I find this kind of insulting actually, basically it boils down to the PvE'ers doing the grunt work so the PvP'ers and crafters do not have to at all anymore, seems just like another "get everything for free" type of system to me.
Not to mention the havok such a system would cause on market prices, when only something like 1/3 of the population is even able to gather basic materials the prices would eventually sky rocket and would probably just be ignored by creating alt's, and could just render the system useless and make gathering things more difficult than they need to be, since people will need to create different characters to gather certain things.
I see what this type of system is trying to accomplish, unity and dependancy on your fellow players, creating a more community based mmo structure, but I just don't see that working out anymore, and since most will likely just be creating alts to avoid unreasonible prices it would just make that whole gathering process even longer.
Time does equal money in mmo's, especially so if they are p2p :P and anyone who is actually paying for their own MMO sub just won't have the extra time it will take to gather certain things, it's much better for them if everyone is able to gather and sell everything, this way prices stay sane and those mats will always be available at any given time, without the need to ever create an alt.
Not sure if your addressing me, but I'll assume so. Your making way to many assumptions about the system I'm proposing, but I promise it's nothing like you suggest. Follow the link in my sig if you really want to know, but I warn you it's a long read....
Why do you assume I fit in that category? You do the same thing you assume I did to you then you fling yourself into a childish tirade, twice and wonder why I respond with a low grade insult....
You want to put you big boy pants on, I would be glad to discuss, or debate any point you would like to address...
Cheers....
That's not true and you know it. Don't try and bullshit your way out of this.
You lumped me into the PVP crowd and then I explained to you where I really stand.
You claim I did the same thing but you don't clarify what category you think I lumped you into? Why don't you explain that part? Sorry, it's not good enough to just tell someone they're "wrong" in a debate and then turn around and pretend your argument landed you fucking child. No one awards you any points. You don't "win." You haven't contributed anything to ANY argument at all.
In my last post, the first sentence was the only part where I addressed to you.
I don't have to bullshit my way out of anything, so what if I lumped you into the PvP crowd and was mistaken? Next time I suggest the you represent your point of view more clearly so that mistakes, your tirades and my low grade insults can be avoided.
Originally posted by bonobotheory Originally posted by ActionMMORPG My day... 1. grind materials 2. travel to get rare crafting pattern 3. on the way back to town get slaughtered multiple times by a corpse camping griefer = Adventure? That's going to be a tough one to sell to a mass appeal audience.
But getting your level 40 character ganked repeatedly by a level 80 is all about the skill, man! Don't you love the challenge of dying without a chance to fight back?
This is really the only issue I have with mmorpg PvP. A lot of people defend it as incentive to level up or the price you pay or whatever. To me, it's just lame. Essentially the risk is removed for the level 80 character. I'm not sure there's a good, universal solution either, which is why I tend towards the consensual PvP - you have to flag for it.
In Eve, you have options. You can warp from gate to gate, carry insurance, etc. I've heard of people mining in that game for years and not once seeing combat. It's their choice and it it's possible. There is still risk, but they have options. That's how it needs to be. It doesn't have to be Eve's system specifically, but you shouldn't have carte blanche to do whatever you want, regardless of level (or skill points, or whatever).
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
PvP requires constant tweeking and gimping of classes so everyone is the same. PvE allows differences in classes and power.
If devs got to focus on PvE alone, imagine what they could do with the world. PvP balanciong just requires too much time and effort.
That. PvP sucks up a ton of resources that could be used on content. Worse than that, the efforts of those resources are nowhere near as apparent as, say, creating a new PVE zone or questline.
Class based or skill based, it's always the same; some class/skill has, or appears to have some marginal advantage over others, it becomes FotM til' they nerf it, then along comes something else.
If a game has PvP, PvP has to be the main focus ala DFO, MO, and Eve. If not, it's just a burning up of resources.
Pure PvE for these reasons. There are much better genres for PvP, and when I want good, balanced PvP I play those.
I prefer pure PvE for many reasons. Mainly because I'm sick of having classes being balanced around PvP and I also believe a good PvP game should never rely on PvE content. This only promotes ganking and hiding behind level, opportunity and other factors where PvP is not fair.
A good PvP game should be a PvP game.
As for MMORPG I am still waiting for a game lik EverQuest where the PvE content is challenging without all the hand holdings.
I prefer pure PvE for many reasons. Mainly because I'm sick of having classes being balanced around PvP and I also believe a good PvP game should never rely on PvE content. This only promotes ganking and hiding behind level, opportunity and other factors where PvP is not fair.
A good PvP game should be a PvP game.
As for MMORPG I am still waiting for a game lik EverQuest where the PvE content is challenging without all the hand holdings.
What if PvE classes and PvP skills were different? In other words a skill that allows you to run fast is a skill that isn't either PvP or PvE specific, but a skill like garrot (to strangle) is specifically a skill learned and used to attack other people. Trapping can be player specific and Mob specific....
There are perfectly legitimate solutions to "ganking".
I don't know of any good PvP games that are only PvP.
A PvE game that allows players to make choices about putting themselves in situations where other players can attack them seems like exactly what your asking for, that is if you want a game that doesn't hold your hand.
Originally posted by Talinguard Originally posted by yewsef I prefer pure PvE for many reasons. Mainly because I'm sick of having classes being balanced around PvP and I also believe a good PvP game should never rely on PvE content. This only promotes ganking and hiding behind level, opportunity and other factors where PvP is not fair. A good PvP game should be a PvP game. As for MMORPG I am still waiting for a game lik EverQuest where the PvE content is challenging without all the hand holdings.
What if PvE classes and PvP skills were different? In other words a skill that allows you to run fast is a skill that isn't either PvP or PvE specific, but a skill like garrot (to strangle) is specifically a skill learned and used to attack other people. Trapping can be player specific and Mob specific.... There are perfectly legitimate solutions to "ganking". I don't know of any good PvP games that are only PvP. A PvE game that allows players to make choices about putting themselves in situations where other players can attack them seems like exactly what your asking for, that is if you want a game that doesn't hold your hand.
Just a thought.
I'm not sure about games like Darkfall, where you don't really have levels, but in games like WoW, the expectation is that you're going to level very quickly. You will be at the max level in a relatively short period of time, so putting systems in place to even out ganking isn't really worth the effort. This is the thinking I can believe they have in these cases anyway.
I don't think you should have PvP and PvE skills, but it's workable. I also don't think you should have different definitions for skills in PvP and PvE. You should have some other modifier, auras or something else that differentiates them so you have less overlap and balance in one doesn't create issues in the other. This is just an aesthetic choice - it's really the same thing, separating PvE and PvP...I just think the method should be more integrated as a function of the virtual world as opposed to a function of the game (if that makes sense).
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
3. on the way back to town get slaughtered multiple times by a corpse camping griefer
= Adventure?
That's going to be a tough one to sell to a mass appeal audience.
But getting your level 40 character ganked repeatedly by a level 80 is all about the skill, man! Don't you love the challenge of dying without a chance to fight back?
This is really the only issue I have with mmorpg PvP. A lot of people defend it as incentive to level up or the price you pay or whatever. To me, it's just lame. Essentially the risk is removed for the level 80 character. I'm not sure there's a good, universal solution either, which is why I tend towards the consensual PvP - you have to flag for it.
In Eve, you have options. You can warp from gate to gate, carry insurance, etc. I've heard of people mining in that game for years and not once seeing combat. It's their choice and it it's possible. There is still risk, but they have options. That's how it needs to be. It doesn't have to be Eve's system specifically, but you shouldn't have carte blanche to do whatever you want, regardless of level (or skill points, or whatever).
In Eve you can warp into some barren sector of space where you're almost impossible to find and create a star base with a shield (just in case). You can collect huge amounts of items and raw material.
Now you have to figure out how to get it all back. do you make multiple trips though the bottlenecks often patrolled by PK'ers into empire space and risk being killed, or do you buy fuel for a transport to warp back to Empire space and eat up some of your profit paying for fuel?
MMO's should be risk vs reward. To be successful players should be those not only willing to take the risk, but who are good enough to understand the game and use their knowledge of the game to prevail.
There are plenty of ways to discourage higher level players from attacking lower level players. Notice I say discourage. It's part of a risk vs reward system. Players can choose to attack other players but there should always be risk.
Originally posted by Talinguard Originally posted by lizardbones
Originally posted by bonobotheory
Originally posted by ActionMMORPG My day... 1. grind materials 2. travel to get rare crafting pattern 3. on the way back to town get slaughtered multiple times by a corpse camping griefer = Adventure? That's going to be a tough one to sell to a mass appeal audience.
But getting your level 40 character ganked repeatedly by a level 80 is all about the skill, man! Don't you love the challenge of dying without a chance to fight back?
This is really the only issue I have with mmorpg PvP. A lot of people defend it as incentive to level up or the price you pay or whatever. To me, it's just lame. Essentially the risk is removed for the level 80 character. I'm not sure there's a good, universal solution either, which is why I tend towards the consensual PvP - you have to flag for it.
In Eve, you have options. You can warp from gate to gate, carry insurance, etc. I've heard of people mining in that game for years and not once seeing combat. It's their choice and it it's possible. There is still risk, but they have options. That's how it needs to be. It doesn't have to be Eve's system specifically, but you shouldn't have carte blanche to do whatever you want, regardless of level (or skill points, or whatever).
In Eve you can warp into some barren sector of space where you're almost impossible to find and create a star base with a shield (just in case). You can collect huge amounts of items and raw material. Now you have to figure out how to get it all back. do you make multiple trips though the bottlenecks often patrolled by PK'ers into empire space and risk being killed, or do you buy fuel for a transport to warp back to Empire space and eat up some of your profit paying for fuel? MMO's should be risk vs reward. To be successful players should be those not only willing to take the risk, but who are good enough to understand the game and use their knowledge of the game to prevail. There are plenty of ways to discourage higher level players from attacking lower level players. Notice I say discourage. It's part of a risk vs reward system. Players can choose to attack other players but there should always be risk.
To me, in Eve because of the context of the game, it makes perfect sense that the better financed ship wins. It just makes sense...a battleship is going to sink a tug boat, even if the tug boat does a suicide run loaded down with C4.
When you get into the standard fantasy settings or the usual scenarios where your avatar is a humanoid, I think it makes more sense that there be some kind of limit to the difference between higher and lower level players. Could I beat up a kung fu master who's 60 years old? No way. I just don't know enough. But I could shoot them with a rifle from 200 yards no problem with a few hours practice (for example). Something should level the playing field more. Using WoW as an example, the level 40 player would probably still die, but the level 80 player would lose a bit of health. If there were 2 level 40 players, then the 80 would probably still win, but might die. If there were 3 level 40 players, the level 80 would probably die. This is just personal opinion of PvP though...even a max level should face some risk when killing a lower level player.
I also think though, if you want to have a good PvE game in there, you need to have protected space. This makes sense in the context of most games and the world in general. You have safe zones where you can conduct business, build a farm, etc. You would attract more of the PvE people you need to build your economy. Eve does this to great effect. There are people who have never lost a ship and have never seen combat (someone in these forums said 'most', but I have no idea of numbers). They feed the economy with a lot of materials. Farmers under seige don't farm, they find someplace else to farm.
I don't mean to keep using Eve as an example, but Perpetuum isn't old enough yet to really get a good handle on how it's going to work out and there's not really any other good examples for economics besides A Tale in the Desert, but it doesn't have any PvP combat at all.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Talin, what you've described sounds to me like the concept behind Pirates of the Burning Sea. It doesn't seem to have gone down too well.
If you are serious that this is a concept you want to at least try to follow through with, check out those forums, use them as research material. If nothing else, you may find out what NOT to do, and that is always useful.
Talin, what you've described sounds to me like the concept behind Pirates of the Burning Sea. It doesn't seem to have gone down too well.
Pirates of the Burning Seas had the problem of advertising itself as a PvP game where non-PvPers could opt out of PvP and still enjoy the majority of the content. This worked for about the first month at which point PvPers complained that there was not enough PvP happening and the rate at which PvP zones appeared was increased and they stayed around for longer. All of a sudden non-PvP players were locked out of significant portions of the map for weeks at a time. A 'PvP if you want to' game turned into a 'PvP or quit' game. In addition the cost of the large ships turned out to be so big that most players opted to keep any resources they generated for themselves and build everything inside their guilds. The economy ground down to a sputter and PvP remained the only viable part of the game.
In the broadest sense yes, but I am refering to in game achievement not personal goals, so things like getting uber loot or getting a better ship.
CM, I just don't get it. What is the difference between an "in game achievement" and a "personal goal" if were talking in the context of a game. A personal goal is made up of in game achievements, aren't they?.
Means refers to the process of something being fun. For raiding, people like getting the items but few like doing the same dugeon over and over. The end result is epic loot and that could be fun if you care, the process is long and boring however. If you find the dungeons boring and are not interested in gear then you just don't play. Being focused on the "means" means you are focusing on making raiding fun, not just getting gear.
If your going to redefine the word "means" that's up to you, but "means" usually means, "something of instrumental value in order to achieve an end"
So, with all due respect, you can define means however you want, but if you want anyone to understand what your talking about please define your new terms.
To your definition of means referring to "the process of something being fun". I'm not trying to be difficult, but "fun" isn't a process, it's an experience, an experience derived from the game.
Again I think I understand what your saying. Make the path to the goal of acquiring means (or ends) more fun.
That is kind of the point the only fun MMOs offer is getting things, for some that is enough but for many would be players they need more to keep them interested.
Here is a statement I agree with in theory at least. The challenge is to define "more" is.
Fun is the motivator to play games how you have fun is the issue. You could just screw around with game mechanics and have fun without any particular goal, so it doesn't all come down to achievement.
Screw around with game mechanics and have fun? I think it's time to quantify the word "fun". I could chew on a plastic bottle cap and have fun, but I don't think that is an adiquate definition of the word "fun". I don't know anyone that plays Chess to stack the pieces, because stacking the pieces isn't playing the game of Chess. Same for an MMO. People don't play an MMO to "screw with the mechanics". Because if that's what they are doing they are not playing the game, they are interacting with it. Which is fine, but I don't think that this is what this conversation is about.
Games have goals, setting your eye on a goal, whatever it is and reaching it is achievement. Some goals are so easily achieved they hardly seem like goals.
Now were getting more into the psychology of gaming.....
Well you can't objectively make a game better, its all subjective, you just have to try and figure how other people feel about something and make a better game for that group of people.
Ok, Ill run with that....
Stories are more than immersion, they give a whole new way to look at a game and a new set of motivations. A game that has a story where the player has input lets the players think about the actions of their character in the game and a well written story can engauge a player on a personal level. The result is a game where the player can develop a persona for themselves and can be personally invested in the choices they make, because they care what happens in the story beyond what rewards they get.
I would still call that immersion in the story. The story doesn't change the fundamental nature of the game, it changes the experience for each player with the goal of making that experience better. I can't say I agree with the concept that a story can change motivation, though I might agree that it changes how you feel about the motivation you've chosen. I'll concede this point only if you can describe it better.
And half finished games don't make money. Yeah there limitations on time, budget and practicality, like I said, but the most successful games are the best made ones. Generally games that get released too early don't do that well, releasing too early is a poor business strategy by incompotent businessmen. So like I said the best way to make money is to make a good game.
Your being nieve again....Half finished games can absolutely make money. Depends on how well they are marketed and how much money they took to create, host ect...
After that you use a lot of subjective terms like "best" and "success". By both of these yardsticks one might be tempted to call WoW the best, most successful game ever, or Wal Mart the best and most successful retail store ever...
Your delving into to many assumptions and I want to point that out. However I do understand what your trying to say. Good games definitely have the best chance of making the most money, but there are anawful lot of variables and subjective concepts that have to be defined before we can really understand what all this means.
But often times players endure the gameplay to get some achievement. Yes I do think players play games they do not enjoy most of the time, they just like the feeling of getting something and are wiling to trudge through dull gameplay to get the next reward. This has more to do with addictive personality traits than fun though.
Why would anyone endure a game they don't enjoy? To get to the next achievement? Something that has the promise of making the game a little easier?
I know people that do what you describe and I wouldn't call it "addictive". That would be dismissive. I would call them driven to reach thier goals that they are willing to endure something they don't like to get to a point (via some end) where they are having fun. I don't care for PvE, I endure it to gain what I need for PvP, which is, ironically one of the largest problems I see when trying to combine the two play types in a single world.
Talin, what you've described sounds to me like the concept behind Pirates of the Burning Sea. It doesn't seem to have gone down too well.
If you are serious that this is a concept you want to at least try to follow through with, check out those forums, use them as research material. If nothing else, you may find out what NOT to do, and that is always useful.
I have spent several years creating my concepts. I have had several developers interested in my concepts and right now there is one who are implementing them.
Torik seems to have explained the reason PBS seems to have gone down the tubes. But having said that. Good systems can fail in bad games because there are so many variables.
Cinimatic story lines will not work well in my concepts, but your assessment that politics and economics as dull motivators is, well, perplexing. If the foundation of the genre is achievement, unless you disagree, some of the best "rulers" of success are political and economic achievement. Identifying player motivation and leveraging it in a way that increases both adversarial and cooperative game play is paramount. However, all of this needs to be cloaked in good fiction.
The problem the concept of 'politics' has in MMORPGs is that to most players it is just 'drama'. Politically minded players invent drama so they can manipulate the opposing factions and achieve a position of power. This works in PvP games because in that type of game having the biggest 'gang' is important to enjoying the game. In PvE games if you do not like the drama of a guild you can just walk away and they can't do anything to you. In fact the most successful guild leaders are managers rather than politicians. A leadership position in a PvE game is more of a responsibility rather than a position of power.
As far as economic advancement goes, it hits a limit. In WoW some players can amass hundreds of thousands of gold. However, an average casual player only needs about 10k at the max level for various flight skills and then most fo their needs are taken care of by simply playing the game. As such wealth accumulation really does not give much power or respect.
I agree that "politics" plays little roll in todays MMORPG and frankly in retrospect I should have left it out. I think it is possible to include political elements, but it's not my focus, right now anyway. In the context of the MMORPG what you're talking about isn't politics for the sake of the game, but interpersonal politics that exists beyond the boundaries of the game itself. I ran a guild in DAoC for quite a while. When I quit, I decided that refereeing fights between children was something I did at home with my own kids, not something I wanted to do while I was online "playing a game".
You make an interesting point that I would like explore....You talk about economic advancement in WoW, but you assume that economic advancement is limited to the digital representation that Blizzard named "gold". Gold in most games barley fits the definition of money and the more you acquire the more this is so.
Wealth comes from not just what you have to jingle in your pocket, but in the extent of your possessions. If I had no money but if my character were perfectly equipt would I not be thought of as "wealthy"? As you elude to, once you reach the latest stages of the game money has virtually no value to you. I will point out this is because there is little or nothing that can be bought with it. It can rightfully be said that the value of money in most games come strictly from what it can buy. The flaw in this idea is that money has different value to different players.
It would be foolish of me to claim that this model (WoW) is a failure, as I would be thought of as mad, but I will make the claim that better concepts exist.
I tend to differentiate between 'economic advancement' and mere 'wealth acquisition'. Economic advancement to me implies starting a business enterprise and expanding it. You provide a product that other players need and do so in the best way you can. Wealth acquisition is merely 'getting stuff' and thus advancement in that area is fully dependant on how you acquire your in-game wealth. If you use RMT to buy the gold/items then you get very little respect and usually get ridiculled for it. Top raider might have the best gear but they get respect primarily because they are top raiders. At the same time someone with a lot of in-game wealth will have a hard time leveraging that wealth into other forms of achievement without actually having the skills needed for those achievements.
I tend to differentiate between 'economic advancement' and mere 'wealth acquisition'. Economic advancement to me implies starting a business enterprise and expanding it. You provide a product that other players need and do so in the best way you can. Wealth acquisition is merely 'getting stuff' and thus advancement in that area is fully dependant on how you acquire your in-game wealth. If you use RMT to buy the gold/items then you get very little respect and usually get ridiculled for it. Top raider might have the best gear but they get respect primarily because they are top raiders. At the same time someone with a lot of in-game wealth will have a hard time leveraging that wealth into other forms of achievement without actually having the skills needed for those achievements.
Economic advancement? Well since economics is the production and distribution and consumption of goods and services and their management, then advancement would be becoming more advanced in production and distribution methods and increased efficiency in consumption.
Since the creation of new money in virtually all games is between the interaction of players to the game itself (as opposed to one another) in the form of money dropped, quests performed or items sold (to NPC's) and that storage of items is huge (though storage has declined over the years) with few if any costs involved, then it would seem that economic advancement just requires spending more time collecting stuff from the game world.
In systems that have a true player crafting system, only Eve comes right to mind, though I'm sure there are a few others, the goal is essentially the same. Spend time gathering raw mats from the world and combine them with a do-over-time system or a pay-to-learn system. Eve has an ingenious way to bring value to their currency, though I don't like it, I still see it as brilliant.
This is my secret agenda. To expose the idea that player to game interactions have to be secondary, not primary to the acquisition of wealth. That is the primary means of obtaining consumables has to come from players, not the game. Same for money. Money should be based on something of intrinsic value in the game so that money can be removed in order to control inflation. All of this can lead to a world where there is a single type of currency that everyone recognizes as valuable.
How this is done is what my concepts are based on.....
CM, I just don't get it. What is the difference between an "in game achievement" and a "personal goal" if were talking in the context of a game. A personal goal is made up of in game achievements, aren't they?.
Personal goals usually don't make a diiference in the game, like exploring an area, you are not objectvely better off from doing it, you just get some personal satisfaction from it. In game achievement, like getting better gear or better ships makes you objectively better, in this sense they are not optional, you have to pursue these achievements to play the game.
Again I think I understand what your saying. Make the path to the goal of acquiring means (or ends) more fun.
Yes. To put it bluntly MMOs have aweful gameplay most of the time. The only thing they bring to the table is a endless pursuit of power. Actually making gameplay interesting on other levels could pull in players that typically wouldn't touch a MMO.
Fun in the most basic sense is enjoyment. There are many ways to enjoy something. A more passive zen like enjoyment can be found in games with strong mechanics, driving just fo fun, free running in Assassin's Creed. These mechanics are so well made just by using these mechanics the player can enjoy themselves, whether from the sense of power, freedom or whatever. And these mechanics can be enjoyed without any goal in mind other than the experience of the mechanic, in other words just "screwing around".
I would still call that immersion in the story. The story doesn't change the fundamental nature of the game, it changes the experience for each player with the goal of making that experience better. I can't say I agree with the concept that a story can change motivation, though I might agree that it changes how you feel about the motivation you've chosen. I'll concede this point only if you can describe it better.
For example Mass Effect 2, game mechanics wise you can make it through the game and lose crew members without penalty. But from the story the player has motivation to save charcters they like. Or in games with moral choice systems, you can complete a game as either good or evil, but players choose how they want to represent themselves, a motivation that can't exist without a story.
About enduring aspects you don't like. I think games that force the player to put up with gameplay they don't like just to get to something they do are generally poorly designed. They can get subscribers sure but they probably could have gotten more if the game was engauging from the start, most players are not willing to endure boring gameplay for the promise fun gameplay later.
This relates back to the idea of needing to make the best game you can. For a single player game you can hype up a broken, dull, unfinished game and get lots of box sells, and generally make a lot of money. For a MMO you need subscribers for long term profit. MMOs more than other games need to get and keep subscribers early on, so a game has to be engauging, finished and work properly. Historically for MMOs more than other game, releasing too early results in failure, and MMOs are usually some of the most expensive games to make.
All men think they're fascinating. In my case, it's justified
For me the pve scene is done. I perfer pure pvp because every pve MMO is the same old crap with a different twist.
100% open world ffa loot pvp
I find the idea that is FFA PvP with full loot is a better idea in concept then it is in practice . That's why I believe that having more then one player type is important.
I prefer pure PvE for many reasons. Mainly because I'm sick of having classes being balanced around PvP and I also believe a good PvP game should never rely on PvE content. This only promotes ganking and hiding behind level, opportunity and other factors where PvP is not fair.
A good PvP game should be a PvP game.
As for MMORPG I am still waiting for a game lik EverQuest where the PvE content is challenging without all the hand holdings.
What if PvE classes and PvP skills were different? In other words a skill that allows you to run fast is a skill that isn't either PvP or PvE specific, but a skill like garrot (to strangle) is specifically a skill learned and used to attack other people. Trapping can be player specific and Mob specific....
There are perfectly legitimate solutions to "ganking".
I don't know of any good PvP games that are only PvP.
A PvE game that allows players to make choices about putting themselves in situations where other players can attack them seems like exactly what your asking for, that is if you want a game that doesn't hold your hand.
Just a thought.
This was what I was trying to get across with an earlier post...yes please make the PvE and PvP skills different....GW was on to something there. If you want to encourage multiple play styles this is what is needed. PvE'ers want to know their class is protected and that you can fiddle with the class on the pvp side without "harming" our PvE. I can't speak intelligently on what PvP'ers want as I've never been a big fan and only really took part in it when my friends were asking me to do so.
Currently Playing: FFXIV:ARR Looking Forward to: Wildstar
My choiche is pure PvE (with crafting, and meaningful crafting). Craft is part of PvE.
PvP would mean in normal community where it has realm battles in special zones, conflict areas etc.
But if I wanna play w/out looking all time over shpulders do there jumping some 10 vs 1 horde of PvP grinders, NO, that[object Window]s definitely not for me. That game which has FFA worldwide PvP never see my $$$.
If we throw out all that PvP and bloodsports from FE and add all-growing world, expansion every 1-2 month plus end-game battles with bodd mobs and raid encounter that would be ideal game.
Talin, what you've described sounds to me like the concept behind Pirates of the Burning Sea. It doesn't seem to have gone down too well.
If you are serious that this is a concept you want to at least try to follow through with, check out those forums, use them as research material. If nothing else, you may find out what NOT to do, and that is always useful.
I have spent several years creating my concepts. I have had several developers interested in my concepts and right now there is one who are implementing them.
Torik seems to have explained the reason PBS seems to have gone down the tubes. But having said that. Good systems can fail in bad games because there are so many variables.
Cheers
Just be careful that "several" people showing enthusiasm and interest doesn't deteriorate into groupthink and confirmation biases - for that, we sadly have too many gaming examples to choose from, and not only MMO's.
But in any case, Talin, I wish you luck and I hope it works out for you.
Talin, what you've described sounds to me like the concept behind Pirates of the Burning Sea. It doesn't seem to have gone down too well.
If you are serious that this is a concept you want to at least try to follow through with, check out those forums, use them as research material. If nothing else, you may find out what NOT to do, and that is always useful.
I have spent several years creating my concepts. I have had several developers interested in my concepts and right now there is one who are implementing them.
Torik seems to have explained the reason PBS seems to have gone down the tubes. But having said that. Good systems can fail in bad games because there are so many variables.
Cheers
Just be careful that "several" people showing enthusiasm and interest doesn't deteriorate into groupthink and confirmation biases - for that, we sadly have too many gaming examples to choose from, and not only MMO's.
But in any case, Talin, I wish you luck and I hope it works out for you.
That was a little vague...Care to be a little more specific?
Comments
Not sure if your addressing me, but I'll assume so. Your making way to many assumptions about the system I'm proposing, but I promise it's nothing like you suggest. Follow the link in my sig if you really want to know, but I warn you it's a long read....
Presentation for new MMORPG economics concept http://www.slideshare.net/talin/mmo-economics-concept-v-10
I don't have to bullshit my way out of anything, so what if I lumped you into the PvP crowd and was mistaken? Next time I suggest the you represent your point of view more clearly so that mistakes, your tirades and my low grade insults can be avoided.
Cheers...
Presentation for new MMORPG economics concept http://www.slideshare.net/talin/mmo-economics-concept-v-10
This is really the only issue I have with mmorpg PvP. A lot of people defend it as incentive to level up or the price you pay or whatever. To me, it's just lame. Essentially the risk is removed for the level 80 character. I'm not sure there's a good, universal solution either, which is why I tend towards the consensual PvP - you have to flag for it.
In Eve, you have options. You can warp from gate to gate, carry insurance, etc. I've heard of people mining in that game for years and not once seeing combat. It's their choice and it it's possible. There is still risk, but they have options. That's how it needs to be. It doesn't have to be Eve's system specifically, but you shouldn't have carte blanche to do whatever you want, regardless of level (or skill points, or whatever).
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Pure PvE for these reasons. There are much better genres for PvP, and when I want good, balanced PvP I play those.
I prefer pure PvE for many reasons. Mainly because I'm sick of having classes being balanced around PvP and I also believe a good PvP game should never rely on PvE content. This only promotes ganking and hiding behind level, opportunity and other factors where PvP is not fair.
A good PvP game should be a PvP game.
As for MMORPG I am still waiting for a game lik EverQuest where the PvE content is challenging without all the hand holdings.
What if PvE classes and PvP skills were different? In other words a skill that allows you to run fast is a skill that isn't either PvP or PvE specific, but a skill like garrot (to strangle) is specifically a skill learned and used to attack other people. Trapping can be player specific and Mob specific....
There are perfectly legitimate solutions to "ganking".
I don't know of any good PvP games that are only PvP.
A PvE game that allows players to make choices about putting themselves in situations where other players can attack them seems like exactly what your asking for, that is if you want a game that doesn't hold your hand.
Just a thought.
Presentation for new MMORPG economics concept http://www.slideshare.net/talin/mmo-economics-concept-v-10
There are perfectly legitimate solutions to "ganking".
I don't know of any good PvP games that are only PvP.
A PvE game that allows players to make choices about putting themselves in situations where other players can attack them seems like exactly what your asking for, that is if you want a game that doesn't hold your hand.
Just a thought.
I'm not sure about games like Darkfall, where you don't really have levels, but in games like WoW, the expectation is that you're going to level very quickly. You will be at the max level in a relatively short period of time, so putting systems in place to even out ganking isn't really worth the effort. This is the thinking I can believe they have in these cases anyway.
I don't think you should have PvP and PvE skills, but it's workable. I also don't think you should have different definitions for skills in PvP and PvE. You should have some other modifier, auras or something else that differentiates them so you have less overlap and balance in one doesn't create issues in the other. This is just an aesthetic choice - it's really the same thing, separating PvE and PvP...I just think the method should be more integrated as a function of the virtual world as opposed to a function of the game (if that makes sense).
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
In Eve you can warp into some barren sector of space where you're almost impossible to find and create a star base with a shield (just in case). You can collect huge amounts of items and raw material.
Now you have to figure out how to get it all back. do you make multiple trips though the bottlenecks often patrolled by PK'ers into empire space and risk being killed, or do you buy fuel for a transport to warp back to Empire space and eat up some of your profit paying for fuel?
MMO's should be risk vs reward. To be successful players should be those not only willing to take the risk, but who are good enough to understand the game and use their knowledge of the game to prevail.
There are plenty of ways to discourage higher level players from attacking lower level players. Notice I say discourage. It's part of a risk vs reward system. Players can choose to attack other players but there should always be risk.
Presentation for new MMORPG economics concept http://www.slideshare.net/talin/mmo-economics-concept-v-10
But getting your level 40 character ganked repeatedly by a level 80 is all about the skill, man! Don't you love the challenge of dying without a chance to fight back?
This is really the only issue I have with mmorpg PvP. A lot of people defend it as incentive to level up or the price you pay or whatever. To me, it's just lame. Essentially the risk is removed for the level 80 character. I'm not sure there's a good, universal solution either, which is why I tend towards the consensual PvP - you have to flag for it.
In Eve, you have options. You can warp from gate to gate, carry insurance, etc. I've heard of people mining in that game for years and not once seeing combat. It's their choice and it it's possible. There is still risk, but they have options. That's how it needs to be. It doesn't have to be Eve's system specifically, but you shouldn't have carte blanche to do whatever you want, regardless of level (or skill points, or whatever).
In Eve you can warp into some barren sector of space where you're almost impossible to find and create a star base with a shield (just in case). You can collect huge amounts of items and raw material.
Now you have to figure out how to get it all back. do you make multiple trips though the bottlenecks often patrolled by PK'ers into empire space and risk being killed, or do you buy fuel for a transport to warp back to Empire space and eat up some of your profit paying for fuel?
MMO's should be risk vs reward. To be successful players should be those not only willing to take the risk, but who are good enough to understand the game and use their knowledge of the game to prevail.
There are plenty of ways to discourage higher level players from attacking lower level players. Notice I say discourage. It's part of a risk vs reward system. Players can choose to attack other players but there should always be risk.
To me, in Eve because of the context of the game, it makes perfect sense that the better financed ship wins. It just makes sense...a battleship is going to sink a tug boat, even if the tug boat does a suicide run loaded down with C4.
When you get into the standard fantasy settings or the usual scenarios where your avatar is a humanoid, I think it makes more sense that there be some kind of limit to the difference between higher and lower level players. Could I beat up a kung fu master who's 60 years old? No way. I just don't know enough. But I could shoot them with a rifle from 200 yards no problem with a few hours practice (for example). Something should level the playing field more. Using WoW as an example, the level 40 player would probably still die, but the level 80 player would lose a bit of health. If there were 2 level 40 players, then the 80 would probably still win, but might die. If there were 3 level 40 players, the level 80 would probably die. This is just personal opinion of PvP though...even a max level should face some risk when killing a lower level player.
I also think though, if you want to have a good PvE game in there, you need to have protected space. This makes sense in the context of most games and the world in general. You have safe zones where you can conduct business, build a farm, etc. You would attract more of the PvE people you need to build your economy. Eve does this to great effect. There are people who have never lost a ship and have never seen combat (someone in these forums said 'most', but I have no idea of numbers). They feed the economy with a lot of materials. Farmers under seige don't farm, they find someplace else to farm.
I don't mean to keep using Eve as an example, but Perpetuum isn't old enough yet to really get a good handle on how it's going to work out and there's not really any other good examples for economics besides A Tale in the Desert, but it doesn't have any PvP combat at all.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Talin, what you've described sounds to me like the concept behind Pirates of the Burning Sea. It doesn't seem to have gone down too well.
If you are serious that this is a concept you want to at least try to follow through with, check out those forums, use them as research material. If nothing else, you may find out what NOT to do, and that is always useful.
Pirates of the Burning Seas had the problem of advertising itself as a PvP game where non-PvPers could opt out of PvP and still enjoy the majority of the content. This worked for about the first month at which point PvPers complained that there was not enough PvP happening and the rate at which PvP zones appeared was increased and they stayed around for longer. All of a sudden non-PvP players were locked out of significant portions of the map for weeks at a time. A 'PvP if you want to' game turned into a 'PvP or quit' game. In addition the cost of the large ships turned out to be so big that most players opted to keep any resources they generated for themselves and build everything inside their guilds. The economy ground down to a sputter and PvP remained the only viable part of the game.
Presentation for new MMORPG economics concept http://www.slideshare.net/talin/mmo-economics-concept-v-10
I have spent several years creating my concepts. I have had several developers interested in my concepts and right now there is one who are implementing them.
Torik seems to have explained the reason PBS seems to have gone down the tubes. But having said that. Good systems can fail in bad games because there are so many variables.
Cheers
Presentation for new MMORPG economics concept http://www.slideshare.net/talin/mmo-economics-concept-v-10
For me the pve scene is done. I perfer pure pvp because every pve MMO is the same old crap with a different twist.
100% open world ffa loot pvp
"I play Tera for the gameplay"
I tend to differentiate between 'economic advancement' and mere 'wealth acquisition'. Economic advancement to me implies starting a business enterprise and expanding it. You provide a product that other players need and do so in the best way you can. Wealth acquisition is merely 'getting stuff' and thus advancement in that area is fully dependant on how you acquire your in-game wealth. If you use RMT to buy the gold/items then you get very little respect and usually get ridiculled for it. Top raider might have the best gear but they get respect primarily because they are top raiders. At the same time someone with a lot of in-game wealth will have a hard time leveraging that wealth into other forms of achievement without actually having the skills needed for those achievements.
FFA open world full loot PvP is pretty much 'the same old crap with a different twist' as well.
Economic advancement? Well since economics is the production and distribution and consumption of goods and services and their management, then advancement would be becoming more advanced in production and distribution methods and increased efficiency in consumption.
Since the creation of new money in virtually all games is between the interaction of players to the game itself (as opposed to one another) in the form of money dropped, quests performed or items sold (to NPC's) and that storage of items is huge (though storage has declined over the years) with few if any costs involved, then it would seem that economic advancement just requires spending more time collecting stuff from the game world.
In systems that have a true player crafting system, only Eve comes right to mind, though I'm sure there are a few others, the goal is essentially the same. Spend time gathering raw mats from the world and combine them with a do-over-time system or a pay-to-learn system. Eve has an ingenious way to bring value to their currency, though I don't like it, I still see it as brilliant.
This is my secret agenda. To expose the idea that player to game interactions have to be secondary, not primary to the acquisition of wealth. That is the primary means of obtaining consumables has to come from players, not the game. Same for money. Money should be based on something of intrinsic value in the game so that money can be removed in order to control inflation. All of this can lead to a world where there is a single type of currency that everyone recognizes as valuable.
How this is done is what my concepts are based on.....
Presentation for new MMORPG economics concept http://www.slideshare.net/talin/mmo-economics-concept-v-10
All men think they're fascinating. In my case, it's justified
I find the idea that is FFA PvP with full loot is a better idea in concept then it is in practice . That's why I believe that having more then one player type is important.
Presentation for new MMORPG economics concept http://www.slideshare.net/talin/mmo-economics-concept-v-10
yes because there is so big difference between the game where you fight other players and the game where you fight other players
This was what I was trying to get across with an earlier post...yes please make the PvE and PvP skills different....GW was on to something there. If you want to encourage multiple play styles this is what is needed. PvE'ers want to know their class is protected and that you can fiddle with the class on the pvp side without "harming" our PvE. I can't speak intelligently on what PvP'ers want as I've never been a big fan and only really took part in it when my friends were asking me to do so.
Currently Playing: FFXIV:ARR
Looking Forward to: Wildstar
My choiche is pure PvE (with crafting, and meaningful crafting). Craft is part of PvE.
PvP would mean in normal community where it has realm battles in special zones, conflict areas etc.
But if I wanna play w/out looking all time over shpulders do there jumping some 10 vs 1 horde of PvP grinders, NO, that[object Window]s definitely not for me. That game which has FFA worldwide PvP never see my $$$.
If we throw out all that PvP and bloodsports from FE and add all-growing world, expansion every 1-2 month plus end-game battles with bodd mobs and raid encounter that would be ideal game.
Just be careful that "several" people showing enthusiasm and interest doesn't deteriorate into groupthink and confirmation biases - for that, we sadly have too many gaming examples to choose from, and not only MMO's.
But in any case, Talin, I wish you luck and I hope it works out for you.
That was a little vague...Care to be a little more specific?
Presentation for new MMORPG economics concept http://www.slideshare.net/talin/mmo-economics-concept-v-10
Just throwing in my LATE 2 cents in favor of pure PVE.