I see a huge difference in "gamey" design that enforces community and social aspects like these games you mentioned, and a "worldly" design that nudges players towards cooperative play, and thus a social environment, through a more realistic approach as in "the way of the world." That's probably the key difference between you and me on this topic.
Note also how the conversation switched from "MMOs are like single-player games, everything is soloable, there is no grouping/socialization" to "That's an exception" and "I don't like that particular way of grouping/socialization". Which is why I say goalpost moving and why when you say I am not being honest I roll my eyes.
So we're up to 4 games now that have some sort of "socializing" aspect to the design. 4 games now. FOUR.
We're talking about the MMORPG genre, are we not?
And I still would debate that those are specific content, and not the game design as a whole.
MMORPGs generally provide abundant support for socializing by default. Virtually all of them provide chat systems. The vast majority provide guild systems. Some of them even provide their own voice chat. A few even go so far as to encourage players to group with others by enhancing play rewards for those that do.
Players themselves frequently advertise their guilds in chat ad nauseam making a point of how open their guilds are to new and veteran players alike, essentially bending over to convince others to join them.
There is no shortage of socialization opportunities in modern MMORPGs.
It's not just an issue of players not needing to group with others in much of the content that counters the social aspect of MMORPGs. Many simply don't want to, even when the game outright bribes them to do so.
You guys are not getting what I'm trying to say. And I'm having trouble putting it into words. I also fell into the trap of discussing just what you have said, and that leaves out "the rest of the story", as it were.
About social interaction, it's not just about inside a guild. It's about a game wide design that causes guilds to be attractive and beneficial, PLUS socializing the rest of the world into the mix. A simulation of real life dropped into a game world, "creating worlds" instead of chunks of content.
Eve has it. You interact in your guild, and you interact with the rest of the game through contracts and alliances and such. UO had it too.
PvP was the driver for that in Eve and UO. There was some of that sort of world wide social interaction too, but not enough yet, in my opinion. That doesn't mean a game can't be made for wide ranging interactions of the entire player base, and without PvP as the driver. That's the sort of evolution some (evidently very few) of us expected.
There are problems with scaling content that some of you want to ignore because you don't consider them problems when so many others do. But they are still problems, and that's not just opinion. It's real.
You can design a benefit to social interaction and even a need for it, but you can't design it to be attractive to those not interested for whatever reason.
I'm sure that was the evolution expected by many at one time. That should have been curbed when it became clear how many players were keen on moving to games where socialization was less of a factor.
I see problems with content scaling, but also benefits that I feel outweigh them. They may or not be the problems you see, and those you do see may or not be seen as such to me. While they aren't entirely opinion they are heavily laced with it.
For some reason despite all this talk about socilization I forgot the MMORPG I was by far the most social in. Though there was a need for grouping in high level content that wasn't the cause of it. Rather, the nature of game provided ample opportunity for socializing even during play.
Dofus is a turn-based tactical game. At the high-end the number of party members and enemies each taking their own turn gave each person a fair amount of time between actions. Part of this went to discussing tactics as that was often needed, but the majority was spent socializing without the pressure of each person having to act concurrently.
We talked about anything and everything during play, often at length and sometimes quite deeply. That did allow me to form a deeper connection than usual as I'm not prone to idle chatter for the sake of it or to devote time to such.
It got to the point where I would participate in PvP to defend guild holdings when they were attacked, which is something I generally dislike and would normally never do.
I don't agree with this. When points of game play come along, where there are possible social interactions or not (a choice), people will make a quick decision on that based on their primary goals at that time. You know... Should I interact or do that thing that I'm doing (going to the market to sell off loot, or whatever). With no incentive to interact, they won't. It's choosing to do what's best for yourself. Nothing wrong there. But it removes interaction with other players.
Note that interaction is a social thing, but it's not necessarily the same thing as being "social". This is an important aspect, in my mind. Once a player starts interacting, the "social" comes out more often, because that's just the way we are (mostly). Especially if you start to "know" (not speaking Biblically) the other through repeated contact.
1) Personal experience tells me otherwise - that what you say is sometimes true, but is not absolute. Sometimes relaxing the requirements and constraints lets people socialize on their own terms and this helps too.
2) There are currently MMOs in the market like you described, where social interactions are encouraged or required.
1) Nothing is absolute. There's are balances and tipping points to consider, though.
2) That may be, but part of my point which I've failed to explain is that the answers, the design, should not come with their own problems. Scaling, as an example.
I am a vet too started at year 2000 but I prefer todays mmos than those of the past. The days that i cant progress at all because I cant find a group or that Im forced to play with ppl I dont really care for are thankfully behind me Now I group when I want too 100% better game design
I dunno...I made ALOT of friends in Everquest...more than all over games I have played combined.....The community made the game...i go back now and then and just log out because all the people I knew are gone......I've tried all the newer MMOs (Gw2, ESO, FFXIV, BDO, etc etc) and they just bore me after a short time, usually around level 20 or so.....
2) That may be, but part of my point which I've failed to explain is that the answers, the design, should not come with their own problems. Scaling, as an example.
Nothing is perfect so everything comes with problems. If the standard for change is perfection it will never happen. Aspiring to such leads to perpetual stagnation.
MMORPGs without scaling have their own benefits and problems. The value of having both types available is that players can choose which collection of positives and negatives they prefer of the two which is better than no choice at all.
Shocking there is no true Marvel IP mmo as of yet. One of the biggest IP out there.
The Irony? if I told you SE had a hand in making an online Marvel title given the success of FFXI and FFXIV....what type of game would you think this was?????
Now that one, boggles the mind.....notwithstanding it was a total failure which actually costed SE like, over one hundred million bucka-roos. A Marvel MMO would be huge.
Marvel Heroes was MUA2.5
I think every IP should try an mmo. Tekken, Street fighter, Sonic...All MMO everything.......Muahahahaha!!!!
Megaman X tried one, got canned.
But I digress.......
MMO are doing well, many games are shifting towards online play. MMO culture had a hand in that imo.
2) That may be, but part of my point which I've failed to explain is that the answers, the design, should not come with their own problems. Scaling, as an example.
Nothing is perfect so everything comes with problems. If the standard for change is perfection it will never happen. Aspiring to such leads to perpetual stagnation.
MMORPGs without scaling have their own benefits and problems. The value of having both types available is that players can choose which collection of positives and negatives they prefer of the two which is better than no choice at all.
I don't see them as problems, rather as tradeoffs with a kind of "Pareto front" (you can have a series of good but competing game designs for different tastes).
Otherwise agree.
Each has clear problems that the other solves.
Non-scaling games are locked into a state of perpetual obsolescence of the world itself and everything you derive from it. They also divide players between content bands.
A game fully scaled up and down where you can play wherever whenever you want, such as ESO, compromises story sequence which is an issue for many MMORPG players.
In fact, the original ESO story is broken. It can't be progressed past a certain point without first completing the prelude to Elsewhere which takes place after the original story. Well, it can eventually, but in a manner even more of a bother.
I have no complaints. For the older players that yearn for the open sandbox mmorpgs of old. Other gaming genres have taken the best aspects of those mmos so we can play those. i found the Sandbox/Survival sub-genre scratches that itch quite well.
2) That may be, but part of my point which I've failed to explain is that the answers, the design, should not come with their own problems. Scaling, as an example.
Nothing is perfect so everything comes with problems. If the standard for change is perfection it will never happen. Aspiring to such leads to perpetual stagnation.
MMORPGs without scaling have their own benefits and problems. The value of having both types available is that players can choose which collection of positives and negatives they prefer of the two which is better than no choice at all.
I don't see them as problems, rather as tradeoffs with a kind of "Pareto front" (you can have a series of good but competing game designs for different tastes).
Otherwise agree.
Each has clear problems that the other solves.
Non-scaling games are locked into a state of perpetual obsolescence of the world itself and everything you derive from it. They also divide players between content bands.
A game fully scaled up and down where you can play wherever whenever you want, such as ESO, compromises story sequence which is an issue for many MMORPG players.
In fact, the original ESO story is broken. It can't be progressed past a certain point without first completing the prelude to Elsewhere which takes place after the original story. Well, it can eventually, but in a manner even more of a bother.
You see, you guys are ignoring Sandbox and "Low Power Gaps", which is the true answer.
My position is that you guys would not even notice the difference created with Low Power Gaps. What you would notice is the difference in game play, as in a true Sandbox you wouldn't have the lineal Quest driven content, and you'd instead have the wide open world to choose from. And I don't think you'd be unhappy with that as game play either.
The biggest "drawback" that you'd notice is that you'd have so many choices instead of being locked into a predetermined course to map out your experience.
And you'd gain so much. - Freedom - A world full of many more things of interest to do. - A much wider scale of social interaction that comes with realistic patterns (trade and economics, politics, city building, your own estates to build upon, world knowledge that always applies, no loss of content, always something to look forwards to, etc., etc).
You see, you guys are ignoring Sandbox and "Low Power Gaps", which is the true answer.
My position is that you guys would not even notice the difference created with Low Power Gaps. What you would notice is the difference in game play, as in a true Sandbox you wouldn't have the lineal Quest driven content, and you'd instead have the wide open world to choose from. And I don't think you'd be unhappy with that as game play either.
The biggest "drawback" that you'd notice is that you'd have so many choices instead of being locked into a predetermined course to map out your experience.
And you'd gain so much. - Freedom - A world full of many more things of interest to do. - A much wider scale of social interaction that comes with realistic patterns (trade and economics, politics, city building, your own estates to build upon, world knowledge that always applies, no loss of content, always something to look forwards to, etc., etc).
Not mentioning sandbox when I'm focusing on something else isn't ignoring it, just my focusing on something else.
Sandbox isn't an answer. It's an alternative, and not even that for those that have no interest in what that type of MMORPG offers.
Not everyone wants extensive freedom, preferring a framework in which to function. Some people are happy with limited things to do so long as they greatly enjoy doing them. Many players are looking for an escape from the realistic, having quite enough of that from actual reality.
For some, your gain is their loss.
Low power gaps sounds at odds with progression. If not power, what would progress? How would it be seen and measurable? How would it be meaningful to the player?
GW2, you are done with levels in a couple days or instantly if you use levelling tomes. Levelling is a minor part of the game. Then the whole game world is open to you. Yes, with downscaling. Irrelevant, if you had no levels, the effect would be the same. The rest of the progression introduces much smaller or no power gaps (hero/mastery points, ascended gear, building up agony resistance, cosmetics, mounts etc). It is touted as one of the game's biggest advantages and I agree. There's still those saying they do not want to play the game because there is no vertical progression.
Torchlight Frontiers experimented with flattening the power curve by having the players levelling "biomes". Brilliant concept if you ask me. Players still balked at the idea.
Get rid of the power gaps, and you still dissatisfy those that want them. I have played games (sandboxes or not) with small or even zero power gaps. I loved them. The concept is not foreign to me. Me and you are not speaking for everyone. Lots of players do not accept progression as being meaningful if it does not include a significant increase in power.
One of things that I liked about GW2 system was that with Down Leveling, there was still a sense of progress that is typical in MMO's. Unlike a Sandbox, in GW2, Your world expands as you level.
Which is where I think GW2 really hit a sweet spot.
As you go up in levels, new zones open, new abilities open up to you, new trait lines become available, new armors with additional stat combinations open up, as well as runes, sigils, and a slew of other things make their way into your build.
But, thanks to down-scaling, the world grows, it does not shrink. You can always go back to the starting areas, and complete them, do events there, and there is no sense of being bottlenecked into the new content, or 'cap' content, which is why Core is still the most popular content of the game, because you can always return to it.
I think that was about the best feature of GW2, to be honest. There was a sense of progress, but also a sense of your world growing because of it, not shrinking.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Maybe for a player who has only played "couch console" games for "up to 4 players?" Massive is a descriptor, not a set number.
or maybe you should realize that due to the "server hop" mechanic in a server cluster a player can interact with thousands of different people if they wish. .
here is a link where you can see capacity for the different official clusters by game type and region.
I had lost all hope for the genre until I saw Soul Worker.
Yah.. for the longest time, I felt my love of porn and my love of MMO's would never collide in a perfectly socially accepted way before that game launched.. too bad the game sucks and not in a good way.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
You see, you guys are ignoring Sandbox and "Low Power Gaps", which is the true answer.
My position is that you guys would not even notice the difference created with Low Power Gaps. What you would notice is the difference in game play, as in a true Sandbox you wouldn't have the lineal Quest driven content, and you'd instead have the wide open world to choose from. And I don't think you'd be unhappy with that as game play either.
The biggest "drawback" that you'd notice is that you'd have so many choices instead of being locked into a predetermined course to map out your experience.
And you'd gain so much. - Freedom - A world full of many more things of interest to do. - A much wider scale of social interaction that comes with realistic patterns (trade and economics, politics, city building, your own estates to build upon, world knowledge that always applies, no loss of content, always something to look forwards to, etc., etc).
Not mentioning sandbox when I'm focusing on something else isn't ignoring it, just my focusing on something else.
Sandbox isn't an answer. It's an alternative, and not even that for those that have no interest in what that type of MMORPG offers.
Not everyone wants extensive freedom, preferring a framework in which to function. Some people are happy with limited things to do so long as they greatly enjoy doing them. Many players are looking for an escape from the realistic, having quite enough of that from actual reality.
For some, your gain is their loss.
Low power gaps sounds at odds with progression. If not power, what would progress? How would it be seen and measurable? How would it be meaningful to the player?
Low Power Gaps still has progression. It's just that most of the world always remains viable content. If you can now defeat a powerful Liche solo, you still have to be concerned with 2 of them. That sort of thing. So strategy becomes more in focus, and you still may be able to lure 1 of the 2 Liches away to solo it, then take out the other, using new skills or magical items. And then there's the possibility of running into 3 Liches, your progression, and so on. But as a world, you never know what you are going to run into. It might be one powerful Liche, or it might be more.
It's really not any different than high Power Gaps in this, just tones down. But it makes for a world that doesn't become obsolete to you.
Enter Scaling, and you never really feel like you are progressing because everything scales to you.
Maybe for a player who has only played "couch console" games for "up to 4 players?" Massive is a descriptor, not a set number.
or maybe you should realize that due to the "server hop" mechanic in a server cluster a player can interact with thousands of different people if they wish. .
here is a link where you can see capacity for the different official clusters by game type and region.
So now 4 people is massive as long as they are all online? I guess you will put Diablo into the MMO catagory.
This is how you know MMO's are dieing, when people have to stretch what they call an MMO because there is not enough games to qualify.
If there was so many real MMO's people would be trying to divide the genre into sub areas, not combine them into a single entity.
what the hell are you talking about four people? I never said anything like that, you do know how the quote system works on this site right??
Im talking about the ability for ARK players to interact with tens of thousands of other players due to server hop. . .stop being deliberately obtuse.
The four players was pointed to me, the first of the quotes. You totally missed the point I was making that "massive" is a relative term, not a hard, solid number.
- 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
Enter Scaling, and you never really feel like you are progressing because everything scales to you.
With scaling you still progress, as while everything scales with you numerically it doesn't in terms of breadth of ability. An established character has far more on tap to bring into any situation than a new one.
Enter Scaling, and you never really feel like you are progressing because everything scales to you.
With scaling you still progress, as while everything scales with you numerically it doesn't in terms of breadth of ability. An established character has far more on tap to bring into any situation than a new one.
So what? The MOBs still scale to you. There's no sense of real progression when that happens. Why did you leave out the part of the quote that explains this (The Liches that don't change)?
Enter Scaling, and you never really feel like you are progressing because everything scales to you.
With scaling you still progress, as while everything scales with you numerically it doesn't in terms of breadth of ability. An established character has far more on tap to bring into any situation than a new one.
I was surprised when I last played WoW (late last year) that when I decided to work on my Death Knight's mining skill. I had to go to low level places in search of copper nodes. I had to fight my way through just to do some simple mining. Sure the fights were meaningless, but they were more than annoying.
No thanks. I'll skip "scaling:
- 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
Maybe for a player who has only played "couch console" games for "up to 4 players?" Massive is a descriptor, not a set number.
or maybe you should realize that due to the "server hop" mechanic in a server cluster a player can interact with thousands of different people if they wish. .
here is a link where you can see capacity for the different official clusters by game type and region.
So now 4 people is massive as long as they are all online? I guess you will put Diablo into the MMO catagory.
This is how you know MMO's are dieing, when people have to stretch what they call an MMO because there is not enough games to qualify.
If there was so many real MMO's people would be trying to divide the genre into sub areas, not combine them into a single entity.
what the hell are you talking about four people? I never said anything like that, you do know how the quote system works on this site right??
Im talking about the ability for ARK players to interact with tens of thousands of other players due to server hop. . .stop being deliberately obtuse.
You totally missed the point I was making that "massive" is a relative term, not a hard, solid number.
Not really, all it takes is some authority with the power to enforce it's definition of a term (it's Massively btw).
Many years ago this site had very specific criteria of what qualified for it's own listing and forum here.
500 players in a persistent virtual world was one, but there were some others like proving the development was past the concept / trailer stage by providing several screen shots from within the game itself.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Not really, all it takes is some authority with the power to enforce it's definition of a term (it's Massively btw).
Many years ago this site had very specific criteria of what qualified for it's own listing and forum here.
500 players in a persistent virtual world was one, but there were some others like proving the development was past the concept / trailer stage by providing several screen shots from within the game itself.
"Massively" is comparative, but the comparison that should be made is to the rest of the industry, not to what the player is used to.
If you want to say your game is massively multiplayer, what you are saying is that the multiplayer component of your game is massively bigger than other multiplayer online games.
As to definitions, I remember an article by Bill on this website (i think 2016ish) where the whole team discussed the definition of "MMO". Everyone weighed in and said "it's about how many players you can fit in the same place". They interviewed Richard Garriot who said "when I invented the term, it meant 250+ players in the same zone". Raph Koster joined in and said "its all about the number of players in the same virtual environment, and that number needs to be big".
Essentially, they all agreed.......
But then in the last paragraph, Bill just outright said he was going to ignore everything they'd just said because he didn't personally care about the scale of multiplayer, only about being able to play an RPG with his mates.
And that seems to be the official stance of this website ever since. As that stance seems to match a lot of the community (because there are a lot of players who just wanna play with their mates, and not a lot of players who actually care about the scale of the multiplayer), it seems to have stuck.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
Not really, all it takes is some authority with the power to enforce it's definition of a term (it's Massively btw).
Many years ago this site had very specific criteria of what qualified for it's own listing and forum here.
500 players in a persistent virtual world was one, but there were some others like proving the development was past the concept / trailer stage by providing several screen shots from within the game itself.
"Massively" is comparative, but the comparison that should be made is to the rest of the industry, not to what the player is used to.
If you want to say your game is massively multiplayer, what you are saying is that the multiplayer component of your game is massively bigger than other multiplayer online games.
As to definitions, I remember an article by Bill on this website (i think 2016ish) where the whole team discussed the definition of "MMO". Everyone weighed in and said "it's about how many players you can fit in the same place". They interviewed Richard Garriot who said "when I invented the term, it meant 250+ players in the same zone". Raph Koster joined in and said "its all about the number of players in the same virtual environment, and that number needs to be big".
Essentially, they all agreed.......
But then in the last paragraph, Bill just outright said he was going to ignore everything they'd just said because he didn't personally care about the scale of multiplayer, only about being able to play an RPG with his mates.
And that seems to be the official stance of this website ever since. As that stance seems to match a lot of the community (because there are a lot of players who just wanna play with their mates, and not a lot of players who actually care about the scale of the multiplayer), it seems to have stuck.
WoW had a lot to do with that. It was the best thing by far in MMORPGs when it released, and it definitely did away with the massive numbers in a zone, what with level division of content and instances. And that group play was like D&D, which is what most new MMO gamers expected.
To some that was a drawback, to those others it was what they wanted. I think times have changed and all those new players aren't new anymore. Now, something needs to advance as far as game play in a massive environment. It's all become too "been there, done that" in a big way.
But few people are willing to say that. You get hit hard by the hardcore group players defending their game style. And that's if a gamer even recognizes what exactly is old about MMORPGs.
Not really, all it takes is some authority with the power to enforce it's definition of a term (it's Massively btw).
Many years ago this site had very specific criteria of what qualified for it's own listing and forum here.
500 players in a persistent virtual world was one, but there were some others like proving the development was past the concept / trailer stage by providing several screen shots from within the game itself.
"Massively" is comparative, but the comparison that should be made is to the rest of the industry, not to what the player is used to.
If you want to say your game is massively multiplayer, what you are saying is that the multiplayer component of your game is massively bigger than other multiplayer online games.
As to definitions, I remember an article by Bill on this website (i think 2016ish) where the whole team discussed the definition of "MMO". Everyone weighed in and said "it's about how many players you can fit in the same place". They interviewed Richard Garriot who said "when I invented the term, it meant 250+ players in the same zone". Raph Koster joined in and said "its all about the number of players in the same virtual environment, and that number needs to be big".
Essentially, they all agreed.......
But then in the last paragraph, Bill just outright said he was going to ignore everything they'd just said because he didn't personally care about the scale of multiplayer, only about being able to play an RPG with his mates.
And that seems to be the official stance of this website ever since. As that stance seems to match a lot of the community (because there are a lot of players who just wanna play with their mates, and not a lot of players who actually care about the scale of the multiplayer), it seems to have stuck.
Garriot .. Never said anything about 250 people ..
He was asked about UO and technology and why he call it an MMORPG
And he said his servers can hold thousands of players and all can effect each other in a persistent world even while offline ..
UO servers can hold 2500 people and thats the number he was referring to .. Not 250
ANd there were no zones in UO ... why would he say that
Not really, all it takes is some authority with the power to enforce it's definition of a term (it's Massively btw).
Many years ago this site had very specific criteria of what qualified for it's own listing and forum here.
500 players in a persistent virtual world was one, but there were some others like proving the development was past the concept / trailer stage by providing several screen shots from within the game itself.
"Massively" is comparative, but the comparison that should be made is to the rest of the industry, not to what the player is used to.
If you want to say your game is massively multiplayer, what you are saying is that the multiplayer component of your game is massively bigger than other multiplayer online games.
As to definitions, I remember an article by Bill on this website (i think 2016ish) where the whole team discussed the definition of "MMO". Everyone weighed in and said "it's about how many players you can fit in the same place". They interviewed Richard Garriot who said "when I invented the term, it meant 250+ players in the same zone". Raph Koster joined in and said "its all about the number of players in the same virtual environment, and that number needs to be big".
Essentially, they all agreed.......
But then in the last paragraph, Bill just outright said he was going to ignore everything they'd just said because he didn't personally care about the scale of multiplayer, only about being able to play an RPG with his mates.
And that seems to be the official stance of this website ever since. As that stance seems to match a lot of the community (because there are a lot of players who just wanna play with their mates, and not a lot of players who actually care about the scale of the multiplayer), it seems to have stuck.
Garriot .. Never said anything about 250 people ..
He was asked about UO and technology and why he call it an MMORPG
And he said his servers can hold thousands of players and all can effect each other in a persistent world even while offline ..
UO servers can hold 2500 people and thats the number he was referring to .. Not 250
ANd there were no zones in UO ... why would he say that
I always heard, many times, that their Shards could hold 3,000 concurrent players at a time, and 10,000 total. They did have "soft zones." There were 6 or 8, I forget which, on the world map. You wouldn't notice them unless you, or they, were running laggy. That's where Duping happened. Players figured out that you could drop gold, cross the line, reach back and pick up the gold, cross back over, and the original gold pile would pop back and you could pick it up. (I think that's how it worked, I never did it.)
Edit to add: The game had to be under stress from being full for that to work, if I remember right.
Comments
You can design a benefit to social interaction and even a need for it, but you can't design it to be attractive to those not interested for whatever reason.
I'm sure that was the evolution expected by many at one time. That should have been curbed when it became clear how many players were keen on moving to games where socialization was less of a factor.
I see problems with content scaling, but also benefits that I feel outweigh them. They may or not be the problems you see, and those you do see may or not be seen as such to me. While they aren't entirely opinion they are heavily laced with it.
Dofus is a turn-based tactical game. At the high-end the number of party members and enemies each taking their own turn gave each person a fair amount of time between actions. Part of this went to discussing tactics as that was often needed, but the majority was spent socializing without the pressure of each person having to act concurrently.
We talked about anything and everything during play, often at length and sometimes quite deeply. That did allow me to form a deeper connection than usual as I'm not prone to idle chatter for the sake of it or to devote time to such.
It got to the point where I would participate in PvP to defend guild holdings when they were attacked, which is something I generally dislike and would normally never do.
2) That may be, but part of my point which I've failed to explain is that the answers, the design, should not come with their own problems.
Scaling, as an example.
Once upon a time....
I dunno...I made ALOT of friends in Everquest...more than all over games I have played combined.....The community made the game...i go back now and then and just log out because all the people I knew are gone......I've tried all the newer MMOs (Gw2, ESO, FFXIV, BDO, etc etc) and they just bore me after a short time, usually around level 20 or so.....
Nothing is perfect so everything comes with problems. If the standard for change is perfection it will never happen. Aspiring to such leads to perpetual stagnation.
MMORPGs without scaling have their own benefits and problems. The value of having both types available is that players can choose which collection of positives and negatives they prefer of the two which is better than no choice at all.
Non-scaling games are locked into a state of perpetual obsolescence of the world itself and everything you derive from it. They also divide players between content bands.
A game fully scaled up and down where you can play wherever whenever you want, such as ESO, compromises story sequence which is an issue for many MMORPG players.
In fact, the original ESO story is broken. It can't be progressed past a certain point without first completing the prelude to Elsewhere which takes place after the original story. Well, it can eventually, but in a manner even more of a bother.
Playing: Nothing
Looking forward to: Nothing
You see, you guys are ignoring Sandbox and "Low Power Gaps", which is the true answer.
My position is that you guys would not even notice the difference created with Low Power Gaps.
What you would notice is the difference in game play, as in a true Sandbox you wouldn't have the lineal Quest driven content, and you'd instead have the wide open world to choose from. And I don't think you'd be unhappy with that as game play either.
The biggest "drawback" that you'd notice is that you'd have so many choices instead of being locked into a predetermined course to map out your experience.
And you'd gain so much.
- Freedom
- A world full of many more things of interest to do.
- A much wider scale of social interaction that comes with realistic patterns (trade and economics, politics, city building, your own estates to build upon, world knowledge that always applies, no loss of content, always something to look forwards to, etc., etc).
Once upon a time....
Sandbox isn't an answer. It's an alternative, and not even that for those that have no interest in what that type of MMORPG offers.
Not everyone wants extensive freedom, preferring a framework in which to function. Some people are happy with limited things to do so long as they greatly enjoy doing them. Many players are looking for an escape from the realistic, having quite enough of that from actual reality.
For some, your gain is their loss.
Low power gaps sounds at odds with progression. If not power, what would progress? How would it be seen and measurable? How would it be meaningful to the player?
Which is where I think GW2 really hit a sweet spot.
As you go up in levels, new zones open, new abilities open up to you, new trait lines become available, new armors with additional stat combinations open up, as well as runes, sigils, and a slew of other things make their way into your build.
But, thanks to down-scaling, the world grows, it does not shrink. You can always go back to the starting areas, and complete them, do events there, and there is no sense of being bottlenecked into the new content, or 'cap' content, which is why Core is still the most popular content of the game, because you can always return to it.
I think that was about the best feature of GW2, to be honest. There was a sense of progress, but also a sense of your world growing because of it, not shrinking.
Im talking about the ability for ARK players to interact with tens of thousands of other players due to server hop. . .stop being deliberately obtuse.
If you can now defeat a powerful Liche solo, you still have to be concerned with 2 of them. That sort of thing. So strategy becomes more in focus, and you still may be able to lure 1 of the 2 Liches away to solo it, then take out the other, using new skills or magical items. And then there's the possibility of running into 3 Liches, your progression, and so on.
But as a world, you never know what you are going to run into. It might be one powerful Liche, or it might be more.
It's really not any different than high Power Gaps in this, just tones down. But it makes for a world that doesn't become obsolete to you.
Enter Scaling, and you never really feel like you are progressing because everything scales to you.
Once upon a time....
The four players was pointed to me, the first of the quotes. You totally missed the point I was making that "massive" is a relative term, not a hard, solid number.
- 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
With scaling you still progress, as while everything scales with you numerically it doesn't in terms of breadth of ability. An established character has far more on tap to bring into any situation than a new one.
Why did you leave out the part of the quote that explains this (The Liches that don't change)?
Once upon a time....
- 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
Many years ago this site had very specific criteria of what qualified for it's own listing and forum here.
500 players in a persistent virtual world was one, but there were some others like proving the development was past the concept / trailer stage by providing several screen shots from within the game itself.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
And that group play was like D&D, which is what most new MMO gamers expected.
To some that was a drawback, to those others it was what they wanted.
I think times have changed and all those new players aren't new anymore.
Now, something needs to advance as far as game play in a massive environment. It's all become too "been there, done that" in a big way.
But few people are willing to say that. You get hit hard by the hardcore group players defending their game style. And that's if a gamer even recognizes what exactly is old about MMORPGs.
Once upon a time....
They did have "soft zones." There were 6 or 8, I forget which, on the world map. You wouldn't notice them unless you, or they, were running laggy.
That's where Duping happened. Players figured out that you could drop gold, cross the line, reach back and pick up the gold, cross back over, and the original gold pile would pop back and you could pick it up. (I think that's how it worked, I never did it.)
Edit to add: The game had to be under stress from being full for that to work, if I remember right.
Once upon a time....