a while after having experienced a year of FFXIV:ARR, a game that I have to say has tweaked its vertical progression to the point of being the worst I've ever seen.
1. So that begs the question of what are the signs that a developer has gone too far?
2a. Is it the angry droves of people in dungeons demanding that everything be run at max pace?
2b. Is it when you start to feel the game is making you play it out of the anxiety of falling behind?
3. When does the progression betray the original aims of the game and why?
4. Or is keeping people in the game via some level of anxiety an accepted part of the formula?
For clarification, I am referring specifically to end game vertical progression, not leveling.
1. It is kind of difficult to put down a general line of what is too much. I think each game needs to be looked at with each design decision taken into account. About the only generalization that can be guaranteed is that all micotransaction games have way too much vertical progression, but this is largely by design, since it always directly tied to the cash shop.
2. I am not so sure that this really a problem of vertical progression, but a problem of players not find other players with similar play styles. Is this a design problem by developers, or just a lack of effort by a player to find their place? IMHO, I don't think there is a good solution to this problem.
3. I would say this becomes relevant as soon as future updates become nothing more than an increase in the progression barrier.
4. It could be part of the formula for micotransaction games, but again I think this ties into a player not finding players with similar play styles.
For themepark MMORPG gear-grinders (WoW, GW2, Swtor, Rift, Aion, etc) and i.e. hack&slash games (Diablo, PoE) or games like Borderlands 2 vertical progression is NOT destructive.
If you wanna play an actual virtual world, then yes - vertical progression, unless very mild, slow and with addition of other concepts (item decay, item destroy, loot from players, etc) can be destructive.
So what if 75% of the content is no longer relevant. It is a game .. if the 25% is fun, what is the problem here?
So most of the players are using 25% of the zones and then in a month they get bored with it and demand new content. It'd be much less costly for the dev and more fun for the players if all the zones stayed relevant.
Nah, it would be more fun for the players to play new games.
This is just like complaining that after I finished CoD3, i have to move to CoD4, and it would be boring to reply CoD3 single player campaign again. Well, in the gaming world, content is finished, and players are moving onto newer stuff everyday.
May be MMO should learn from that, rather than recycling old zones.
Or maybe MMO should relearn from better games that value replay, examples :eve, civ, aoe,aow,Starcraft, gw1 & 2, skyrim etc, Diablo series, magic the gathering, sporting games. The list of Games that are well designed goes on and on.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Originally posted by Bladestrom Or maybe MMO should relearn from better games that value replay, examples :eve, civ, aoe,aow,Starcraft, gw1 & 2, skyrim etc, Diablo series, magic the gathering, sporting games. The list of Games that are well designed goes on and on.
MMO already did ...
starcraft is instanced pvp .. checked.
diablo/mtg ... having lobbies .. checked.
GW1 & 2 .. not charging a sub ... checked.
SKYRIM ... make sure it can be played as a single player game ... checked.
Referring to content that is not destroyed by levelling. the answer in any case is simple - you scale the player to match the context, or you stop increasing power, or both.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Comments
As I see it, there are two instances when vertical progression becomes a problem:
1) The first, and biggest, is when it renders old content obsolete too quickly. As instance I can think of where this didn't happen was in EQ1 for the first several years of its life. For example, in 2003, when Planes of Power was the current expansion, people were still grouping and raiding in zones from vanilla, which came out in 1999. That means you had people spread out over four years of content and four expansions. I think WoW changed this where basically every time new content came out, it essentially replaced all existing content. EQ1 more or less adopted this model later in its life as well, and I am not a fan of it as it tends to make the game world feel very small as there are large portions of the world that nobody ever visits.
2) The second, is when the gap between the hardcore and mid range players is too large. I will leave the ultra casual players out of this point, because they will be behind in every game, regardless of what the progression looks like. But when the gap between someone who plays 35 hours a week in a hardcore guild, and someone who puts in 10 hours a week but is still a good player is so huge that the two can't even compete with each other, it just makes a lot of people frustrated.
So many gerbils working their "progression wheels" that I lose sight of the real game
- 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
depends on the content you were doing
in EQ1, w Luclin in 2001, SOE did a gear reset with Raid gear
- it was gear up, conquer new raid content
the Luclin raid gear outclassed the NTOV gear
and POP raid gear outclassed the Luclin raid gear, etc, etc
also, SOE unlike many mmos including WOW,
had a few expansions where new leveling content was added for ALL LEVELS
this happened in 3 expansions: Kunark, Luclin, The Serpent Spire
and partially for LDON levels 20-60, LOY levels 36-60
EQ1 easily had too much content under 60 preWOW
it was rare to see players in Luclin 2 years later, with exception to Paludal Caverns,
-- even tho Luclin supported leveling from 1-60
=====================
this is one of the reasons i enjoyed the original GuildWars so much
no endless gear grinds (there were grinds for cosmetic gear tho)
EQ2 fan sites
For me it depends on how the vertical progression is handled. I like to play a lot of alts, so I prefer games where time spent on my alts counts toward advancing my main/s. An example is Marvel Heroes, where as I level my alts I unlock points and currencies I can spend on all my characters.
Vertical progression is not so bad when it is shared between game modes, zones, and characters. When you the player have the freedom to chose where you will "grind" and with what character.
When you tie progression to a specific zone or game mode, you find players who don't like that particular content trying to rush through it. When progression is on a per-character basis, you find a shortage of geared healers or whatever because they aren't as much fun to play solo.
That, obviously, is just you because progression after max level is popular, and many spent many hours on it.
Dallies and raiding are old ancient game modes. May be MMOs should learn some new ones (like Greater Rifts in D3).
The point is .. "destructive" for you ... "fun and entertaining" for many others.
So.. content become not stale, because you got some new numbers? Because basicly.. that's it. You get better stats more or less the same as your enemies(NPCs, Mobs).
Or is it the "ding" feeling that let you forget that the content is already stale? At least form some it works for a while.
Vertical Progression is usually just the carrot on the stick on your hamster wheel. Well.. i will not argue, that horizontal progression more often than not does have the same purpose. However.. sometimes horizontal progression can actually add something new to the game, to the experience, like new skills, new possible tactics and stuff like that.. but that kind of horizontal progression is rather limited... there is just no way in hell to come up with always new, and actually different abilities.
Progression is in most cases just a way to reward players, to give them a feeling of accomplishment. The question remains, if the disadvantages of a steep vertical progression make them a rather bad source of rewards. However the possibility to gate content is easier, and let's say more natural with vertical progression, than with other form of progression. But, is ultimately not bound on vertical progression.
If you want to gate your content(and there are a few good reasons to do so), you can it absolutely do with other ways.
And in GW2.. is it not the problem, that you don't get anything new regulary? (lack of further gated content after lvl80) In comparsion to the numbers game and increase, what vertical progression actually is?
I will admit, i am not a huge fan of steep vertical progression.
I'm with AlBQuirky on this. End game should be something optional if you have somehow managed to do everything else a game has to offer.
Game developers want make us to believe the real game is the end game. Content is easier and cheaper to deliver, if you can forget everything you did in last patch/expansion. 'Old content is old', these new players say. New generation of MMO players talk about 'questing' or 'leveling' as it was something they have to do before they can play; a sort of 'attunement' to the MMO. These games are popular, indeed, among the 'gerbils'
I'm not one of them.
I've played MMO's where gear progression was extreme (Rift, WoW) and I've also played MMO's that had no gear progression at all for 5 years (FFXI). The answer is somewhere in the middle and also with implementation.
Gear in XI was extremely difficult to acquire and often took years due to the poor open world spawn camp system that dropped them. Once you got them you were set for years and years down the line. While it was great to know that if i stopped playing for a few years my gear would still be the best, it was terrible for anyone not in the top 5%. This drove players away and into the arms of WoW.
At the same time, the way previous tiers of gear are instantly replaced once a new expansion launches in newer MMO's is also a terrible system. Just spent 2 years gearing up? Here have a fetch quest that immediately replaces what you have. I understand why they do it, otherwise no one would do the new quests that were implemented, but there has to be a better system.
I'd like to think that there is but i'm not sure it would be popular. Fans of both systems like what they're used to and trying to combine both so that everyone is happy will never work. Perhaps we have what we have because it's what works and keeps people playing?
Wow! That's a pretty bold statement. Creating content is easier and cheaper than building "sandbox" features (I'm assuming)? I don't know about that. I've done some work with procedurally-generated content in the past and it's not rocket science. Building worlds, animating, modelling, all that sounds like super-serious work to me.
The nice thing about a sandbox is that I can basically build something so random that it will do nothing but prove I'm doing sandbox. For instance, I could just spawn random monsters. So we could have some big ass dragon walking through the starter area, just breathing fire on all the newbs. And the sandbox crowd would think that's eff'n awesome! I can build horizontal progression, so once someone actually defeats that dragon, maybe some guy that literally signed up 30 minutes ago gets some of the best gear in the game and, again, the sandbox crowd would love it.
I don't think that there is, really, that much of a difference between the two, when it comes to work required. What is different is that progression, and I don't really think that sandbox games have figured out how to handle progression in such a way that it makes someone give a sh!t about the game. Whereas, themepark games have the progression part nailed down, but everything is just a little predictable (or a lot predictable).
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
resorting to calling players who like different stuff name? I don't see your preference to be "superior" than theirs. We are talking about time wasting entertainment here.
End game is already optional. You can always just level up alts. Isn't that what AlBQuirky said he did? That is, by definition, what optional means.
You got me wrong, mate.
What i meant was this 'WoW-model' where you create new bulk of content and forget all the previous content and let it become obsolate, and brainwash your players to think it's perfectly OK that more than 75% of the content is no longer relevant and becomes only an obstacle they have to get through.
However, i don't think 100% horizontal progression is the answer. I believe the progression should look more like a pyramid. For every step of vertical progression there should be the same amount of horizontal progression, thus making the pyramid larger but staying the same in shape. No vertical progression could make the game bland if your character's power remains the same, while no horizontal progression puts you in the 'hamster wheel', repeating the same stuff over and over again.
"brainwash"?
So what if 75% of the content is no longer relevant. It is a game .. if the 25% is fun, what is the problem here?
So most of the players are using 25% of the zones and then in a month they get bored with it and demand new content. It'd be much less costly for the dev and more fun for the players if all the zones stayed relevant.
Vertical progression can easily destroy a PvP game if the gap becomes too high, and that gap is not so huge at all.
In PvE it is easier, the balance doesn't work if you need raid gear to get the starting raid gear, or no-one would like to even consider inviting you on the starter raids. A few games are actually like that, you more or less have to beg your friends to get help to get the gear so you can start raiding.
Me personally want a rather small vertical progression over all, but that might be since I do like to do some PvP and it annoys me when I have to spend months if not more to get gear good enough to be able to beat people who plays worse, and in some games that is considerable worse. And it is not just about me getting killed all the time, it is also once I got the gear most fights still isn't fun since I can kill other players with less gear without much of a challenge. I just don't see the fun in that.
Erm no. Players do want to move from zone to zone, it is a part of progression and people do want vertical progression.
Players want to have changes in scenery, but this does not necessarily mean changes in zone... and most definately does not mean that zones must become obsolete.
A good zone design will have you returning many times over the progression of your character. This provides the best return for the development time for the zone, and increases socialization within the zone.
That's CCP financials not EvE. EvE is doing fine, however, CCP is not. With the failure of DUST and the cancellation of WoD (World of Darkness) all those put a strain on CCP as they basically threw money away. As a company they have to be careful on how they invest their earnings. I think they sort of jumped the gun on trying to diversify the company.
However, EvE Online is stable and doing fine. The game has a lot of things to do with a lot of opportunities. I do wish however, they would fix their bounty system though, among a few other things but overall you can do pretty much whatever you wish in EVE as long as it requires flying a space ship
.
Check out this article on Why Crafting Sucks
Yes and also no dev can possibly produce new content at the rate the vast majority of players consume it so outgrowing a lot of the zones quickly actually means a lot more repetition in the long run. Not to mention lower level zones feeling dead soon after the initial launch buzz wears off.
1. It is kind of difficult to put down a general line of what is too much. I think each game needs to be looked at with each design decision taken into account. About the only generalization that can be guaranteed is that all micotransaction games have way too much vertical progression, but this is largely by design, since it always directly tied to the cash shop.
2. I am not so sure that this really a problem of vertical progression, but a problem of players not find other players with similar play styles. Is this a design problem by developers, or just a lack of effort by a player to find their place? IMHO, I don't think there is a good solution to this problem.
3. I would say this becomes relevant as soon as future updates become nothing more than an increase in the progression barrier.
4. It could be part of the formula for micotransaction games, but again I think this ties into a player not finding players with similar play styles.
It depends on type of game you wanna play.
For themepark MMORPG gear-grinders (WoW, GW2, Swtor, Rift, Aion, etc) and i.e. hack&slash games (Diablo, PoE) or games like Borderlands 2 vertical progression is NOT destructive.
If you wanna play an actual virtual world, then yes - vertical progression, unless very mild, slow and with addition of other concepts (item decay, item destroy, loot from players, etc) can be destructive.
Nah, it would be more fun for the players to play new games.
This is just like complaining that after I finished CoD3, i have to move to CoD4, and it would be boring to reply CoD3 single player campaign again. Well, in the gaming world, content is finished, and players are moving onto newer stuff everyday.
May be MMO should learn from that, rather than recycling old zones.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
MMO already did ...
starcraft is instanced pvp .. checked.
diablo/mtg ... having lobbies .. checked.
GW1 & 2 .. not charging a sub ... checked.
SKYRIM ... make sure it can be played as a single player game ... checked.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D