MMO Advancement Archetypes

[diesbudt]

<Snip>



On the contrary, I want to play an MMO that actually is an MMO, not a single player game with integrated chat rooms and potential to hop into your friends game to help them do something. See original ultima online, or shadowbane, fix the flaws but don't turn them into world of warcraft.


Edit addition:


Raids & such is the answer, you named it. Bigger and badder monsters always exist. Better item rewards. Building towns and castles, like in shadowbane. PvP. Personally not a fan of raids, but all of that is possible in smaller groups.

Snipped your post, as its getting ridiculous quoting all of it.

If raids are the anwser, why are all those MMOs with them falling? WoW, SWTOR? etc.

You cannot have a successful game that relies too heavily on the group content. Solo content has to be able to get you far enough and have enough playtime to have some appeal to the casual gamer. However the better rewards need to be in large groups in hard content. (Such as Vanilla WoW).

And your comment on games survived before quests? You are right. And cars were made without airbags once before too. But times change and evolve. And today, no one would buy a car w/o an airbag. You can make changes and go forward but going backwards never works.

also

"You don't need quests for leveling. "Quests" IMO should actually fit into the sandbox of the world of the MMO, not just be some generated tool for gaining XP. Quests should be important. etc"

- Poll states done with quest based MMORPG. Not "Only important quests" But an MMO that isn't driven based on the use of quests. Again nit-picking here, but a flaw in the poll again.

The Bolded part? What you described is Diablo 2/3. Not an MMO. MMOs means you may happen to run across 1 or hundreds of people as you play alone or with others. And that the biggest/hardest stuff requires a group. Because you choose to play it as a glorified "solo" game is your choice, not a flaw in the game itself.

 

[Arkadrel]

If raids are the anwser, why are all those MMOs with them falling? WoW, SWTOR? etc.

Your makeing asumptions that Raids are why they are failing.
Yet I ll be honest and say that there are a 1000 reasons why SW:TOR is failing and a raid system isnt why.
It could be because their raid system implimented is bad, but even that I doubt. Its the 999 other faults the game has.

As for WoW? its still doing good, but.... after so many years people just get tired of a game.
No MMORPG can run forever, eventually people will grow tired of it.

You cannot have a successful game that relies too heavily on the group content

Why? says who? please dont use WoW as a argument.
(wow is the exception, it got CULT status, thus people check it out for that sake alone, no other copy of it gets this benefit)

How many modern party exp group based MMO-RPGs do you know of?
how many can you say failed because of that aspect?

Let me think.... (EXP group, grind monster MMORPGs) :
FFXI 600,000-300,000 users after 10years, paying 13$ pr month = sucesss.

cant think of others atm...

And your comment on games survived before quests? You are right. And cars were made without airbags once before too. But times change and evolve. And today, no one would buy a car w/o an airbag. You can make changes and go forward but going backwards never works.

Games are not CARS!

reason why airbags are now needed to sell a car?
1) doesnt effect your experiance of driveing the car
2) saves your life

"quest" based soloing, very heavly effects your "driveing" experiance, and not everyone loves it. (nor does it save your life)
Also more and more are getting sick of it, because everything out there is like that now.

Gameing experiance are subjective, so that alone means you cannot assume "solo quest" based MMORPG is
just a evolution that no one would live without.

Your wrong, me and chiropteran disprove that already. There will be a market for it, because there are more like us out there.

 

[diesbudt]

<snip>


OMG! you understand me!
What I DONT want is a single player game that just happends to be played with others in it.

I much rather be forced to group up, than have it be a solo quest one.
Already to many casual solo quest type MMORPGs out there.


******************* Crosses fingers that some game developers actually read this thread ******************

"I dont believe for a minuet that people cant accept a game without quests exp gain leveling."

True. Quests now are boring, repetative and outright bad because it doesn't affect the world around you.

1) If it affects the world around you, it affects another person wanting to do said quest, which now they cant have the same play experience as you, so it is unfair. (Just making an example of all the headaches the "unique experience" can cause in a game aimed at millions+ people per game)

2) Yes, but not enough people for businesses to risk millions making a game like this anymore. It is like going backwards on a progression scale. Monster killing is done with, and is why quests succeeded taking over. I love big group combat, however this cannot be the leveling focal point, otherwise you again a point I am trying to make, is shrink the playerbase. Too small a playerbase aimed at = too few subs = not a game a business will want to make. And most games have endgame "raids" albeit it is getting too easy, but they still have it. Yet people grow "tired" of these "quest based" games.

"Someone just needs to make a good MMORPG that has EXP PARTY based grinding @spots, that shows all the others how its done."

Again for how interesting ^ sounds to you, it is not a primary target base. It will not be a style companies will want to make, because you are aiming only at players that want to group. Not those wanting to waste a few hours on a game wit ha story they enjoy. Single Player Needs to have some importance. And this style removes it.

"Games need a decent leveling curve, that gets harder and more and more challengeing, up to the point of endgame.
So by then people know their class, what it can do, how it works with other classes, ect."

Yes, I agree wit ha better leveling curve. But that cannot be limited to group play. And people can know their class within an hour or 2 at max level if they just honestly take the time, or look online. So a game like this wouldn't be requried to get people to understand their class.

And for the rest of your quote: A single player game means everything can be single player. Even the "end games" which all MMOs are not possible. Secondly you said it best yourself in the bolded part. Look at the underlined part. That is it. You. Not the MMO community in majority, not a huge playerbase, but that is what you want. Not what would be the next step tah twould be successful in MMORPGS. You are boiling down your opinion as the "Best" MMO idea, when facts (subs, games that last, 'popular games', etc.) prove having single player, with end game being groups, and a mix of pvp and pve is better for the game overall.

Because I already said I agree, to me that would be fun, but I understand how this genre works in todays world and what you want and what I want will not be what is needed, or even good for the future of a genre I believe is about to die down on its hype.

 

[Chiropteran]

Snipped your post, as its getting ridiculous quoting all of it.

If raids are the anwser, why are all those MMOs with them falling? WoW, SWTOR? etc.

You cannot have a successful game that relies too heavily on the group content. Solo content has to be able to get you far enough and have enough playtime to have some appeal to the casual gamer. However the better rewards need to be in large groups in hard content. (Such as Vanilla WoW).

I disagree, it works great in every MMO so far (mandatory grouping for the hardest content/best rewards). Should there be solo able stuff that is relevant at endgame? Sure, but that is another topic completely.

The Bolded part? What you described is Diablo 2/3. Not an MMO. MMOs means you may happen to run across 1 or hundreds of people as you play alone or with others. And that the biggest/hardest stuff requires a group. Because you choose to play it as a glorified "solo" game is your choice, not a flaw in the game itself.

It may describe diablo 2/3, but it also describes WoW on a PvE server, SWTOR, Rift, etc.

Will you run across other players at random in those games? Perhaps, if you are not in an instance, but most of the time they have zero impact in your game. Enemies can't hurt you, nor can you hurt them, friendlies might help you if they are bored but there isn't usually a big cooperative benefit to grouping, it's just a social thing.

And yes it is a flaw of the game, as the player + npc interactions of questing are incompatible with player + player interactions. In a non-quest based game, you run across a player you might decide to group up and clear a nearby dungeon or cave, kill some mobs that are too hard to solo, or do something else YOU CAN'T DO ALONE. In a quest based game, the game is based around playing on the rails of the questline. You can't skip ahead to harder stuff, so even if you get in a group you are just doing the same stuff you would do solo, but it's easier.

 

[diesbudt]

Why? says who? please dont use WoW as a argument.
(wow is the exception, it got CULT status, thus people check it out for that sake alone, no other copy of it gets this benefit)

My arguments are alread yvalid enough to refute the rest, because at this point you are using your opinion. Especially with my airbag metaphor. I am not saying they dont do different things, but they both enhanced their respective experience. Once that happens, going backwards is a step down and in the wrong direction. It worked so people will expect it or more in the next batch. (Hence in car industry you always have to improve, and I use this as my metaphor as I work in one)

Anyways to a quote.

Asheron's call - You could do ALOT on your own. MORE people played by themselves except to do some group events/dungeon adventuring for rare stones to enhance a weapon that required more firepower than you had.

Guild Wars 1 - You can run an 8 person group all by yourself, using companions and henchmen. Many group stuff died with the introduction to these because people like playing at their own pace more often then not. Unless with RL friends, but that isnt something significant to an MMO only.

WoW - No reason to cover this as we have used this as an example to death

Asheron's call 2 - See Asheron's call 1

Everquest 2 - See Asheron's call 1

Swtor - Obvious enough, it was too focal pointed at single player with all quests being instanced.

I could go on. But basically all the games that found some stride, or became cult status still requires a decent chunk of solo play. It is how more people play any MMO more often then not, unless grouping for a dungeon/raid.

Again GW2, is trying to do what a lot of you gusy are asking. Many events and some quests that force group participation. But thats another story.


However, just the "cult" status thing. That had more to do with it having a strong pull of lore before it started and a perfect timing in which people started getting bored of the "kill monster for xp" style of MMORPG that was Everquest and Asheron's Call. Once it picked up enough people, then it became cult status.

I am not saying a strong group game wouldnt be fun for some people (including myself)
I am not saying a good game only on PvE or PvP wouldn't be a blast and have plenty of things to do
I am not saying quests must be in a game, or not.

What I am saying is that in todays Desktop gaming population. It is a poor business strategy to alienate so many demographic gaming groups (solo players, pvp for a pve game or pve for a pvp game, players who dont want to just kill monsters) to the point that what you want in an MMO is a pipedream.

I am not happy with most current MMOs either, but I am logical enough to realize that what I want in an MMO is not something that can or will be done because of what we are saying.

 

[diesbudt]

I disagree, it works great in every MMO so far (mandatory grouping for the hardest content/best rewards). Should there be solo able stuff that is relevant at endgame? Sure, but that is another topic completely.




It may describe diablo 2/3, but it also describes WoW on a PvE server, SWTOR, Rift, etc.

Will you run across other players at random in those games? Perhaps, if you are not in an instance, but most of the time they have zero impact in your game. Enemies can't hurt you, nor can you hurt them, friendlies might help you if they are bored but there isn't usually a big cooperative benefit to grouping, it's just a social thing.

And yes it is a flaw of the game, as the player + npc interactions of questing are incompatible with player + player interactions. In a non-quest based game, you run across a player you might decide to group up and clear a nearby dungeon or cave, kill some mobs that are too hard to solo, or do something else YOU CAN'T DO ALONE. In a quest based game, the game is based around playing on the rails of the questline. You can't skip ahead to harder stuff, so even if you get in a group you are just doing the same stuff you would do solo, but it's easier.

You more or less agreed to a few points I was making.

One thing though. Remember games now a days have intricate stories. And like any story, to get a feel for it you have to read in page # order. Not just skip ahead to the "ultimate" fight (or hard content as in this case) or you kinda ruin what was ment to be a story.

And the WoW "server" choice. Again that is a player choice not a genre/game specific thing. I played WoW 6 years. First 2 years it felt full of life and was very much an MMO. Lots of pvp in the world, lots of helping on group quests that couldnt be done alone that had the best rewards before the next zone etc.

And I never said solo content needs to be amazing, just enough to allow people who play alone or dont want to group with others ALL the time, because a good MMO would force grouping for the best/hardest content (much like current raids in MMOs, though more difficult and probably longer). Being able to do fun things: achievements, que solo for PvP or force world PvP alone, explore and so on. Leveling to max all has to be accessible to people who can play solo. Whether it is all the time, or at times when they dont feel like playing with others, forcing group gameplay for 90% of the game is a failure waiting to happen in terms of sub #s. That is all

 

[diesbudt]

And I was serious by the way.

Thanks for the fun challenging Debate going on, was kinda being a dull day.

 

[Arkadrel]

What I am saying is that in todays Desktop gaming population. It is a poor business strategy to alienate so many demographic gaming groups (solo players, pvp for a pve game or pve for a pvp game, players who dont want to just kill monsters) to the point that what you want in an MMO is a pipedream.

I am not happy with most current MMOs either, but I am logical enough to realize that what I want in an MMO is not something that can or will be done because of what we are saying.

I dont believe its a bad bussiness strat to differentiate youself from everyone else, if everyone else is doing what you are.

I say I, because I can only speak for myself. However I, believe Im not alone in thinking this way.
Im *scared* people will listen to your way of thinking, and I and people like me, will never see a decent MMO-RPG again made.

Ive played many MMO-RPGs since FF11 and they ve all been let downs.
I dont care about how "successfull" companies aim to be.
I only care about weather I enjoy a game I pay for or not.

I KNOW there are others like me out there, I know if a company wanted to, they could make profit off it.
Maybe not get 9million players like WoW has, but probably 500,000-1,000,000 and earn money off it.

Im just waiting for someone to do a decent copy of FF11.

And I never said solo content needs to be amazing, just enough to allow people who play alone or dont want to group with others ALL the time, because a good MMO would force grouping for the best/hardest content (much like current raids in MMOs, though more difficult and probably longer).

We have differnt concepts of what enjoyable gameplay is.
You want to be able to solo whenever you please (which almost always ends up makeing the MMO => single player game)
I want to be forced to group, because that means I ll actually be playing with other players.

If that means, all the dope headed 15yo WoW kiddies wont be playing the game, so what? all the better (as far as Im concerned)
Target the game at a more grown up audience. Sure you wont have 9million subs, but so what? look at SW-TOR, that failed hard, chances are if you make a more "grown" up MMO-RPG you atleast wont be that, because you ll differnciate yourself compaired to all the others out there.

*** to many MMO-RPG developers are greedy bastars, that look at WoW and think Instant money.....
then fall flat on their faces! solution? dont do what everyone else is doing.

Go old school, easily score all those that want that type of game (little competition=> easy scoop of sub) = profit.
Dont spend 300million US makeing SW-TOR game which is more or less just single player with voice acting.

Just go look at how FF11 works, and copy what you like from it, and get developing a game for that target audience.
I believe that would have a much higher chance of success, than competeing with 99% of the market that all clone WoW.

 

[diesbudt]

I dont believe its a bad bussiness strat to differentiate youself from everyone else, if everyone else is doing what you are.

I say I, because I can only speak for myself. However I, believe Im not alone in thinking this way.
Im *scared* people will listen to your way of thinking, and I and people like me, will never see a decent MMO-RPG again made.

Ive played many MMO-RPGs since FF11 and they ve all been let downs.
I dont care about how "successfull" companies aim to be.
I only care about weather I enjoy a game I pay for or not.

I KNOW there are others like me out there, I know if a company wanted to, they could make profit off it.
Maybe not get 9million players like WoW has, but probably 500,000-1,000,000 and earn money off it.

Im just waiting for someone to do a decent copy of FF11.

Again you are using "I".

I know you don't care, all you care about is if it is fun or not. Which is what gaming is. However you are not the one creating the game. Businesses are. They decide what goes in and what doesnt. And it may surprise you how much they actually listen to peoples ideas. The fact that another hasn't come around like that means it wasn't a popular set-up or popular enough for a business to decide people wanted to play it again.

As my brother once said coming back from a business class from Ohio state University: "Opinions don't matter... Unless it is in business, then the most agreed upon opinion becomes a 'business fact'"

And I know there are others too. But how many play on a desktop? How many still enjoy gaming to the same intensity as the primary focus groups (teens - late twenties)? It still boils down to a small % of the MMO playerbase which over seas and in America can boil down to somewhere near 20million.

"We have differnt concepts of what enjoyable gameplay is."

Correct, but many more people find the gameplay you want not to be what they want. Again see the business wisdom. You also have a misconception. Greed is what runs a business. It isn't bad or good. It is the single drive of ambition. If a game wasn't fun to begin with, they wouldn't have made the money any of the MMOs made. Howeevr, companies with mroe ambition, greed usually can churn out much more stuff that the majority of people want to see (so they make more money)

And if you havent noticed all my points are purly from a prospective that in the business world, the design you so desparatly want in an MMO in today's world is not a good idea.

Accept it or not, I honestly don't mind you having your opinion. But you can find enough facts searching that what I am saying has plenty of truth in it.

A lot of people didn't like anything from FF11, so making a game absed off that wouldn't work either.

I remember when it came out I was going to get it, but the first year or so it received worse player endorsement then Diablo 3 has received. And Diablo 3 has been put through enough torture to fulfill the souls of Hitler, the Colorado theater gunman, Genghas Khan 10x over.

 

[Arkadrel]

Just because most agree on something, doesnt mean its the only valid reasoning there is.

Im pretty sure a game that was "differnt" ei. non solo exp quest focused, could still succede and do really well.
Im also pretty sure that it would have a higher success rate (less chance of failour) than otherwise.

Some people like to play it safe... Im telling you the "safe" bet in this case, is to not do what everyone else is doing.

"Opinions don't matter... Unless it is in business, then the most agreed upon opinion becomes a 'business fact'"

Thats probably right however.... you forget what competition in markets mean.
If your doing what everyone else is doing, why would they pick your product?

Here is a group of people not happy with what everyone on the market is makeing (game wise).
No one will make/sell them a game, because they believe their better off competeing with everyone else for a differnt audience.

Sounds smart? or really risky?

And I know there are others too. But how many play on a desktop? How many still enjoy gaming to the same intensity as the primary focus groups (teens - late twenties)? It still boils down to a small % of the MMO playerbase which over seas and in America can boil down to somewhere near 20million.

Im sure if you found a survey with some differnt MMOs you could find out.
And I think more and more will game lateron in life, because its a fairly "new" concept.

Ei the generation that grew up in the 90's will game even when their 40-50 (and probably rest of their life).
As will never generations, so the avg age of the gamer will keep going up and up.

Maybe not as much as when they where younger, but they ll have more money by then.

Im also sure if you did a survey like that on FFXI, youd find the avg gamer was into his 20-30's and not a 15yo, like WoW probably is. It ll vary from game to game.

 

[diesbudt]

Just because most agree on something, doesnt mean its the only valid reasoning there is.

Im pretty sure a game that was "differnt" ei. non solo exp quest focused, could still succede and do really well.
Im also pretty sure that it would have a higher success rate (less chance of failour) than otherwise.

Some people like to play it safe... Im telling you the "safe" bet in this case, is to not do what everyone else is doing.



^ he wasted money on that.
If hes "ignoreing" competition in markets, based on a quote like that, then thats just silly.

I never said it was a good line most of the time. But it rings true when making something to sell. You sell at the majority target group.

Why did cigerettes focus mostly on teenagers? Easily convinced it would be something "cool"

Why are diabetes drugs targeted to odler overweight people? BEcause they normally are the ones who have diabetes.

On and on and on...

Your right, safe bet is lame and thats the issue on why MMOs have gone stale. Look at swtor and Rift.

HOWEVER, a group game will not work. SOMETHING else new and risk will work. That is what my original point in my first post. WHAT!? is that new thing that will work?

And your opinion on it would succeed very well and have a harder time to fail? Prove it. (I have already given evidence that we both known true, game subs like WoW and such, that what I am saying is the truth behind everything)

Find me evidence around the internet that such a design has a good chance at succeeding.

 

[diesbudt]

Ei the generation that grew up in the 90's will game even when their 40-50 (and probably rest of their life).
As will never generations, so the avg age of the gamer will keep going up and up.

Maybe not as much as when they where younger, but they ll have more money by then.

Very True.

They will probably also be more interested in playing only with family or by themselves, then ignornat teenagers that troll on many of the chats in the game.

 

[Daishiki]

I left WoW after four years. Having been in the top raiding guild on my server, I got tired of grinding after each expansion, logging on for nightly raids, and farming afterwards to prepare for the next night. Other than raiding and farming of various sorts, the only other options for me were PvP or sit in town and chat with friends. I heard about another game from a coworker and decided to give it a shot after reading the thread on this forum.

I've been playing EVE Online for 2+ years and I've never regretted it. I started off falling into my old grinding tendency, running the same missions ad nauseum as a PvE carebear. I switched to PvP and now am in a corp (EVE has corporations instead of guilds) that teaches others to do the same. Since it is a sandbox, you end up making your own goals. My EVE isn't the same as everyone else's EVE.

As my fellow EVE players who read this thread are probably thinking, this is probably the game you've been looking for if you're tired of the questing grind. Yeah, you can far and grind in EVE as well, but there are also a lot more options.

 

[Arkadrel]

You sell at the majority target group.

Not if that target group already has 1,000,000 others selling the same product as you.
Unless your reeeeeallly sure of your product.

Why are diabetes drugs targeted to over overweight people? Because they normally are the ones who have diabetes.

My father has type 2 diabetics (? whichever is the non lifestyle one), and its genetic (not releated to how he lived his life, or because he was grossly fat or anything).

He is skinny, and smokes but... yeah.... lots of people are diabetic without being fat, some are fat, but that isnt why they got it. Something as simple as a infection (inflammation from say Gallstones)/virus/blow to stomuck, cancer ect could result in a damaged pancras => you got diabetes congratulations.

Also its a grosely ignorant thing to say.
Why do they buy the medicin? because without it they die!
High blood suger => damaged organs => organs fail => you die.

Their bodies produce to little or no insulin, which the body needs.
Im saying this, because I think its really ignorant position to have, and uneducated on the subject.

HOWEVER, a group game will not work. SOMETHING else new and risk will work. That is what my original point in my first post. WHAT!? is that new thing that will work?

Old works. No need to reinvent the wheel.

The "new" is what GW2 has and what RIFT has.
Open quests that anyone can "join" in on and part take in. (dynamitc events they call it)

Its gonna be "new" for a while, and people will grow tired of that too.
(it ll be too unpersonal, and feel to unrewarding because your presents means little because 999,999,999 other players are already there doing it) (at first you ll do it because its fun, then because you get "points" and eventually you ll tire of it)

Also your still wrong, old school system will still work (plently of old school gamers out there waiting for a game)


--------------

I've been playing EVE Online for 2+ years and I've never regretted it. I started off falling into my old grinding tendency, running the same missions ad nauseum as a PvE carebear. I switched to PvP and now am in a corp (EVE has corporations instead of guilds) that teaches others to do the same. Since it is a sandbox, you end up making your own goals. My EVE isn't the same as everyone else's EVE.

As my fellow EVE players who read this thread are probably thinking, this is probably the game you've been looking for if you're tired of the questing grind. Yeah, you can far and grind in EVE as well, but there are also a lot more options.

my dad plays EVE lol
(has for many years, and is mostly a pve carebear, but groups up with others to defend area's of space from pirates).
It lasted about 2months for me, and I just barely did any pvping.

Im not a fan of EVE, its decent but its not great. And the "mission" = WoW type grind Quests, that give loot/ISK,
grow very tireing very quickly. Another option is mineing => zzZzz zZzzz ZzZzzzz

Or you can play a space pirate and extort money out of others,
by almost killing them and promising to let them fly away if they pay you (I never tried this).

My dad spends alot of time controlling markets, ei. makes money selling goods in area's that lack 1 thing, and buys them where there are lots of them and their cheap. He does do missions too (quest like thingies).


I dislike the sense of accomplishment the game offers.
One highest level "mission" is much like any other, and their not that challengeing once you get enough skill points to fly the better ships. Some enjoy PVP in this game, but.... meh I dont like getting my ship blown up -> go back to spending 2hours doing missions to afford new ship (potentially lose skill points ect).

 

[pandemonium]

You guys certainly have debated this like...woah. I didn't even need to jump in since most talking points are being covered. Well done.

Chiropteran, I apologize about nearly duplicating your thread. When I searched for a similar topic I missed yours; so I'll add your thread to the original post for those joining in the discussion to readily see without having to read the wall of text here and alternatively join in the fun over there. I do agree with a lot of what your demands are.

I felt that Shadowbane was going to be exactly what I wanted in an MMO, and to this day, it still is, with addition to your points about the ability to have smaller scale battles and smaller towns to be controlled. I will admit I love large scale battles, and there certainly should be a place for that in an MMO that has PvP, but it shouldn't be the overwhelming focus of the game. I believe there should be several locations on the map where large scale battles can take place (over the course of several weeks and all that), however, the majority of PvP enabled areas to be smaller skirmish-type battles. I'm not certain how to really implement or control this (and I don't think you really can without coming back to square one with the issue of instanced areas and lack of challenge/risk/community/reward feeling), but perhaps simply incentivizing it would be the way to go. The one thing that made DAoC excellent was the PvP zones. You could play any way you wanted to and be successful, given you knew how to utilize the tools at hand. You could solo, small group skirmish, or large scale battle all in the same zone. It brought a diverse community and challenge in gameplay depending on which class you were playing, and several people were very successful at solo'ing in the same zone that an enemy horde of 40+ people zerging around, destroying everything in their path. The only downfall to DAoC was the common use of radar (illegally). It eventually became less of an issue when they implemented a built-in activity map (lame radar), but still did a substantial amount of damage to the community.

Actually, the more that I think about it, the more that I realize how DAoC and FFXI held so much of my attention that I ended up going back and forth in my hay-days of MMO'ing about 5 times (in a span of 5 years). If only they got together and made sweet, sweet, polygon love, I'd be one happy gamer...and would probably quit life...entirely. No, wait. That'd happen if there was a love-triangle including Shadowbane as well. Oh the humanity. >.<

In regards to the terminology used, I guess it wasn't clear when I created the poll how to define quest driven and non-quest driven. I'll modify the original post to more clearly explain that so new players aren't confused by this. {Welcome...New Player!}

It does appear that there is substantial amount of gamers out there that aren't so much into the structured, tunnel-vision gameplay that would otherwise be known as the quest-hub system. Though being that this is on an enthusiast (more-or-less) forums, I'm certain the poll is skewed from the general audience's viewpoints. Eh, I digress.

So the sandbox style MMO has a chance, but I feel as though we're probably not at the pinnacle turning point of the gaming community to adopt it [again].

Regarding EVE, I tried it once, a long, long time ago (release I think?) and didn't like the setting I guess. (I'm more of a non-sci fi, fantasy gamer). It may have a lot of the qualities I seek in what I like in a game, but not the setting. Oh well. :/

 

[diesbudt]

My father has type 2 diabetics (? whichever is the non lifestyle one), and its genetic (not releated to how he lived his life, or because he was grossly fat or anything).

He is skinny, and smokes but... yeah.... lots of people are diabetic without being fat, some are fat, but that isnt why they got it. Something as simple as a infection (inflammation from say Gallstones)/virus/blow to stomuck, cancer ect could result in a damaged pancras => you got diabetes congratulations.

Yes, anyone can obtain diabetes, and it has some genetic link. However all the studies have shown, older overweight males, have a significant increase in obtaining diabetes..

So many of the commericals, billboards, etc. Target them in their advertisements. That is all businesses do. They target the largest audience, for what product they are selling to. Anyone that doesn't fit that stereotype, can just as easily buy/require said product, its just not targeted that way.

Also its a grosely ignorant thing to say.
Why do they buy the medicin? because without it they die!
High blood suger => damaged organs => organs fail => you die.

Their bodies produce to little or no insulin, which the body needs.
Im saying this, because I think its really ignorant position to have, and uneducated on the subject.

Yes, anyone can obtain diabetes, and it has some genetic link. However all the studies have shown, older overweight males, have a significant increase in obtaining diabetes..


So many of the commericals, billboards, etc. Target them in their advertisements. That is all businesses do. They target the largest audience, for what product they are selling to. Anyone that doesn't fit that stereotype, can just as easily buy/require said product, its just not targeted that way.

Uneducated? I have diabetes. I know ALL about it. I am not discussing or saying anything about the disease itself. But if you watch the commericals that talk about "be wary of diabetes see a doctor" or "Switch to this insurance company that will pay more for your medicine for diabetes" etc. It is an overweight man around his 50-60s. By overweight I do not mean obese, but ~10%+ overweight.

Why are the commericals not targeting teenagers? Children? healthy adults that look like they excercise regularly? Again it is all about business strategy. They realize that there will be teenagers, and healthy adults that have it because of genetic and such. So its good if they see the advertisement as well, but using the biggest demographic group as the target is purposly done to persuade them the most that maybe their insurance isn't well enough etc.

Old works. No need to reinvent the wheel.

The "new" is what GW2 has and what RIFT has.
Open quests that anyone can "join" in on and part take in. (dynamitc events they call it)

Its gonna be "new" for a while, and people will grow tired of that too.
(it ll be too unpersonal, and feel to unrewarding because your presents means little because 999,999,999 other players are already there doing it) (at first you ll do it because its fun, then because you get "points" and eventually you ll tire of it)

Also your still wrong, old school system will still work (plently of old school gamers out there waiting for a game)

If everyone is old-style waiting for a game, why not go back to those old games if they work so well? Maybe it is because there not as many as you believe there is, and because you are most interested in that style of MMO, you have a false perception in what the gaming community as a whole wants.

Pand stated it perfectly. These forums are a very small fraction of PC gaming enthusiasts. Not the commonplace. Not a demographic group a business would target. (Unless our opinions matched those of "casual" gamers)

my dad plays EVE lol
(has for many years, and is mostly a pve carebear, but groups up with others to defend area's of space from pirates).
It lasted about 2months for me, and I just barely did any pvping.

Im not a fan of EVE, its decent but its not great. And the "mission" = WoW type grind Quests, that give loot/ISK,
grow very tireing very quickly. Another option is mineing => zzZzz zZzzz ZzZzzzz

Or you can play a space pirate and extort money out of others,
by almost killing them and promising to let them fly away if they pay you (I never tried this).

My dad spends alot of time controlling markets, ei. makes money selling goods in area's that lack 1 thing, and buys them where there are lots of them and their cheap. He does do missions too (quest like thingies).


I dislike the sense of accomplishment the game offers.
One highest level "mission" is much like any other, and their not that challengeing once you get enough skill points to fly the better ships. Some enjoy PVP in this game, but.... meh I dont like getting my ship blown up -> go back to spending 2hours doing missions to afford new ship (potentially lose skill points ect).

What you just described here is soley a RPG "problem".

All games repeat their area of experitise of difficulty. Raids in Warcraft, always raids. In a game that is group based and monsters, always that. (and so on) So the end is much like the game itself. There is no change. Like level 1-20 is quest solo levels in X, Y, Z zones. With level 21-30 being aquired only in large groups killing large monsters in zones A, B. And level 31-40 is acquired doing instanced raids of groups killing bosses. With level 41-50 being quest based again (and so on) I cant say why companies don't try a system like that, but I can say 99% all RPGS follow the same "ideal" path from level 1 --> max level and then a new one all the time during max level. (or same one if a company wants)

Also, all RPGS have the issues of overleveling or overgearing things making some quests/monsters/instances too easy. I don't know how many times I grinded for hours on an Older FF game or Pokemon game when I was younger so I could breeze through the hard fights.

Which I am glad to see GW2 will have level scaling, so your stats and gear change based on what zone your in if your too high a level.

 

[diesbudt]

You guys certainly have debated this like...woah. I didn't even need to jump in since most talking points are being covered. Well done.

Chiropteran, I apologize about nearly duplicating your thread. When I searched for a similar topic I missed yours; so I'll add your thread to the original post for those joining in the discussion to readily see without having to read the wall of text here and alternatively join in the fun over there. I do agree with a lot of what your demands are.

I felt that Shadowbane was going to be exactly what I wanted in an MMO, and to this day, it still is, with addition to your points about the ability to have smaller scale battles and smaller towns to be controlled. I will admit I love large scale battles, and there certainly should be a place for that in an MMO that has PvP, but it shouldn't be the overwhelming focus of the game. I believe there should be several locations on the map where large scale battles can take place (over the course of several weeks and all that), however, the majority of PvP enabled areas to be smaller skirmish-type battles. I'm not certain how to really implement or control this (and I don't think you really can without coming back to square one with the issue of instanced areas and lack of challenge/risk/community/reward feeling), but perhaps simply incentivizing it would be the way to go. The one thing that made DAoC excellent was the PvP zones. You could play any way you wanted to and be successful, given you knew how to utilize the tools at hand. You could solo, small group skirmish, or large scale battle all in the same zone. It brought a diverse community and challenge in gameplay depending on which class you were playing, and several people were very successful at solo'ing in the same zone that an enemy horde of 40+ people zerging around, destroying everything in their path. The only downfall to DAoC was the common use of radar (illegally). It eventually became less of an issue when they implemented a built-in activity map (lame radar), but still did a substantial amount of damage to the community.

Actually, the more that I think about it, the more that I realize how DAoC and FFXI held so much of my attention that I ended up going back and forth in my hay-days of MMO'ing about 5 times (in a span of 5 years). If only they got together and made sweet, sweet, polygon love, I'd be one happy gamer...and would probably quit life...entirely. No, wait. That'd happen if there was a love-triangle including Shadowbane as well. Oh the humanity. >.<

In regards to the terminology used, I guess it wasn't clear when I created the poll how to define quest driven and non-quest driven. I'll modify the original post to more clearly explain that so new players aren't confused by this. {Welcome...New Player!}

It does appear that there is substantial amount of gamers out there that aren't so much into the structured, tunnel-vision gameplay that would otherwise be known as the quest-hub system. Though being that this is on an enthusiast (more-or-less) forums, I'm certain the poll is skewed from the general audience's viewpoints. Eh, I digress.

So the sandbox style MMO has a chance, but I feel as though we're probably not at the pinnacle turning point of the gaming community to adopt it [again].

Regarding EVE, I tried it once, a long, long time ago (release I think?) and didn't like the setting I guess. (I'm more of a non-sci fi, fantasy gamer). It may have a lot of the qualities I seek in what I like in a game, but not the setting. Oh well. :/

That is a point I am trying to make overall. (You could actually call me devils advocate in this debate, because I almost want to check out FF XI or 14 now that it has stuff I want in an MMO)

I agree I would find a lot of enjoyment out of the MMO style they have put forward. But I am not delusion in the aspect that I am a minority when it comes to MMO, so I will always have to settle to what is the best compared to what I want.

It isn't because there are no good game developers out there that could come up with an idea that would really interest us. It isn't because game companies love the WoW model. It is because the majority of the MMO playerbase would not want an MMO type we put forth, reducing the drive to want to create such an MMO.

An amazing idea I have for an MMO is great, but itd be too long to type here, and would be pointless considering it would have 2 major flaws in what I want. (1 - again I am in minority) (2 - It would interest too many immature little kids to the game)

And yes, we debated this topic to the ground. Hopefully we covered both sides of the debate well enough for anyone to take the time to read be interested on the debate.

Also, Later I may make a poll on this forums to see who would ratehr enjoy:

A) Just group based gameplay (no solo play except for maybe the first few levels to get feet in the water)
B) Just solo play (Much like a skyrim based game in which you can jump into with other people like D3)
C) A mixture of the 2 allowing solo game play and group gameplay.

^ As that has been the primary topic of the debate recently. (Another is PvP vs PvE, but that should be obvious that a game requries both today to target as many people as possible. Though it may focus more on one aspect or the other)

 

[Chiropteran]

Also, Later I may make a poll on this forums to see who would ratehr enjoy:

A) Just group based gameplay (no solo play except for maybe the first few levels to get feet in the water)
B) Just solo play (Much like a skyrim based game in which you can jump into with other people like D3)
C) A mixture of the 2 allowing solo game play and group gameplay.

Maybe I should save this response for your new thread (if you make one), but here is my take.

1- Get rid of the artificial distinction. Don't design a zone with the intention that players will solo in it, don't design a zone with the intention that players will group in it.

2- Have a rich world filled with a wide range of challenges for characters and groups of all levels, and rewards that fit the challenge, but also some limited exceptions and variety.

3- Keep XP meaningful*, and reward XP based on doing something the "hard way". For example, solo equal level mob = 100 xp. Solo mob 2 levels higher = 400 xp. Kill mob 2 levels higher in a group of 5 = 25 xp. Grouping will make it easier to kill hard things, so tone down the XP reward.

4- Let players decide what to do. Some zones might be so hard that they can't be soloed even by the strongest characters, but let them try anyway if they want.

I played a game much like this, and the natural tendency was for players to group up a lot more often at higher levels, where the dangers of dying and potential rewards from the harder mobs that couldn't be soloed outweighed the reduced XP gain. However, some would solo all the way to max level. Some would group at much lower levels, just for fun, or to take advantage of very synergistic class combinations.

I just despise World of Warcraft's totally arbitrary decisions on what should be soloed, what should be done in a group, and what should be done in a raid. Just make content of varying difficulty and the players will figure it out themselves.


*To keep XP meaningful at the cap, I have 3 ideas that can all be used together. 1- death results in XP loss. Lose enough, you delevel. At max level you want to keep you XP near max so you don't risk deleveling when you die. 2- skills. Training some skills to the highest levels cost XP. Think of it as like buying a talent point for 50% of the XP required to level, after hitting max, with eventual limits. 3- crafting. Crafting certain powerful items might cost experience points.

 

[diesbudt]

Maybe I should save this response for your new thread (if you make one), but here is my take.

1- Get rid of the artificial distinction. Don't design a zone with the intention that players will solo in it, don't design a zone with the intention that players will group in it.

2- Have a rich world filled with a wide range of challenges for characters and groups of all levels, and rewards that fit the challenge, but also some limited exceptions and variety.

3- Keep XP meaningful*, and reward XP based on doing something the "hard way". For example, solo equal level mob = 100 xp. Solo mob 2 levels higher = 400 xp. Kill mob 2 levels higher in a group of 5 = 25 xp. Grouping will make it easier to kill hard things, so tone down the XP reward.

4- Let players decide what to do. Some zones might be so hard that they can't be soloed even by the strongest characters, but let them try anyway if they want.

I played a game much like this, and the natural tendency was for players to group up a lot more often at higher levels, where the dangers of dying and potential rewards from the harder mobs that couldn't be soloed outweighed the reduced XP gain. However, some would solo all the way to max level. Some would group at much lower levels, just for fun, or to take advantage of very synergistic class combinations.

I just despise World of Warcraft's totally arbitrary decisions on what should be soloed, what should be done in a group, and what should be done in a raid. Just make content of varying difficulty and the players will figure it out themselves.


*To keep XP meaningful at the cap, I have 3 ideas that can all be used together. 1- death results in XP loss. Lose enough, you delevel. At max level you want to keep you XP near max so you don't risk deleveling when you die. 2- skills. Training some skills to the highest levels cost XP. Think of it as like buying a talent point for 50% of the XP required to level, after hitting max, with eventual limits. 3- crafting. Crafting certain powerful items might cost experience points.

Yes I totally agree on xp. I think there should definitely be a ramp up of xp depending on the difficulty. I also agree a lot of group gameplay should be used, however (especially in leveling and seeing the majority of the story) there should also be game play taht can be done while solo. Whether because you are in a bad mood and don't want to play with others, but want to play this game, or maybe all the people you enjoy playing with are not currently on and you are waiting for them.

You would have a hard time selling people the consequence to delevel/lose xp on death. (Especially a game online in which Int connection, Lag, and so on could kill people off because of a hiccup in the internet connection). It would be a catastrophe. A large majority of the playerbase doesnt enjoy "hardcore" type gameplay. If they did many more people would have played D3 hardcore (I say D3 and not D2 because so many people cheating and dupped in D2 that they didnt care if they lost a character if they could just recheat/dupe everything).

Maybe if there was a choice, like servers set aside for this, and for that you gain 20% more xp per kill/quest, an incentive to do the hardcore style.

Interesting. Using xp to pay for skills or even stat upgrades. I would like that, and can honestly say this is one I would have no idea how the majority playerbase would take it.

Eh crafting has always been an issue in MMOs, Id rather not tackle that because it either trivializes other gear, or is not worth doing and is too easy or hard.

#1 - Already said, like WoW it was primarily a Group based MMO in vanilla for all its late game stuff. However many solo players still enjoyed the quests and story and learning the game. Sometiems they even grouped. But they never needed to. So separate content for group/solo works just fine, but a game needs to be able to have some interest in the side you don't wish an MMO to focus on (Group vs solo, PvE vs PvP,)

#2 This is a duh for any MMO to be successful lol.

#3 Most MMOs are like this, though it sounds like you would rather have a bigger bonus when you kill higher level things than just maybe 5% more xp per level. (In groups on most MMOs yoru xp is severly reduced, because it is so much easier to kill things also)

#4 Pretty much what I was saying in 1 and earlier. This would be fun, just allow there to be an alternate zone or leveling for people who don't want to play with others. Even if the rewards are not as great as the group zone. Just something that entices them to play the same MMO even though they play more solo than grouped.

 

[Chiropteran]

In world of warcraft, mob scaling is kinda silly. Mobs don't *really* get that much stronger they level up, but they are artificially made stronger because the mechanic greatly increases miss chance against higher level mobs, until eventually you literally can't hit it at all except once in 50 attacks or so.

Because of this mechanic, they created elite mobs- mobs with a lot more hp and damage, but not higher base level, so you would "need" a group to kill them. But it's not a smooth increase from regular mobs to elite mobs, for the most part. Instance are simply designed for groups of 5, so elite mobs are designed to be balanced against groups of 5 players.

So player groups of 2-4 are left without any content. Solo players who want a real challenge are also out of luck- either you fight stuff your level, and it's a joke. Or you fight stuff above your level, and miss 80% of the time, or you fight elites, balanced around groups of 5, and probably can't kill any of them. It's just an ugly system and I hate it.

Instead, REMOVE the artificial level based miss chances. Higher level mobs would be harder because they are actually stronger and tougher, not because you have no chance to hit them.

Now, a solo player can get a fair challenge by fighting level +1 mobs. A group of 2 might get a decent challenge against level +2 or +3 mobs. A group of 3 could fight level +4 mobs. Etc. It's a smoother power scaling, and it doesn't have to jump from ridiculously easy non-elite mobs to ridiculously hard elite mobs.


I also think this is a more efficient way to make a game. Why? Content can serve multiple purposes.


A dungeon filled with level 8 mobs with a level 9 "boss" could be a good challenge for a solo player around level 8, but it could also be good content for a group of 3 level 6 players, or a group of 6 level 4 players, etc. By not forcing players do content in a certain way, it opens it up to multiple possibilities.

 

[diesbudt]

I also think this is a more efficient way to make a game. Why? Content can serve multiple purposes.


A dungeon filled with level 8 mobs with a level 9 "boss" could be a good challenge for a solo player around level 8, but it could also be good content for a group of 3 level 6 players, or a group of 6 level 4 players, etc. By not forcing players do content in a certain way, it opens it up to multiple possibilities.

Interesting, and make the gear scale around level 6, so if you group up you can get level equivalent gear easier than those that solo, would mean solo isn't taken out of the game at all, but will not obtain gear the same speed or strength. This could work really well if implemented inside a good game design.

I think we just agreed on something chir.

 

[Rambusted]

If option 1 is what people consider a WoW clone than I am on board. I have tried numerous MMORPG's and wow felt better to me than any of em, most of them were wow clones of course but none of them could mimic the polished feel of wow which was to be expected. Lately though I have been having more fun with single player rpg's, skyrim specifically, and have not had a paid sub for any mmo for well over a year. But I still play on a vanilla wow private server from time to time which to me is the best version of wow ever released. I wish Blizzard would host a few old school realms, I would gladly pay a sub for that.

 

[coloumb]

Quests exists because most people need to be told what to do - you are given a "task" which then "rewards" you with something [usually paycheck]. "Bonus/Boss fights" equate to performing outstanding work or going above and beyond the minimum requirements = spot bonus, raise, promotion. The longer you work at your job - the higher level of skill you become. Sound familiar?

Quest systems need to be revamped - make it more natural rather than "Go pick 10 berries and bring them back to me for better armor". How the hell does grabbing 10 berries equate to better armor?

Make the quest system flow with your character's progression and avoid having to return to the original quest giver unless there is a good reason [ie: Let's say the quest giver wants you to find 10 components for a speeder he's building. Once you return - he builds and gives you a speeder.].

In addition - have quests spawn as you travel through the world - pre-determined events [SWTOR has this whenever you enter certain areas] and random events [events that can't be searched/camped].

Personally - I'd like to play a sci-fi MMO that combines SWG freedom [to explore or literally solo anything in the game], player controlled content, crafting, harvesting, space combat and Tabula Rasa's "random" game generated attacks on bases. Then add in pre-determined area quest zones and random quest objectives.