Brainy said: You are right they have been solved, I told you how they solved it. Via instances and small servers so that people could experience the content on their own. So yes those problems are in the past, yet you want to skip the solutions and go back to the past. Ummmm dont you think the same exact problems will be there?
Tell me 1 single OPEN WORLD (no instances or individual customized small servers) MMORPG that has effectively dealt with kill steals, guilds dominating all the top world bosses, or rare mob stealing?
I am interested what solutions you are even talking about here.
I'm not quite sure I understand... ALL open world MMORPG's to an extent have dealt with this without instancing?
Some of these things are just part of having an open world too, and never were a problem anyway.
LOL cant really fix a problem that you dont even recognize is a problem in the first place.
So apparently you think MMO's went to instancing and raid locking content in instances for no reason at all. Did I just open your eyes or something. Holy cow welcome to MMO's.
Most people have a problem when people are taking their content away from them. When 1% of the people are killing all the top bosses, thats an issue. Its always been a problem and you didnt even give 1 example where it has been solved.
So again where are all the open world MMO"s that dont have kill stealing, world bosses dominated by top guilds, training mobs onto players, rare mob stealing etc...
EVE Online ..... None of those are considered to be "problems," they are sanctioned game play....
Maybe not problems for a few people. But how many have left because of this reason. I will bet most of the people had this in their list of grievances. Getting ganked while trying to do their content then stealing the kill, top guilds dominating the main content etc... yeah I dont play Eve but I know just by its design this is a problem. This is probably the #1 reason the game doesnt get the numbers like the top PVE instanced MMO's.
Sure maybe the devs want this in there to facilitate PVP, but its still a problem for the larger player base that doesnt want it.
I can totally accept an NPC killing and taking my shit. A real player no, no no!!! Yeah I cannot explain it but a real life person would gloat and make me feel hurt but NPCs cannot do that.
Most of the time the people that do that stuff dont even need your gear, they just take it because it ruins your gameplay...The point of so many full loot PVP games is to ruin the gameplay of others, nothing else.
Brainy said: You are right they have been solved, I told you how they solved it. Via instances and small servers so that people could experience the content on their own. So yes those problems are in the past, yet you want to skip the solutions and go back to the past. Ummmm dont you think the same exact problems will be there?
Tell me 1 single OPEN WORLD (no instances or individual customized small servers) MMORPG that has effectively dealt with kill steals, guilds dominating all the top world bosses, or rare mob stealing?
I am interested what solutions you are even talking about here.
I'm not quite sure I understand... ALL open world MMORPG's to an extent have dealt with this without instancing?
Some of these things are just part of having an open world too, and never were a problem anyway.
LOL cant really fix a problem that you dont even recognize is a problem in the first place.
So apparently you think MMO's went to instancing and raid locking content in instances for no reason at all. Did I just open your eyes or something. Holy cow welcome to MMO's.
Most people have a problem when people are taking their content away from them. When 1% of the people are killing all the top bosses, thats an issue. Its always been a problem and you didnt even give 1 example where it has been solved.
So again where are all the open world MMO"s that dont have kill stealing, world bosses dominated by top guilds, training mobs onto players, rare mob stealing etc...
MMORPG's no longer have the problems like training to zone that you mentioned, because they are designed to eliminate the issues in the first place. A lot of open world sandbox MMORPG's are designed so there isn't this 1 mob that all people will camp either. Or this one dungeons that everyone will go to. That kind of issue just exists mainly in the typical themepark MMORPG's where everyone knows X item drops from X boss and if you don't have it you are a loser. Kind of bad game design in a way if the game is made in that way, where everyone and their grandma needs/wants a particular item or has to go to that particular dungeon. There are all sorts of ways people have designed games to be different in that respect.
Instancing is something I separated out because it is just one way to design your game and it is quite a big deal. Depending on the games core design and vision, sure, it can help solve some issues for it. What I'm saying though is I would argue it is not a requirement for ALL games, depending on the games design, and particularly for open world sandbox games.
There are big pros and cons to the different styles too (instancing vs cohesive open world, and vs sharding). I believe Eve, BDO, Pantheon, Darkfall, Ultima Online, Asheron's Call, A Tale in the Desert AfterWorld, Kingdom of Drakkar, Archlord, Lineage, Lineage 2, Mortal Online, and some others don't have instancing.
There was a great deal of pushback and distaste when instancing came into WoW. WoW did have problems due to its design, but It also destroyed the vision players had of the game for them in some ways. I still played WoW afterwards as it still had some fun elements, but it did definitely change the game a great deal for me. It definitely dumbed it down and turned it into a "game" as opposed to an "open virtual world".
It can sometimes be seen as a lazy way to deal with the overcrowding. Though I'm sure it also is better costs wise so it is the business destroying the vision as per usual. What some people wanted was better player scaling per server and scaling servers, more servers, not instancing.
Started playing mmorpg's in 1996 and have been hooked ever since. It began with Kingdom of Drakkar, Ultima Online, Everquest, DAoC, WoW...
Graveblade said: "It can sometimes be seen as a lazy way to deal with the overcrowding. Though I'm sure it also is better costs wise, so it is the business destroying the vision as per usual. What some people wanted was better player scaling per server and scaling servers, more servers, not instancing."
If we could have mined servers for crypto, we would see better evolved servers that could actually house 500+ people at flawless FPS rates. But sadly, no one tried.
This user is a registered flex offender. Someone who is registered as being a flex offender is a person who feels the need to flex about everything they say. Always be the guy that paints the house in the dark. Lucidity can be forged with enough liquidity and pharmed for decades with enough compound interest that a reachable profit would never end.
There was a great deal of pushback and distaste when instancing came into WoW. WoW did have problems due to its design, but It also destroyed the vision players had of the game for them in some ways.
LOL pushback on WoW seriously? Are you even aware at all of MMORPG populations from the past? Obviously WoW didnt get much pushback at all because WoW was the most popular game by far EVER, and all the top MMORPG's all have instances. In addition almost every MMO after WoW that was even moderately successful started putting in instances.
I think you are a bit out of touch of who is doing the pushing, and what the general population feels is the biggest problems. Your personal thoughts dont really matter in the scheme of things.
Until you can recognize the problems inherent in open world design and the main issues people complain about with that design its going to be a bit hard for you to understand the challenges they face.
I personally feel there needs to be a mix, open world design and instances for the rare/important events. This way your most important content can never be taken away by other players, but at the same time the majority of the world is connected.
There was a great deal of pushback and distaste when instancing came into WoW. WoW did have problems due to its design, but It also destroyed the vision players had of the game for them in some ways.
LOL pushback on WoW seriously? Are you even aware at all of MMORPG populations from the past? Obviously WoW didnt get much pushback at all because WoW was the most popular game by far EVER, and all the top MMORPG's all have instances. In addition almost every MMO after WoW that was even moderately successful started putting in instances.
I think you are a bit out of touch of who is doing the pushing, and what the general population feels is the biggest problems. Your personal thoughts dont really matter in the scheme of things.
Until you can recognize the problems inherent in open world design and the main issues people complain about with that design its going to be a bit hard for you to understand the challenges they face.
I personally feel there needs to be a mix, open world design and instances for the rare/important events. This way your most important content can never be taken away by other players, but at the same time the majority of the world is connected.
Oh by all means, we must not have challenges of any kind.
This is another example of "dumbing down." Most of the problem brought up over "open world design" have already been fixed. There's only one I can think of that has no good fix, and that's Training MOBs onto Players. But I have to ask, is there a problem with playing the world, keeping your head in the game, and just getting yourself out of that problem as soon as you see it happening (before the MOB can target you) by simply running away along with the Training Character?
Some people really like that dumbed-down stuff more than having a World to play in. Then some of you accuse US of wanting "always win."
EVE Online ..... None of those are considered to be "problems," they are sanctioned game play....
Maybe not problems for a few people. But how many have left because of this reason. I will bet most of the people had this in their list of grievances. Getting ganked while trying to do their content then stealing the kill, top guilds dominating the main content etc... yeah I dont play Eve but I know just by its design this is a problem. This is probably the #1 reason the game doesnt get the numbers like the top PVE instanced MMO's.
Sure maybe the devs want this in there to facilitate PVP, but its still a problem for the larger player base that doesnt want it.
Granted I have not read every single post in this thread, but many of the posts like the this seem to be dancing around the notion of a good or successful game. Fun is subjective and dependent on people's tastes and abilities / resources. I find slow build-up, deep game-play mechanics fun but haven't played those types of games the last few years since becoming a dad. So I enjoy the lighter, arcade-style games these days in the moments I can. I expect that each person's circumstances and unique disposition lends itself to what games they gravitate towards and enjoy as well.
That said, the population is distributed in such a way that some types of games have a larger audience than others. From a business sense, and game development is a business like it or not, you generally want to appeal to that audience and not alienate them. Of course, many a successful business is built around appealing to a specific market segment, but that all depends on the investment and expected returns. You can't spend money on development like a AAA blockbuster with design elements targeting a niche market and necessarily expect to succeed. But design a game like Eve that can lovingly be called "spreadsheets in space" and the niche audience is enough to sustain your business. Does Eve's design alienate a large number of players? I'd say that's almost guaranteed. But that doesn't necessarily make it a bad or unsuccessful game, so long as its intended market remains enthused and that market is large enough to make it profitable.
All I'm trying to say is that some of these design choices may be universally good or bad, while others depend on the audience you are going for. What I got from the OP is that there has been an attempt to mostly develop MMOs that cast a wide net and appeal to the masses, which in turn washes out a lot of the quirky design choices that make these games uniquely appealing to different audiences.
Brainy said: You are right they have been solved, I told you how they solved it. Via instances and small servers so that people could experience the content on their own. So yes those problems are in the past, yet you want to skip the solutions and go back to the past. Ummmm dont you think the same exact problems will be there?
Tell me 1 single OPEN WORLD (no instances or individual customized small servers) MMORPG that has effectively dealt with kill steals, guilds dominating all the top world bosses, or rare mob stealing?
I am interested what solutions you are even talking about here.
I'm not quite sure I understand... ALL open world MMORPG's to an extent have dealt with this without instancing?
Some of these things are just part of having an open world too, and never were a problem anyway.
LOL cant really fix a problem that you dont even recognize is a problem in the first place.
So apparently you think MMO's went to instancing and raid locking content in instances for no reason at all. Did I just open your eyes or something. Holy cow welcome to MMO's.
Most people have a problem when people are taking their content away from them. When 1% of the people are killing all the top bosses, thats an issue. Its always been a problem and you didnt even give 1 example where it has been solved.
So again where are all the open world MMO"s that dont have kill stealing, world bosses dominated by top guilds, training mobs onto players, rare mob stealing etc...
MMORPG's no longer have the problems like training to zone that you mentioned, because they are designed to eliminate the issues in the first place. A lot of open world sandbox MMORPG's are designed so there isn't this 1 mob that all people will camp either. Or this one dungeons that everyone will go to. That kind of issue just exists mainly in the typical themepark MMORPG's where everyone knows X item drops from X boss and if you don't have it you are a loser. Kind of bad game design in a way if the game is made in that way, where everyone and their grandma needs/wants a particular item or has to go to that particular dungeon. There are all sorts of ways people have designed games to be different in that respect.
Instancing is something I separated out because it is just one way to design your game and it is quite a big deal. Depending on the games core design and vision, sure, it can help solve some issues for it. What I'm saying though is I would argue it is not a requirement for ALL games, depending on the games design, and particularly for open world sandbox games.
There are big pros and cons to the different styles too (instancing vs cohesive open world, and vs sharding). I believe Eve, BDO, Pantheon, Darkfall, Ultima Online, Asheron's Call, A Tale in the Desert AfterWorld, Kingdom of Drakkar, Archlord, Lineage, Lineage 2, Mortal Online, and some others don't have instancing.
There was a great deal of pushback and distaste when instancing came into WoW. WoW did have problems due to its design, but It also destroyed the vision players had of the game for them in some ways. I still played WoW afterwards as it still had some fun elements, but it did definitely change the game a great deal for me. It definitely dumbed it down and turned it into a "game" as opposed to an "open virtual world".
It can sometimes be seen as a lazy way to deal with the overcrowding. Though I'm sure it also is better costs wise so it is the business destroying the vision as per usual. What some people wanted was better player scaling per server and scaling servers, more servers, not instancing.
"There was a great deal of pushback and distaste when instancing came into WoW."
I wasn't around WoW for that, but it reminds me of when EQ anounced that they were going to expand the Power Gaps in leveling (during BETA). There was a lot of pushback then too, I was on their forums for that one.
There will probably be pushback on my comment too, there always has been before. Themepark lovers, whatcha gonna do with them?
The truth is that those games were a big success for other reasons that are totally unrelated to those things. Both WoW and EQ were the most modern, "best of it's kind" new game that came out. WoW was so polished that it really was a wonder of a game. They did a lot of good things. I remember my first Hippogryph ride, for example, and I was stunned by the wonder of flying and looking down on the game world below and Characters running around. I took that ride several times just to scout the lands below. But that's got nothing to do with Themepark vs. Sandbox, Open World vs. Dull-And-Boring, or any of this stuff.
I wonder if one can create a world large enough when the population is high where every dungeon spot isn't camped or owned. How tolerant will the players be and for how long before they population dwindles from the lack of access. When Everquest had open dungeons with queues to get a spot there weren't many other options as far as games went, nowadays players will drop the game in a hot minute if they cannot do the dungeon like immediately. That's the reality.
I wonder if one can create a world large enough when the population is high where every dungeon spot isn't camped or owned. How tolerant will the players be and for how long before they population dwindles from the lack of access. When Everquest had open dungeons with queues to get a spot there weren't many other options as far as games went, nowadays players will drop the game in a hot minute if they cannot do the dungeon like immediately. That's the reality.
Thing to consider there too.
If one could make a single game world large enough that every person could dungeon delve without facing a queue, how would it realistically play out?
It's not that likely people will actually distribute themselves evenly. They'll identify favored hubs, rank dungeons based on available resources and distance to said hubs, and compete for control of the most coveted ones.
If distance is to be negated as a factor via fast travel, then it swings another direction of why make it such a large world space just to perpetually shortcut it.
Similarly, if there's open PvP, there's more likely to be people trying to control multiple dungeons, if not for a mechanical benefit to themselves, then for an intentional detriment to others. Resource denial is as important as resource gain for PvP scenarios.
Can never say with certainty unless someone tries it, but from my perspective, such a game would collapse for remarkably similar reasons in spite of the theoretical parity provided.
More or less that is exactly what happened in Everquest there were dungeons players completely ignored like Howling Stones and others that were perpetually camped night and day. There is always when the loot table is fixed which they later changed in the start anew servers with random loots for dungeons of the same tier for people to never want to go anywhere else. Guilds used to completely lock down a boss and won't even let people join the queue that were not friends or guild members. That was ugly.
It is great in theory but when a game launches the populations we see in any MMORPG will bring the open dungeon system to its knees. No matter how big the world is, it will be too small.
I wonder if one can create a world large enough when the population is high where every dungeon spot isn't camped or owned. How tolerant will the players be and for how long before they population dwindles from the lack of access. When Everquest had open dungeons with queues to get a spot there weren't many other options as far as games went, nowadays players will drop the game in a hot minute if they cannot do the dungeon like immediately. That's the reality.
Thing to consider there too.
If one could make a single game world large enough that every person could dungeon delve without facing a queue, how would it realistically play out?
It's not that likely people will actually distribute themselves evenly. They'll identify favored hubs, rank dungeons based on available resources and distance to said hubs, and compete for control of the most coveted ones.
If distance is to be negated as a factor via fast travel, then it swings another direction of why make it such a large world space just to perpetually shortcut it.
Similarly, if there's open PvP, there's more likely to be people trying to control multiple dungeons, if not for a mechanical benefit to themselves, then for an intentional detriment to others. Resource denial is as important as resource gain for PvP scenarios.
Can never say with certainty unless someone tries it, but from my perspective, such a game would collapse for remarkably similar reasons in spite of the theoretical parity provided.
A seamless virtual world without instances, where multiple players vie for objectives and resources, is subject to a lot of the same issues as the real world. Limited resources distributed unevenly will mean that not everyone gets to be "The One". In real life, we don't all end up as presidents, generals, CEOs, etc., for a myriad of reasons. But in the game world, our place depends on the type of game and story the designers have in mind.
For an RPG, there are many design toggles to tweak. A relevant one here is the place of the player character and their progression through the story. In a single player RPG, making the player the ultimate hero can work effectively. Make it an MMO, however, and many other players are engaging the same story and game systems. Instancing constrains key gameplay elements to more closely match the single player experience, allowing everyone a shot at being "The Hero" or "Champion".
Of course, this feels game-y and breaks "immersion". But for this to truly be a virtual world, like the real world most players cannot be "The Hero" or anything that grand at all. The majority must resign themselves to managing the ever-rampant boar population of the nearby woods or whatever other menial tasks exist while only a select few quest to defeat the mighty dragon and plunder its loot. Any attempt to ensure there are enough dragons to go around so that everyone can be "The Hero" is just as jarring, immersion-breaking, and game-y as the current systems.
Is there a market for virtual worlds where the majority do relatively menial tasks so a far smaller minority can reach the higher parts of the game? Sure, eve has its niche, for example, and far more players in that game mine asteroids than fly titans. But many play games to do epic things they can't do in the real world. Many want to get a chance at slaying dragons instead of stocking the cellar at the local inn. And that can't happen in an MMO without it feeling game-y.
I wonder if one can create a world large enough when the population is high where every dungeon spot isn't camped or owned. How tolerant will the players be and for how long before they population dwindles from the lack of access. When Everquest had open dungeons with queues to get a spot there weren't many other options as far as games went, nowadays players will drop the game in a hot minute if they cannot do the dungeon like immediately. That's the reality.
Thing to consider there too.
If one could make a single game world large enough that every person could dungeon delve without facing a queue, how would it realistically play out?
It's not that likely people will actually distribute themselves evenly. They'll identify favored hubs, rank dungeons based on available resources and distance to said hubs, and compete for control of the most coveted ones.
If distance is to be negated as a factor via fast travel, then it swings another direction of why make it such a large world space just to perpetually shortcut it.
Similarly, if there's open PvP, there's more likely to be people trying to control multiple dungeons, if not for a mechanical benefit to themselves, then for an intentional detriment to others. Resource denial is as important as resource gain for PvP scenarios.
Can never say with certainty unless someone tries it, but from my perspective, such a game would collapse for remarkably similar reasons in spite of the theoretical parity provided.
I don't see what the problem is with dungeon "shards" so everyone can raid and requiring the dungeons to be done in order so none get left out. As to your quite apt fast travel argument I favour walking and mounts, but if you must have fast travel once again doing the dungeons in order knocks that problem on the head.
Yes. Human societies run on the "lowest common denominator." Therefore, laws. The same with games.
I'm not talking about society. I'm talking about me, and my posts. Way to take me out of context.
I was talking about games, too. Players of games have the same demographics as societies. This wasn't about you, specifically.
- 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
Yes. Human societies run on the "lowest common denominator." Therefore, laws. The same with games.
I'm not talking about society. I'm talking about me, and my posts. Way to take me out of context.
I was talking about games, too. Players of games have the same demographics as societies. This wasn't about you, specifically.
We were talking about my ideas as posted, and you objected with all those negative things players can do, and completely ignores the fact that those things already have answers for. In short, you took a negative reaction to my post by assuming that such a game would allow what would not be allowed, or otherwise have an answer to.
One of the answers involved would be fast travel, such as UO's marked Runestones. If a huge world has multiple dungeons for the same desired drops, and a big guild is trying to control those drops in one dungeon, then other players can just leave for another dungeon of like drops. There's no problem here.
But why have that kind of design in the first place? Anything that would be more desirable enough that guilds would try to control should be random and spread out in the game world, not located for such abuse.
I wonder if one can create a world large enough when the population is high where every dungeon spot isn't camped or owned. How tolerant will the players be and for how long before they population dwindles from the lack of access. When Everquest had open dungeons with queues to get a spot there weren't many other options as far as games went, nowadays players will drop the game in a hot minute if they cannot do the dungeon like immediately. That's the reality.
Thing to consider there too.
If one could make a single game world large enough that every person could dungeon delve without facing a queue, how would it realistically play out?
It's not that likely people will actually distribute themselves evenly. They'll identify favored hubs, rank dungeons based on available resources and distance to said hubs, and compete for control of the most coveted ones.
If distance is to be negated as a factor via fast travel, then it swings another direction of why make it such a large world space just to perpetually shortcut it.
Similarly, if there's open PvP, there's more likely to be people trying to control multiple dungeons, if not for a mechanical benefit to themselves, then for an intentional detriment to others. Resource denial is as important as resource gain for PvP scenarios.
Can never say with certainty unless someone tries it, but from my perspective, such a game would collapse for remarkably similar reasons in spite of the theoretical parity provided.
Again, why design a huge game world like that? See my post just before this one.
On fast travel, I liked UO's marked Runestones. Someone had to get there first, then mark the Runestone where he stands, then that Runestone could be used to either teleport, or open a gate to that spot. That means exploration first.
And why do you assume that a Huge World would not double/triple up on desirable places? If you're making a Huge World to fix problems of high player numbers, then you don't also allow more players in said Shard to ruin your fix.
Such a Huge Game World would also offer much more exploration, and open up the possibilities of many more Discoveries, too.
Such a game world would thrive (if not screwed up by otherwise bad decisions), not collapse.
Edit to add: Remember D&D (P+P) loot tables? Remember randomness? It has a place in MMORPGs to fix issues, and adds those thrilling finds on a wider scale of the Player base.
I don't think that really solved for the concerns presented in the quoted statement. You're arguing mechanical game solutions to problems of human nature.
Advanced UO, without the Player Abuse, would be a huge thing.
There is your sticking point. Either make an MMORPG for ALL players equally, or start picking and choosing how you limit them all equally.
Every rule can be bent to one's advantage. Eventually.
Would I like to see UO part Deux? Maybe. I'm not touching a PvP game ever.
Would it be a massive hit? Highly unlikely.
Profitable? Depends on what they want to make from the game regularly.
I'm thinking that limiting abusive behavior applies equally to all Players. I'm really not sure what point you are trying to make here.
If you think I want to see hidden abuses, hidden behind PR claims, like so many open world PvP games have done in the past, then you are mistaken.
I hated the abuses in UO. I saw many friends leave because of it. It destroyed the game as it could have been (without it). And I loved the rest of UO, the Sandbox world, the social atmosphere, etc. I saw the potential for great things ruined because of abusive Players.
I've promoted a number of "fixes" on these forums over the years. I've even stated that if it were my money on the line, I eliminate PvP entirely outside of Sanctioned Wars, and even that would have some limits, such as not allowed in cities.
Rule can't always be bent to an advantage. How many games that don't allow PvP outside of battle zones have that rule bent?
Edit to add: My dream game play is all about Enhanced PvE. In a World that feels alive. That includes MOBs marching om Player Built Cities, Dragon attacks, etc. It also includes deep Lore and mysteries based off of that.
I'm tired of "Just Games."
I have to ask in all sincerity, why are you willing to have NPCs army's march on player built cities, but not player armies?
NPC's don't grief before, during, and afterwards. Why I stopped bothering putting up bases in EvE.
Apparently you never had a Sleeper Dreadnaught drop on top of your mining fleet in a nullsec asteroid belt.
Point being, NPCs could very easily be set to do all of the things players do to make the overall gaming experience unpleasant.
So what people are really saying is they don't mind their bases being attacked as long as there is little to no chance of losing.
So I put forth, what is the point of the NPC attack in the first place, just skip the whole thing and leave my base in peace.
Again, it's like that time in Rift when a player complained that the invasions were interrupting their "questing."
It just seems like the audience for games is divided among people who buy into their game play concepts and people who like "some" concepts but want to do away with others.
So they buy the games, play them and complain.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I can totally accept an NPC killing and taking my shit. A real player no, no no!!! Yeah I cannot explain it but a real life person would gloat and make me feel hurt but NPCs cannot do that.
I don't disagree with you.
There is a segment of players who generally get pleasure with screwing with other people.
I recall a time in Lineage 2 when my alliance fought some other players in the cemetary. It was a lot of fun. Afterwards we were talking with one of the "downed" players and decided to resurrect him as a courtesy.
One of the other players in the alliance passed by (people had dispersed at this point) and couldn't understand why we'd do such a thing. He was generally pissed.
It's a game. These other people aren't real enemies they are just there to inhabit opposing sides to make it fun. Not to unleash our issues upon.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I can totally accept an NPC killing and taking my shit. A real player no, no no!!! Yeah I cannot explain it but a real life person would gloat and make me feel hurt but NPCs cannot do that.
I don't disagree with you.
There is a segment of players who generally get pleasure with screwing with other people.
I recall a time in Lineage 2 when my alliance fought some other players in the cemetary. It was a lot of fun. Afterwards we were talking with one of the "downed" players and decided to resurrect him as a courtesy.
One of the other players in the alliance passed by (people had dispersed at this point) and couldn't understand why we'd do such a thing. He was generally pissed.
It's a game. These other people aren't real enemies they are just there to inhabit opposing sides to make it fun. Not to unleash our issues upon.
Unfortunately humans tend to take things out on others. They may have a bad day and decide to ruin someone else's for fun. It's unavoidable. I am not saying PvP brings this out even PvE can bring it out as I have witnessed in many PUGs where unnecessary mean and cruel jabs are taken to a point where I have left not wanting to handle the chat. It is just that in PvP the person's anger isn't just talk it is action that can hurt your game time. I am simply not willing to put up with it. I may be seen as weak but I don't want to handle it as I am there to play and have fun and that is simply decidedly unfun.
EVE Online ..... None of those are considered to be "problems," they are sanctioned game play....
Maybe not problems for a few people. But how many have left because of this reason. I will bet most of the people had this in their list of grievances. Getting ganked while trying to do their content then stealing the kill, top guilds dominating the main content etc... yeah I dont play Eve but I know just by its design this is a problem. This is probably the #1 reason the game doesnt get the numbers like the top PVE instanced MMO's.
Sure maybe the devs want this in there to facilitate PVP, but its still a problem for the larger player base that doesnt want it.
well "good." The game is able to continue running as it is patronized by people who want this type of game play. Perfect. That's the way it should be.
No game should have to cater to large groups if it means changing what the developers want.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
EVE Online ..... None of those are considered to be "problems," they are sanctioned game play....
Maybe not problems for a few people. But how many have left because of this reason. I will bet most of the people had this in their list of grievances. Getting ganked while trying to do their content then stealing the kill, top guilds dominating the main content etc... yeah I dont play Eve but I know just by its design this is a problem. This is probably the #1 reason the game doesnt get the numbers like the top PVE instanced MMO's.
Sure maybe the devs want this in there to facilitate PVP, but its still a problem for the larger player base that doesnt want it.
well "good." The game is able to continue running as it is patronized by people who want this type of game play. Perfect. That's the way it should be.
No game should have to cater to large groups if it means changing what the developers want.
They dont have to cater to large groups, but normally people that own companies want to get as many people as possible.
So looking at the numbers, are you saying that only 20k or less people concurrent want a game like this? Is this the maximum cap for this type of Sci-fi MMO. If No, then why isnt this game reaching its potential. Smarter devs would figure out the formula to capture their entire market base and build towards that.
Whats more likely, is the dev team is out of ideas on how to do that. This is the entire problem, dev teams are clueless about what the playerbases really want and cant make good enough games to capture that target customer.
I have said many times, games can be both niche and popular at the same time by caputuring their entire niche with a great product.
I am not advocating that games have to appeal to every customer. I am just saying make a game that is really good and continues to grow. People are born everyday, more people have internet access, these games should be growing by default yet they are all shrinking to incredibly small numbers.
EVE Online ..... None of those are considered to be "problems," they are sanctioned game play....
Maybe not problems for a few people. But how many have left because of this reason. I will bet most of the people had this in their list of grievances. Getting ganked while trying to do their content then stealing the kill, top guilds dominating the main content etc... yeah I dont play Eve but I know just by its design this is a problem. This is probably the #1 reason the game doesnt get the numbers like the top PVE instanced MMO's.
Sure maybe the devs want this in there to facilitate PVP, but its still a problem for the larger player base that doesnt want it.
well "good." The game is able to continue running as it is patronized by people who want this type of game play. Perfect. That's the way it should be.
No game should have to cater to large groups if it means changing what the developers want.
They dont have to cater to large groups, but normally people that own companies want to get as many people as possible.
So looking at the numbers, are you saying that only 20k or less people concurrent want a game like this? Is this the maximum cap for this type of Sci-fi MMO. If No, then why isnt this game reaching its potential. Smarter devs would figure out the formula to capture their entire market base and build towards that.
Whats more likely, is the dev team is out of ideas on how to do that. This is the entire problem, dev teams are clueless about what the playerbases really want and cant make good enough games to capture that target customer.
I have said many times, games can be both niche and popular at the same time by caputuring their entire niche with a great product.
I am not advocating that games have to appeal to every customer. I am just saying make a game that is really good and continues to grow. People are born everyday, more people have internet access, these games should be growing by default yet they are all shrinking to incredibly small numbers.
well "no" on the people are born every day and the games should be growing. There are so many awesome old games that, if that was true, would have sooooo many players.
Games seem to be of their time with some wiggle room here and there. A re-imagining or reworking can certainly extend their life cycle.
Of course developers (and any company) want a lot of people. No one is saying that they are thinking "20k people is enough and we hope we don't get more."
But they could be saying "we need 20k people and are satisfied we were able to make that benchmark.
How many people really played Demons' Souls or Dark Souls? Not a great number and certainly not an enormous amount compared to other games. But, in my opinion, they are both great games.
Elden Ring sold 20 million copies and that would be considered a huge success for that type of game. But how many people really finished it or even thought it was worth finishing?
Some games are meant to have smaller groups playing them. Same with movies, music, etc as far as their own audiences.
It could be true that developers don't know what players want but I would also bet that many developers want to be creators and want to make games that intrigue them. Even if that means it could alienate more people.
Heck, (once again) look at my wonderful Skyrim mod! The reviews from players that I have received are very heart warming (for the most part.) I did do my bit to scare people away as I really didn't want people to download something they wouldn't have liked in the first place. But I've received messages from people that they really think I should change this or that to make the mod more accessible so that "more people can experience this wonderful mod."
I could do that, but I don't want to. I made what I wanted to make. I suspect the same for developers though I dare say that publishers might have a different take.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Comments
Way to take me out of context.
Once upon a time....
So apparently you think MMO's went to instancing and raid locking content in instances for no reason at all. Did I just open your eyes or something. Holy cow welcome to MMO's.
Most people have a problem when people are taking their content away from them. When 1% of the people are killing all the top bosses, thats an issue. Its always been a problem and you didnt even give 1 example where it has been solved.
So again where are all the open world MMO"s that dont have kill stealing, world bosses dominated by top guilds, training mobs onto players, rare mob stealing etc...
Maybe not problems for a few people. But how many have left because of this reason. I will bet most of the people had this in their list of grievances. Getting ganked while trying to do their content then stealing the kill, top guilds dominating the main content etc...
yeah I dont play Eve but I know just by its design this is a problem. This is probably the #1 reason the game doesnt get the numbers like the top PVE instanced MMO's.
Sure maybe the devs want this in there to facilitate PVP, but its still a problem for the larger player base that doesnt want it.
Most of the time the people that do that stuff dont even need your gear, they just take it because it ruins your gameplay...The point of so many full loot PVP games is to ruin the gameplay of others, nothing else.
"It can sometimes be seen as a lazy way to deal with the overcrowding. Though I'm sure it also is better costs wise, so it is the business destroying the vision as per usual. What some people wanted was better player scaling per server and scaling servers, more servers, not instancing."
If we could have mined servers for crypto, we would see better evolved servers that could actually house 500+ people at flawless FPS rates. But sadly, no one tried.
Someone who is registered as being a flex offender is a person who feels the need to flex about everything they say.
Always be the guy that paints the house in the dark.
Lucidity can be forged with enough liquidity and pharmed for decades with enough compound interest that a reachable profit would never end.
I think you are a bit out of touch of who is doing the pushing, and what the general population feels is the biggest problems. Your personal thoughts dont really matter in the scheme of things.
Until you can recognize the problems inherent in open world design and the main issues people complain about with that design its going to be a bit hard for you to understand the challenges they face.
I personally feel there needs to be a mix, open world design and instances for the rare/important events. This way your most important content can never be taken away by other players, but at the same time the majority of the world is connected.
This is another example of "dumbing down."
Most of the problem brought up over "open world design" have already been fixed.
There's only one I can think of that has no good fix, and that's Training MOBs onto Players.
But I have to ask, is there a problem with playing the world, keeping your head in the game, and just getting yourself out of that problem as soon as you see it happening (before the MOB can target you) by simply running away along with the Training Character?
Some people really like that dumbed-down stuff more than having a World to play in.
Then some of you accuse US of wanting "always win."
Once upon a time....
I wasn't around WoW for that, but it reminds me of when EQ anounced that they were going to expand the Power Gaps in leveling (during BETA). There was a lot of pushback then too, I was on their forums for that one.
There will probably be pushback on my comment too, there always has been before.
Themepark lovers, whatcha gonna do with them?
The truth is that those games were a big success for other reasons that are totally unrelated to those things. Both WoW and EQ were the most modern, "best of it's kind" new game that came out.
WoW was so polished that it really was a wonder of a game. They did a lot of good things. I remember my first Hippogryph ride, for example, and I was stunned by the wonder of flying and looking down on the game world below and Characters running around.
I took that ride several times just to scout the lands below.
But that's got nothing to do with Themepark vs. Sandbox, Open World vs. Dull-And-Boring, or any of this stuff.
Once upon a time....
If one could make a single game world large enough that every person could dungeon delve without facing a queue, how would it realistically play out?
It's not that likely people will actually distribute themselves evenly. They'll identify favored hubs, rank dungeons based on available resources and distance to said hubs, and compete for control of the most coveted ones.
If distance is to be negated as a factor via fast travel, then it swings another direction of why make it such a large world space just to perpetually shortcut it.
Similarly, if there's open PvP, there's more likely to be people trying to control multiple dungeons, if not for a mechanical benefit to themselves, then for an intentional detriment to others. Resource denial is as important as resource gain for PvP scenarios.
Can never say with certainty unless someone tries it, but from my perspective, such a game would collapse for remarkably similar reasons in spite of the theoretical parity provided.
It is great in theory but when a game launches the populations we see in any MMORPG will bring the open dungeon system to its knees. No matter how big the world is, it will be too small.
- 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
In short, you took a negative reaction to my post by assuming that such a game would allow what would not be allowed, or otherwise have an answer to.
One of the answers involved would be fast travel, such as UO's marked Runestones.
If a huge world has multiple dungeons for the same desired drops, and a big guild is trying to control those drops in one dungeon, then other players can just leave for another dungeon of like drops. There's no problem here.
But why have that kind of design in the first place? Anything that would be more desirable enough that guilds would try to control should be random and spread out in the game world, not located for such abuse.
Once upon a time....
See my post just before this one.
On fast travel, I liked UO's marked Runestones.
Someone had to get there first, then mark the Runestone where he stands, then that Runestone could be used to either teleport, or open a gate to that spot.
That means exploration first.
And why do you assume that a Huge World would not double/triple up on desirable places?
If you're making a Huge World to fix problems of high player numbers, then you don't also allow more players in said Shard to ruin your fix.
Such a Huge Game World would also offer much more exploration, and open up the possibilities of many more Discoveries, too.
Such a game world would thrive (if not screwed up by otherwise bad decisions), not collapse.
Edit to add:
Remember D&D (P+P) loot tables? Remember randomness? It has a place in MMORPGs to fix issues, and adds those thrilling finds on a wider scale of the Player base.
Once upon a time....
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
So looking at the numbers, are you saying that only 20k or less people concurrent want a game like this? Is this the maximum cap for this type of Sci-fi MMO. If No, then why isnt this game reaching its potential. Smarter devs would figure out the formula to capture their entire market base and build towards that.
Whats more likely, is the dev team is out of ideas on how to do that. This is the entire problem, dev teams are clueless about what the playerbases really want and cant make good enough games to capture that target customer.
I have said many times, games can be both niche and popular at the same time by caputuring their entire niche with a great product.
I am not advocating that games have to appeal to every customer. I am just saying make a game that is really good and continues to grow. People are born everyday, more people have internet access, these games should be growing by default yet they are all shrinking to incredibly small numbers.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo