I want a game where Dragons mean something. But not just them, Demons and Liche Kings and Elemental Princes...what have you. But I do want the top MOBs to be special. Hell, I'd like them played by GMs. Roaming the world with goals that we players must stop.
This isn't a game mechanic you get bored of. What I'm describing is true no matter what game we're talking about.
...and when's the last time you didn't see unique monsters at endgame (and for that matter, what's a MMORPG where you saw every lowbie monster at endgame?)
If a company made the mistake of trying to use only endgame-unique assets for endgame, they'd get called out pretty quick for repetition ("I liked that game, but at you get to a point where all you fight are Dragons and Hydras and it gets boring.")
Players reward devs who are efficient with content creation by praising those games. In typical MMORPGs this means min/maxing re-use of low-level assets (re-using the ones that make sense at endgame.)
Efficient ? Like Bioware was with the dungeon maps in Dragon Age 2?
Reusing assets is fine and all, but when they do it too much, it becomes obvious to the player that they are being lazy and hurts the game.
According to their feverish (and almost obsessive) wish to redefine what an MMORPG is would lead to over 90% of games in the MMORPG genre to not be MMORPG's anymore, including all the popular and AAA ones, and only the oldest games in the MMORPG genre to be called 'MMORPG'. Now, if such a line of reasoning isn't insanity then I don't know what is
That 'insanity' is as old as the hills. "You call that hunting? Back in my day, hunting was fire-hardening a tree branch, stalking a deer for hours until it was in the right terrain and undergrowth, then charging it and killing it, trying to make sure it doesn't escape while also trying not to get hooked by antlers or kicked by rear legs. That was hunting. Bows and arrows? That's not hunting; that's harvesting."
There's also the 'insanity' of those who believe they always know better.
When you get to endgame in Game B, you fight both Kobolds and Dragons. Twice the content variety, even though it's admittedly a *little* off to fight high level kobolds.
I take pride in the fact that my pencil-and-paper players are as scared of kobolds as they are of dragons - you don't have to be 50 feet tall and have 1000 hp just to pull a lever
I think it's important for your point that every creature have its own endgame - it doesn't have to simply be the level of the creature - it can be the complexity of the lair, the way its debuffs scale with *your* level, the sizes of their swarms, the rate of their respawn, etc. After all, these are all creatures coexisting in the same world - (in my ideal MMO world) there should be an ecological reason dragons haven't eaten all the kobolds.
Exactly.
And re-using old, scaled assets doesn't even mean using Kobolds. There can be mobs that simply don't show up at endgame and that's fine (and often makes sense). But it's smart to scale (re-use) some assets, because it provides a more varied game experience.
Scaling is more than JUST Kobolds or Dragons. That was just one example.
If there are 20 Kobolds in that dungeon, I want it to be 20 Kobolds.
If thare are 100 Kobolds in that dungeon, I want it to be 100 Kobolds.
Not however many you need so you can do the dungeon.
Oh, you can only fight 3? Guess what! Just so happens there are only three Kobolds in there! What a coincidence!
Oh, you can fight a hundred? Guess what! Just so happens there are exactly 100 Kobolds in there! What a coincidence!
No, it's not a coincidence, it's just scaling crap.
Scaling is an IWIN button.
Just push the button. You will win! We'll put just the right amount of Kobolds in their for you!
No, I want to find out, there's to many. then come back, when I'm more powerful.
Or, to find out there's to few, so I know I can leave this dungeon to those less powerful than me. Scaling is boring.
Now, if you mean there are level 1 Kobolds, and there are level 50 Kobolds, that's fine.
That's not "scaling".
That's different mobs, that look similar.
Scaling is when you change the difficulty of the encounter, to match the ability of the players.
I don't like that.
I want the difficulty of the encounter to be what it is. Either I'm powerful enough for it, or I'm over powered for it, or I'm not powerful enough for it.
When you get to endgame in Game B, you fight both Kobolds and Dragons. Twice the content variety, even though it's admittedly a *little* off to fight high level kobolds.
I take pride in the fact that my pencil-and-paper players are as scared of kobolds as they are of dragons - you don't have to be 50 feet tall and have 1000 hp just to pull a lever
I think it's important for your point that every creature have its own endgame - it doesn't have to simply be the level of the creature - it can be the complexity of the lair, the way its debuffs scale with *your* level, the sizes of their swarms, the rate of their respawn, etc. After all, these are all creatures coexisting in the same world - (in my ideal MMO world) there should be an ecological reason dragons haven't eaten all the kobolds.
Exactly.
And re-using old, scaled assets doesn't even mean using Kobolds. There can be mobs that simply don't show up at endgame and that's fine (and often makes sense). But it's smart to scale (re-use) some assets, because it provides a more varied game experience.
Scaling is more than JUST Kobolds or Dragons. That was just one example.
If there are 20 Kobolds in that dungeon, I want it to be 20 Kobolds.
If thare are 100 Kobolds in that dungeon, I want it to be 100 Kobolds.
Not however many you need so you can do the dungeon.
Oh, you can only fight 3? Guess what! Just so happens there are only three Kobolds in there! What a coincidence!
Oh, you can fight a hundred? Guess what! Just so happens there are exactly 100 Kobolds in there! What a coincidence!
No, it's not a coincidence, it's just scaling crap.
Scaling is an IWIN button.
Just push the button. You will win! We'll put just the right amount of Kobolds in their for you!
No, I want to find out, there's to many. then come back, when I'm more powerful.
Or, to find out there's to few, so I know I can leave this dungeon to those less powerful than me. Scaling is boring.
Now, if you mean there are level 1 Kobolds, and there are level 50 Kobolds, that's fine.
That's not "scaling".
That's different mobs, that look similar.
Scaling is when you change the difficulty of the encounter, to match the ability of the players.
I don't like that.
I want the difficulty of the encounter to be what it is. Either I'm powerful enough for it, or I'm over powered for it, or I'm not powerful enough for it.
Let MY CHARACTER change, not the encounter.
Level 1 and Level 50 kobolds is scaling. The mobs level has been scaled.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
When you get to endgame in Game B, you fight both Kobolds and Dragons. Twice the content variety, even though it's admittedly a *little* off to fight high level kobolds.
I take pride in the fact that my pencil-and-paper players are as scared of kobolds as they are of dragons - you don't have to be 50 feet tall and have 1000 hp just to pull a lever
I think it's important for your point that every creature have its own endgame - it doesn't have to simply be the level of the creature - it can be the complexity of the lair, the way its debuffs scale with *your* level, the sizes of their swarms, the rate of their respawn, etc. After all, these are all creatures coexisting in the same world - (in my ideal MMO world) there should be an ecological reason dragons haven't eaten all the kobolds.
Exactly.
And re-using old, scaled assets doesn't even mean using Kobolds. There can be mobs that simply don't show up at endgame and that's fine (and often makes sense). But it's smart to scale (re-use) some assets, because it provides a more varied game experience.
Scaling is more than JUST Kobolds or Dragons. That was just one example.
If there are 20 Kobolds in that dungeon, I want it to be 20 Kobolds.
If thare are 100 Kobolds in that dungeon, I want it to be 100 Kobolds.
Not however many you need so you can do the dungeon.
Oh, you can only fight 3? Guess what! Just so happens there are only three Kobolds in there! What a coincidence!
Oh, you can fight a hundred? Guess what! Just so happens there are exactly 100 Kobolds in there! What a coincidence!
No, it's not a coincidence, it's just scaling crap.
Scaling is an IWIN button.
Just push the button. You will win! We'll put just the right amount of Kobolds in their for you!
No, I want to find out, there's to many. then come back, when I'm more powerful.
Or, to find out there's to few, so I know I can leave this dungeon to those less powerful than me. Scaling is boring.
Now, if you mean there are level 1 Kobolds, and there are level 50 Kobolds, that's fine.
That's not "scaling".
That's different mobs, that look similar.
Scaling is when you change the difficulty of the encounter, to match the ability of the players.
I don't like that.
I want the difficulty of the encounter to be what it is. Either I'm powerful enough for it, or I'm over powered for it, or I'm not powerful enough for it.
Let MY CHARACTER change, not the encounter.
Level 1 and Level 50 kobolds is scaling. The mobs level has been scaled.
Yep I agree with Axe...
In fact, if there is going to be scaling, I would rather it be on the number of mobs than the mobs level/abilities. That way a "Bramblethorn Kobold" will always be the same power level no matter how many people are there...there will just be more of them.
This obviously won't work if there are like 100 players though.
by my beliefs and definition, PERSISTANT WORLD is the key to being a true MMORPG or not.
a fully fledged MMORPG should be 100% persistant (read: nothing should be instanced)
sandbox, themepark or any other kind has to be 100% persistant world
groups are camping a dungeon spawn? or to many people in the same area for you to get any decent amount of xp/items means the world is to small or not well balanced.
make 3-4-5-10-25 dungeon caves with similar bosses/mobs/drops if you have to.
BAD idea. You can dynamically scale to the number of players if you have a fixed number of dungeon caves. And most systems right now cannot change the geography after it is made.
When you get to endgame in Game B, you fight both Kobolds and Dragons. Twice the content variety, even though it's admittedly a *little* off to fight high level kobolds.
I take pride in the fact that my pencil-and-paper players are as scared of kobolds as they are of dragons - you don't have to be 50 feet tall and have 1000 hp just to pull a lever
I think it's important for your point that every creature have its own endgame - it doesn't have to simply be the level of the creature - it can be the complexity of the lair, the way its debuffs scale with *your* level, the sizes of their swarms, the rate of their respawn, etc. After all, these are all creatures coexisting in the same world - (in my ideal MMO world) there should be an ecological reason dragons haven't eaten all the kobolds.
Exactly.
And re-using old, scaled assets doesn't even mean using Kobolds. There can be mobs that simply don't show up at endgame and that's fine (and often makes sense). But it's smart to scale (re-use) some assets, because it provides a more varied game experience.
Scaling is more than JUST Kobolds or Dragons. That was just one example.
If there are 20 Kobolds in that dungeon, I want it to be 20 Kobolds.
If thare are 100 Kobolds in that dungeon, I want it to be 100 Kobolds.
Not however many you need so you can do the dungeon.
Oh, you can only fight 3? Guess what! Just so happens there are only three Kobolds in there! What a coincidence!
Oh, you can fight a hundred? Guess what! Just so happens there are exactly 100 Kobolds in there! What a coincidence!
No, it's not a coincidence, it's just scaling crap.
Scaling is an IWIN button.
Just push the button. You will win! We'll put just the right amount of Kobolds in their for you!
No, I want to find out, there's to many. then come back, when I'm more powerful.
Or, to find out there's to few, so I know I can leave this dungeon to those less powerful than me. Scaling is boring.
Now, if you mean there are level 1 Kobolds, and there are level 50 Kobolds, that's fine.
That's not "scaling".
That's different mobs, that look similar.
Scaling is when you change the difficulty of the encounter, to match the ability of the players.
I don't like that.
I want the difficulty of the encounter to be what it is. Either I'm powerful enough for it, or I'm over powered for it, or I'm not powerful enough for it.
Let MY CHARACTER change, not the encounter.
Level 1 and Level 50 kobolds is scaling. The mobs level has been scaled.
Yep I agree with Axe...
In fact, if there is going to be scaling, I would rather it be on the number of mobs than the mobs level/abilities. That way a "Bramblethorn Kobold" will always be the same power level no matter how many people are there...there will just be more of them.
This obviously won't work if there are like 100 players though.
No, that's not scaling.
Scaling is when the mobs change.
If you have Zone A with level 1 Kobolds, and Zone B with level 50 Kobolds, that's not scaling.
that's two different kinds of Kobolds, level 1 and level 50. They dont' change. The level 50 Kobold is right there, in Zone B, and he's level 50.
Scaling is when the dungeon changes to accomodate the party.
Like in City of heroes.
you go to a dungeon solo. there will be enough mobs in the dungeon, that you can kill them and finish the dungeon.
But lets' say you bring a group.
The dungeon will "scale" for the group.
if you bring two more players, the dungeon will populate enough Mobs to handle a group of 3.
If you bring 5 more players, the dungeon will populate more Mobs, and based on the players levels, so that's it's appropriate fore that group.
That is scaling.
That's differetn from a typical DAoC dungeon or an EQ dungeon. The dungeon is what it is.
There are a certain number of Mobs in there, that are a certain level.
You can either beat them, or you cannot.
The dungeon will not "Scale" so you can always win.
To the op. Wow! very interteresting and thought provoking post. I have nothing to add right now, but it is making me think. Thats always a good thing. I will follow this thread to see what others think. Awesome.
(And FWIW, scaling creates dynamic difficulty where none might exist. So it removes auto-win just as often as it creates it. Especially when you use CoH as an example, given that that's the only MMORPG which can consistently be challenging at all levels for all players.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
by my beliefs and definition, PERSISTANT WORLD is the key to being a true MMORPG or not.
a fully fledged MMORPG should be 100% persistant (read: nothing should be instanced)
sandbox, themepark or any other kind has to be 100% persistant world
groups are camping a dungeon spawn? or to many people in the same area for you to get any decent amount of xp/items means the world is to small or not well balanced.
make 3-4-5-10-25 dungeon caves with similar bosses/mobs/drops if you have to.
BAD idea. You can dynamically scale to the number of players if you have a fixed number of dungeon caves. And most systems right now cannot change the geography after it is made.
wow i just got where scaling came in!
i think there was a missunderstanding,
what i meant is to have shit loads of dungeons, like 100 dungeons for desert rats, 75 dungeons for kobolts, 50 dungeons for drakes 25 for dragons etc. some harder to get to than others, different sizes, different architecture depending on the locations, a desert dungeon wont be the same as a mine dungeon (but both are have scorpions and giant rabid ants)
what i meant is to have shit loads of dungeons, like 100 dungeons for desert rats, 75 dungeons for kobolts, 50 dungeons for drakes 25 for dragons etc.
I tend to imagine that most games draw their maps as if they were seen through a fisheye lens. You are seeing low level zones amplified out of proportion and high level zones at the edges are compressed. The dragon zone might contain hundreds of rat zones inside it, but all that is just being filtered out to focus on what you going there are really interested in when you go to that part of the map.
If a game is going to show its whole ecology to scale, it needs to ensure that rat-hunter is, in the end, as rewarding and entertaining as a career as a dragon hunter.
When you get to endgame in Game B, you fight both Kobolds and Dragons. Twice the content variety, even though it's admittedly a *little* off to fight high level kobolds.
I take pride in the fact that my pencil-and-paper players are as scared of kobolds as they are of dragons - you don't have to be 50 feet tall and have 1000 hp just to pull a lever
I think it's important for your point that every creature have its own endgame - it doesn't have to simply be the level of the creature - it can be the complexity of the lair, the way its debuffs scale with *your* level, the sizes of their swarms, the rate of their respawn, etc. After all, these are all creatures coexisting in the same world - (in my ideal MMO world) there should be an ecological reason dragons haven't eaten all the kobolds.
Exactly.
And re-using old, scaled assets doesn't even mean using Kobolds. There can be mobs that simply don't show up at endgame and that's fine (and often makes sense). But it's smart to scale (re-use) some assets, because it provides a more varied game experience.
Scaling is more than JUST Kobolds or Dragons. That was just one example.
If there are 20 Kobolds in that dungeon, I want it to be 20 Kobolds.
If thare are 100 Kobolds in that dungeon, I want it to be 100 Kobolds.
Not however many you need so you can do the dungeon.
Oh, you can only fight 3? Guess what! Just so happens there are only three Kobolds in there! What a coincidence!
Oh, you can fight a hundred? Guess what! Just so happens there are exactly 100 Kobolds in there! What a coincidence!
No, it's not a coincidence, it's just scaling crap.
Scaling is an IWIN button.
Just push the button. You will win! We'll put just the right amount of Kobolds in their for you!
No, I want to find out, there's to many. then come back, when I'm more powerful.
Or, to find out there's to few, so I know I can leave this dungeon to those less powerful than me. Scaling is boring.
Now, if you mean there are level 1 Kobolds, and there are level 50 Kobolds, that's fine.
That's not "scaling".
That's different mobs, that look similar.
Scaling is when you change the difficulty of the encounter, to match the ability of the players.
I don't like that.
I want the difficulty of the encounter to be what it is. Either I'm powerful enough for it, or I'm over powered for it, or I'm not powerful enough for it.
Let MY CHARACTER change, not the encounter.
Level 1 and Level 50 kobolds is scaling. The mobs level has been scaled.
Yep I agree with Axe...
In fact, if there is going to be scaling, I would rather it be on the number of mobs than the mobs level/abilities. That way a "Bramblethorn Kobold" will always be the same power level no matter how many people are there...there will just be more of them.
This obviously won't work if there are like 100 players though.
Most games already have spawns that restock the dungeon (or outside area) at a rate determined by the kill rate. In effect, I guess this is "scaling" too.
To me, as a Sandbox player, I want a world that's different. But I've also always accepted that you have to have some content of this sort. I think there are better ways to do this than at present, mainly by showing a reason that the spawns are increasing. For example, what if the players see Kobolds running to a Crystal Ball next to a magical portal, saying something at that ball, and then Kobolds come through that portal. Other meathods could be AI dependent, such as hitting a Gong and more Kobolds come running from a deeper portion of the Dungeon, while that deeper area gets reinforced as above, through the portal.
But I think overall, a world that's more alive is better. Roaming bands of Kobolds, etc., that when killed are dead for good. Besides the designed dungeons of spawns as above, many dungeons that are "open" to habitation, either by wandering bands of MOBs or by random spawns as a simulation.
Overall, the idea of a huge world with many dungeons (small and large), caves, caverns, ruins, enchanted forests, etc., adds so much interest to a Sandbox world, especially if you randomize it in some way that makes sense, and it's large enough that players aren't running around all of the time in all 4 corners, where mystery and discovery can grow.
think only good point seperating mmorpgs from multiplayer RPGs is an economy. Everything else might as well be served by a multiplayer rpg. I mean if mmorpgs were more pvp-designed- (thats a key differentiation) maybe mmorpgs would have a greater point.
This is a good topic actually. How do you make a mmorpg compelling to a point where seeing other people actually has a point. I mean every race being at war with each other would have a point- example- 'look there's a group of trolls over there', we better be cautious of them.
Perhaps Everquest clouded the water some since mmorpg was really mainly intended as the definition for Ultima Online. Everquest just willingly adopted and embraced the acronym- when maybe their design decision could equally have done well as a muliplayer rpg. I'm saying perhaps because I'm still pondering. Maybe some other views would be interesting on this.
1. Persistency of the world. If you log off and the world keeps going, it's persistent.
2. High number of concurrent players inhabiting the aformentioned world than a multiplayer game *
* In order to properly define #2, one must first define what the maximum number of players supported by a "multplayer" game is. In the past it used to be 128 and game generally do have a set number. If you're above that number, then you're into "massive" territory. As technology advances, the actual definition of "massive" is probably getting closer to "unlimited" players versus "limited" players for a just "multiplayer. However, while the term "unlimited" better suits the purpose, it's not actually correct as all technology has a limit. Perhaps "no pre-defined player number limit" is a more appropriate description.
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall Currently Playing: ESO
Comments
Efficient
? Like Bioware was with the dungeon maps in Dragon Age 2?
Reusing assets is fine and all, but when they do it too much, it becomes obvious to the player that they are being lazy and hurts the game.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Fantastic way of putting it, you two.
Scaling is more than JUST Kobolds or Dragons. That was just one example.
If there are 20 Kobolds in that dungeon, I want it to be 20 Kobolds.
If thare are 100 Kobolds in that dungeon, I want it to be 100 Kobolds.
Not however many you need so you can do the dungeon.
Oh, you can only fight 3? Guess what! Just so happens there are only three Kobolds in there! What a coincidence!
Oh, you can fight a hundred? Guess what! Just so happens there are exactly 100 Kobolds in there! What a coincidence!
No, it's not a coincidence, it's just scaling crap.
Scaling is an IWIN button.
Just push the button. You will win! We'll put just the right amount of Kobolds in their for you!
No, I want to find out, there's to many. then come back, when I'm more powerful.
Or, to find out there's to few, so I know I can leave this dungeon to those less powerful than me. Scaling is boring.
Now, if you mean there are level 1 Kobolds, and there are level 50 Kobolds, that's fine.
That's not "scaling".
That's different mobs, that look similar.
Scaling is when you change the difficulty of the encounter, to match the ability of the players.
I don't like that.
I want the difficulty of the encounter to be what it is. Either I'm powerful enough for it, or I'm over powered for it, or I'm not powerful enough for it.
Let MY CHARACTER change, not the encounter.
Level 1 and Level 50 kobolds is scaling. The mobs level has been scaled.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Yep I agree with Axe...
In fact, if there is going to be scaling, I would rather it be on the number of mobs than the mobs level/abilities. That way a "Bramblethorn Kobold" will always be the same power level no matter how many people are there...there will just be more of them.
This obviously won't work if there are like 100 players though.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
BAD idea. You can dynamically scale to the number of players if you have a fixed number of dungeon caves. And most systems right now cannot change the geography after it is made.
No, that's not scaling.
Scaling is when the mobs change.
If you have Zone A with level 1 Kobolds, and Zone B with level 50 Kobolds, that's not scaling.
that's two different kinds of Kobolds, level 1 and level 50. They dont' change. The level 50 Kobold is right there, in Zone B, and he's level 50.
Scaling is when the dungeon changes to accomodate the party.
Like in City of heroes.
you go to a dungeon solo. there will be enough mobs in the dungeon, that you can kill them and finish the dungeon.
But lets' say you bring a group.
The dungeon will "scale" for the group.
if you bring two more players, the dungeon will populate enough Mobs to handle a group of 3.
If you bring 5 more players, the dungeon will populate more Mobs, and based on the players levels, so that's it's appropriate fore that group.
That is scaling.
That's differetn from a typical DAoC dungeon or an EQ dungeon. The dungeon is what it is.
There are a certain number of Mobs in there, that are a certain level.
You can either beat them, or you cannot.
The dungeon will not "Scale" so you can always win.
I've noticed that if I catch myself arguing definitions, I'm probably not helping move the conversation forward.
To the op. Wow! very interteresting and thought provoking post. I have nothing to add right now, but it is making me think. Thats always a good thing. I will follow this thread to see what others think. Awesome.
Sure, it's not scaling.
Now join the real conversation.
(And FWIW, scaling creates dynamic difficulty where none might exist. So it removes auto-win just as often as it creates it. Especially when you use CoH as an example, given that that's the only MMORPG which can consistently be challenging at all levels for all players.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
wow i just got where scaling came in!
i think there was a missunderstanding,
what i meant is to have shit loads of dungeons, like 100 dungeons for desert rats, 75 dungeons for kobolts, 50 dungeons for drakes 25 for dragons etc. some harder to get to than others, different sizes, different architecture depending on the locations, a desert dungeon wont be the same as a mine dungeon (but both are have scorpions and giant rabid ants)
I tend to imagine that most games draw their maps as if they were seen through a fisheye lens. You are seeing low level zones amplified out of proportion and high level zones at the edges are compressed. The dragon zone might contain hundreds of rat zones inside it, but all that is just being filtered out to focus on what you going there are really interested in when you go to that part of the map.
If a game is going to show its whole ecology to scale, it needs to ensure that rat-hunter is, in the end, as rewarding and entertaining as a career as a dragon hunter.
Most games already have spawns that restock the dungeon (or outside area) at a rate determined by the kill rate. In effect, I guess this is "scaling" too.
To me, as a Sandbox player, I want a world that's different. But I've also always accepted that you have to have some content of this sort. I think there are better ways to do this than at present, mainly by showing a reason that the spawns are increasing. For example, what if the players see Kobolds running to a Crystal Ball next to a magical portal, saying something at that ball, and then Kobolds come through that portal. Other meathods could be AI dependent, such as hitting a Gong and more Kobolds come running from a deeper portion of the Dungeon, while that deeper area gets reinforced as above, through the portal.
But I think overall, a world that's more alive is better. Roaming bands of Kobolds, etc., that when killed are dead for good. Besides the designed dungeons of spawns as above, many dungeons that are "open" to habitation, either by wandering bands of MOBs or by random spawns as a simulation.
Overall, the idea of a huge world with many dungeons (small and large), caves, caverns, ruins, enchanted forests, etc., adds so much interest to a Sandbox world, especially if you randomize it in some way that makes sense, and it's large enough that players aren't running around all of the time in all 4 corners, where mystery and discovery can grow.
Once upon a time....
think only good point seperating mmorpgs from multiplayer RPGs is an economy. Everything else might as well be served by a multiplayer rpg. I mean if mmorpgs were more pvp-designed- (thats a key differentiation) maybe mmorpgs would have a greater point.
This is a good topic actually. How do you make a mmorpg compelling to a point where seeing other people actually has a point. I mean every race being at war with each other would have a point- example- 'look there's a group of trolls over there', we better be cautious of them.
Perhaps Everquest clouded the water some since mmorpg was really mainly intended as the definition for Ultima Online. Everquest just willingly adopted and embraced the acronym- when maybe their design decision could equally have done well as a muliplayer rpg. I'm saying perhaps because I'm still pondering. Maybe some other views would be interesting on this.
1. Persistency of the world. If you log off and the world keeps going, it's persistent.
2. High number of concurrent players inhabiting the aformentioned world than a multiplayer game *
* In order to properly define #2, one must first define what the maximum number of players supported by a "multplayer" game is. In the past it used to be 128 and game generally do have a set number. If you're above that number, then you're into "massive" territory. As technology advances, the actual definition of "massive" is probably getting closer to "unlimited" players versus "limited" players for a just "multiplayer. However, while the term "unlimited" better suits the purpose, it's not actually correct as all technology has a limit. Perhaps "no pre-defined player number limit" is a more appropriate description.
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO
Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall
Currently Playing: ESO