So you are saying you don't like large scale PVP. Because it necessitates having travel times. Look at any test based browser strategy game. Travel time varies buts its almost always a few hours or more.
In Warring Factions I once constructed a warpnet over 2 weeks, slower but I messed with the research system to get good warpnet ships, sent my fleet 100mkm above the plane of the galaxy and slammed the enemy homeworld with no warning. It was pretty cool to pwn a homeworld by myself but it required that long travel time.
Large scale PVP is amazing. Maybe that's somethign EVE and Darkfall should consider offering on a non-rare basis.
Because with BF3 and Planetside, being able to login and consistently find awesome, epic, huge PVP battles is amazing!
Except that BF3 isn't an RPG. Why do you insist on comparing games with such wildly different goals? BF3 is a twitch FPS.
BF3 is borderline, if it was a persistant world instead of matches, it would easily be a mmofp like Huxely should of been. HUXELY WHERE AR EYOU !!!!
But its not. Its matches. Matches aren't comparable to persistant world affecting pvp where a player's actual character is permanently affected.
Except that BF3 isn't an RPG. Why do you insist on comparing games with such wildly different goals? BF3 is a twitch FPS.
Large scale PVP is large scale PVP. Both Planetside and BF3 actually have pretty beefy RPG systems, and the details of whether victory is attained through twitch skill or tactical decisionmaking is sort of irrelevant to this particular discussion.
If we were talking about a 100 vs. 100 player game mode in Guild Wars PVP, the things I've said would be just as true about the lack of a need to hide PVP behind excessive timesinks and rarity.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Except that BF3 isn't an RPG. Why do you insist on comparing games with such wildly different goals? BF3 is a twitch FPS.
Large scale PVP is large scale PVP. Both Planetside and BF3 actually have pretty beefy RPG systems, and the details of whether victory is attained through twitch skill or tactical decisionmaking is sort of irrelevant to this particular discussion.
If we were talking about a 100 vs. 100 player game mode in Guild Wars PVP, the things I've said would be just as true about the lack of a need to hide PVP behind excessive timesinks and rarity.
But matches in BF3 are not connected to the campaign style play!
So you are saying you don't like large scale PVP. Because it necessitates having travel times. Look at any test based browser strategy game. Travel time varies buts its almost always a few hours or more.
In Warring Factions I once constructed a warpnet over 2 weeks, slower but I messed with the research system to get good warpnet ships, sent my fleet 100mkm above the plane of the galaxy and slammed the enemy homeworld with no warning. It was pretty cool to pwn a homeworld by myself but it required that long travel time.
Large scale PVP is amazing. Maybe that's somethign EVE and Darkfall should consider offering on a non-rare basis.
Because with BF3 and Planetside, being able to login and consistently find awesome, epic, huge PVP battles is amazing!
Except that BF3 isn't an RPG. Why do you insist on comparing games with such wildly different goals? BF3 is a twitch FPS.
BF3 is borderline, if it was a persistant world instead of matches, it would easily be a mmofp like Huxely should of been. HUXELY WHERE AR EYOU !!!!
But its not. Its matches. Matches aren't comparable to persistant world affecting pvp where a player's actual character is permanently affected.
I can't speak for BF3 cause I don't own it yet, but in BF2 , my character was permantely effected by points I allocated on weapons and abilities. IF they built on that system with even more poit allocations, then I would disagree respectfully with your analysis.
How did fighting in a pvp match affect your characters stats? Did it affect the game world at all? Not thar BF even has a persistant multiplayer world. Do you get loot from matches?
Except that BF3 isn't an RPG. Why do you insist on comparing games with such wildly different goals? BF3 is a twitch FPS.
BF3 is borderline, if it was a persistant world instead of matches, it would easily be a mmofp like Huxely should of been. HUXELY WHERE AR EYOU !!!!
Well "persistent world" is the cause of excessive travel and PVP rarity. Which goes back to my "these features add a huge time cost and dilute gameplay without really adding anything most players care about" argument. Certainly a niche wants a world sim, but most players want dense gameplay.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Except that BF3 isn't an RPG. Why do you insist on comparing games with such wildly different goals? BF3 is a twitch FPS.
BF3 is borderline, if it was a persistant world instead of matches, it would easily be a mmofp like Huxely should of been. HUXELY WHERE AR EYOU !!!!
Well "persistent world" is the cause of excessive travel and PVP rarity. Which goes back to my "these features add a huge time cost and dilute gameplay without really adding anything most players care about" argument. Certainly a niche wants a world sim, but most players want dense gameplay.
We will see if that holds true once Firefall comes out.
I'd disagree, I say that the lack of goals is the cause of diluted PVP. Its PVP for PVPs sake. Giving meaning to the PVP can be done in a persistant world. After all you can have teleporters, etc. aka the Global Agenda way.
All we need is Darkfall and Mortal Online done well. If these 2 games saw a lot of love and polish then they would be the ultimate games.
not unless you get rid of FFA PVP and full loot, I will never touch those games. I don't believe full loot FFA PVP is needed for a game to be a sandbox.
sure you can say "but the freedom .... " sorry when your freedom overrides my freedom then im not free at all.
How did fighting in a pvp match affect your characters stats? Did it affect the game world at all? Not thar BF even has a persistant multiplayer world. Do you get loot from matches?
My definition of videogame RPGs is basically (A) twitch-lite combat (or no twitch at all,) (B) emphasis on story, and (C) emphasis on character progression.
FPSes clearly fail the first criteria, even though BF3 does indeed let you increase your capabilities (by getting loot and perk upgrades) by fighting in PVP matches.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Except that BF3 isn't an RPG. Why do you insist on comparing games with such wildly different goals? BF3 is a twitch FPS.
BF3 is borderline, if it was a persistant world instead of matches, it would easily be a mmofp like Huxely should of been. HUXELY WHERE AR EYOU !!!!
Well "persistent world" is the cause of excessive travel and PVP rarity. Which goes back to my "these features add a huge time cost and dilute gameplay without really adding anything most players care about" argument. Certainly a niche wants a world sim, but most players want dense gameplay.
See you keep saying you don't like mmorpgs and then you keep refusing to admit it! Why don't we just redefine mmorpg to battlefield 3 and then you can be happy, and we can invent a new term for mmorpg and clarify its meaning at the start so we don't have anymore definition drama. MMORPG has hereby been renamed as "online persistent synchronus world where players interact with each other within the same gameworld all the time". Bam! Now go away while we dicuss pvp in OPSWWPIWEOWTSGATTs!
We will see if that holds true once Firefall comes out.
I'd disagree, I say that the lack of goals is the cause of diluted PVP. Its PVP for PVPs sake. Giving meaning to the PVP can be done in a persistant world. After all you can have teleporters, etc. aka the Global Agenda way.
Sure, and I don't mind an overarching metagame unless it interferes with gameplay (makes PVP rare, or makes PVP about non-skill factors like zerging or progression, or increases timesinks by a significant amount.)
Although personally I find PVP to be enjoyable for its own sake as long as the game is deep and interesting to figure out.
Actually as much as I enjoyed Global Agenda, I felt the metagame had some really boring non-gameplay to it. I remember spending an evening capping completely undefended maps. That's a waste of my time.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
See you keep saying you don't like mmorpgs and then you keep refusing to admit it! Why don't we just redefine mmorpg to battlefield 3 and then you can be happy, and we can invent a new term for mmorpg and clarify its meaning at the start so we don't have anymore definition drama. MMORPG has hereby been renamed as "online persistent synchronus world where players interact with each other within the same gameworld all the time". Bam! Now go away while we dicuss pvp in OPSWWPIWEOWTSGATTs!
Like the majority of MMORPG players, I love a good PVE MMORPG.
But MMORPGs are notoriously bad for PVP. If the PVP quality justified the huge timesinks involved and rare PVP, then that'd be one thing (Planetside PVP often involved ~60 second timesinks, yet it justified itself by providing the most epic warfare in a PVP game.) But they don't -- they have even worse PVP than typical PVP games because non-skill factors make things casual, and often very one-sided. So you have the worst of all worlds.
However a good PVE MMORPG with polished combat and controls and no unnecessary timesinks? I'd be all over that. That was essentially why WOW exploded in popularity -- strip out the unnecessary timesinks and hassles; focus on gameplay.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
See you keep saying you don't like mmorpgs and then you keep refusing to admit it! Why don't we just redefine mmorpg to battlefield 3 and then you can be happy, and we can invent a new term for mmorpg and clarify its meaning at the start so we don't have anymore definition drama. MMORPG has hereby been renamed as "online persistent synchronus world where players interact with each other within the same gameworld all the time". Bam! Now go away while we dicuss pvp in OPSWWPIWEOWTSGATTs!
Like the majority of MMORPG players, I love a good PVE MMORPG.
But MMORPGs are notoriously bad for PVP. If the PVP quality justified the huge timesinks involved and rare PVP, then that'd be one thing (Planetside PVP often involved ~60 second timesinks, yet it justified itself by providing the most epic warfare in a PVP game.) But they don't -- they have even worse PVP than typical PVP games because non-skill factors make things casual, and often very one-sided. So you have the worst of all worlds.
However a good PVE MMORPG with polished combat and controls and no unnecessary timesinks? I'd be all over that. That was essentially why WOW exploded in popularity -- strip out the unnecessary timesinks and hassles; focus on gameplay.
Just as many if not more browser game players as WoW players play the sort of time sink infested pvp you seem to hate so much.
Just as many if not more browser game players as WoW players play the sort of time sink infested pvp you seem to hate so much.
When you compare all diluted PVP with just WOW players, you're probably right.
But when you compare all diluted competitive gaming with all undiluted competitive gaming (all sports, RTS, FPS, MOBA, boardgames) you quickly realize that diluted PVP is a tiny drop in the ocean of competitive gaming.
It's reasonably popular due to how casual it is, but most players still seem to favor PVP which is about skillful competition (where non-skill elements are minimized or virtually nonexistant.)
The only reason more MMORPG PVP is diluted than undiluted is that all RPGs by definition are diluted by a non-skill element (player progression.) But most competitive gaming actually happens in "fair fight" style true competition where skill is by far the primary deciding force.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Just as many if not more browser game players as WoW players play the sort of time sink infested pvp you seem to hate so much.
When you compare all diluted PVP with just WOW players, you're probably right.
But when you compare all diluted competitive gaming with all undiluted competitive gaming (all sports, RTS, FPS, MOBA, boardgames) you quickly realize that diluted PVP is a tiny drop in the ocean of competitive gaming.
It's reasonably popular due to how casual it is, but most players still seem to favor PVP which is about skillful competition (where non-skill elements are minimized or virtually nonexistant.)
The only reason more MMORPG PVP is diluted than undiluted is that all RPGs by definition are diluted by a non-skill element (player progression.) But most competitive gaming actually happens in "fair fight" style true competition where skill is by far the primary deciding force.
A lot of strategy games are about skill too. How is taking away the last bastion of intellectual competition and replacing it with physical prowess when we already have a ridicilously over valued pro sports obessesion a good thing?
A lot of strategy games are about skill too. How is taking away the last bastion of intellectual competition and replacing it with physical prowess when we already have a ridicilously over valued pro sports obessesion a good thing?
Strategy and tactics are clearly skill, not sure why you'd think I felt otherwise. But the type of skill exhibited (twitch, tactics, or strategy) in no way affects whether or not it's a good idea to add unnecessary timesinks
You don't play Catan against a "level 60" player who starts with 5 settlements (progression), nor do you play Chess where when you start to lose you can call in ten friends (each with full sets of pieces) to obliterate your opponent. These games are good skillful competition because they don't compromise their gameplay integrity with non-skill elements (the closest they get is the roll of the dice in Catan.)
You also don't play Chess where you're forced to craft your own Chess pieces by hand for 2 hours before the match, then sit and do nothing for 10 minutes while your pieces are "traveling to the battlefield" before you get to play. That would be silly and unnecessary and you'd only do that if you had an extreme (and extremely unusual) desire to simulate a world with your Chess-playing. (And those extra timesinks would in no way increase the intellectual competition involved.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
A lot of strategy games are about skill too. How is taking away the last bastion of intellectual competition and replacing it with physical prowess when we already have a ridicilously over valued pro sports obessesion a good thing?
Strategy and tactics are clearly skill, not sure why you'd think I felt otherwise. But the type of skill exhibited (twitch, tactics, or strategy) in no way affects whether or not it's a good idea to add unnecessary timesinks
You don't play Catan against a "level 60" player who starts with 5 settlements (progression), nor do you play Chess where when you start to lose you can call in ten friends (each with full sets of pieces) to obliterate your opponent. These games are good skillful competition because they don't compromise their gameplay integrity with non-skill elements (the closest they get is the roll of the dice in Catan.)
You also don't play Chess where you're forced to craft your own Chess pieces by hand for 2 hours before the match, then sit and do nothing for 10 minutes while your pieces are "traveling to the battlefield" before you get to play. That would be silly and unnecessary and you'd only do that if you had an extreme (and extremely unusual) desire to simulate a world with your Chess-playing. (And those extra timesinks would in no way increase the intellectual competition involved.)
Chess is not a social or group centered game. If you already have BF3 and Chess why do you need more games with the same pvp?
Virtually nobody is going to use a clock to time their efficiency (although if the game provides a leaderboard, a fair chunk of players -- though not the majority -- are going to compete.)
The point is that in all but the most easily-solved game patterns, there's usually quite a bit of fun to be had repeating things for a while. And even on the very far end up the spectrum (having repeated the system a lot) there is usually more fun to be had than a complete void of gameplay.
However, "fun" isn't the only form of entertainment a MMORPG can provide. Feeling that something makes sense, that something looks beautiful or that you are a part of something, are all aspects of immersion; being immersed is entertaining.
This is why I prefer a system that isn't completely void of such a fundemental immersion technique as "forcing the player do a non-instant travel to get from place A to B, from time to time" in games where there is not always a much more entertaining alternative, such as MMORPGs.
Once you've repeated a dungeon/raid/daily quest X times, the entertainment value of immersion techniques is definitely not small in comparison to the minimal "fun" value those tasks have besides the reward.
Chess is not a social or group centered game. If you already have BF3 and Chess why do you need more games with the same pvp?
Games get old. You're not still playing the first game you ever played, so I'm sure you already knew that.
(As an aside, Chess is pretty darn social.)
While 90% of my PVPing in the last few years has been group-based, I'm a little curious why you think the social or group side of things matters? A great, non-social, 1v1 PVP game is still fun. Are there no RTS or Fighting games you enjoy?
Again, all are able tons of fun without excessive AFKable activities. No 5-minute timeout for losing a piece in Chess. Instant queueing/server joining in any PVP to be found online. The only exception is a few MMORPGs, and only when they're world simulation-focused.
That's really the solitary part that holds back sandbox success. The first polished sandbox to embrace being a game first and foremost (and worry about simulation afterwards, if they can fit it in) is going to hit it pretty big. People love customizing and creating things, but the game has to be fun. And diluting the fun with a lot of inconveniences and time-wasting is the quickest way to make something feel bland and boring.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
However, "fun" isn't the only form of entertainment a MMORPG can provide. Feeling that something makes sense, that something looks beautiful or that you are a part of something, are all aspects of immersion; being immersed is entertaining.
This is why I prefer a system that isn't completely void of such a fundemental immersion technique as "forcing the player do a non-instant travel to get from place A to B, from time to time" in games where there is not always a much more entertaining alternative, such as MMORPGs.
Once you've repeated a dungeon/raid/daily quest X times, the entertainment value of immersion techniques is definitely not small in comparison to the minimal "fun" value those tasks have besides the reward.
Does Skyrim feel immersive, despite fast travel?
How often do you repeat content in Skyrim?
I don't mean to sound like I'm super fanboy about Skyrim (I'm not,) but it's clearly a game which wastes almost none of the player's time yet manages to be immersive and not repeat content. This would be equally true in a MMORPG designed the same way.
There are clearly other design goals which require slow travel, but they're definitely not immersion or a concern with repeat content. And my argument is that the design goals which require slow travel are -- for most players -- not fun enough to carry the disadvantages that it brings along. (Except in the case where slow travel is made to be chock-full of gameplay, unlike current MMORPGs.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
However, "fun" isn't the only form of entertainment a MMORPG can provide. Feeling that something makes sense, that something looks beautiful or that you are a part of something, are all aspects of immersion; being immersed is entertaining.
This is why I prefer a system that isn't completely void of such a fundemental immersion technique as "forcing the player do a non-instant travel to get from place A to B, from time to time" in games where there is not always a much more entertaining alternative, such as MMORPGs.
Once you've repeated a dungeon/raid/daily quest X times, the entertainment value of immersion techniques is definitely not small in comparison to the minimal "fun" value those tasks have besides the reward.
Does Skyrim feel immersive, despite fast travel?
How often do you repeat content in Skyrim?
I don't mean to sound like I'm super fanboy about Skyrim (I'm not,) but it's clearly a game which wastes almost none of the player's time yet manages to be immersive and not repeat content. This would be equally true in a MMORPG designed the same way.
There are clearly other design goals which require slow travel, but they're definitely not immersion or a concern with repeat content. And my argument is that the design goals which require slow travel are -- for most players -- not fun enough to carry the disadvantages that it brings along. (Except in the case where slow travel is made to be chock-full of gameplay, unlike current MMORPGs.)
Skyrim is a single player game and isn't plagued by the same degree of repetition that is common to MMORPGs. Single player games are able to offer far higher varation/hour ratio compared to MMORPGs due to the signifacantely lower life expectancy.
While a single player game is usually not primarely intended to last more than 100 hours, a MMORPG is, which makes MMORPGs far more plagued by repetition than single player games. This is why, instant travel is far better (even though only to a certain extent) in single player games than it is in MMORPGs: single player games have the resources to provide a far more entertaining alternative.
Until MMORPGs are able to have a similar budget per ingame hour compared to high-profile single player games, they cannot be seen in the same light.
Design the game around B2P model and you have very little reason to add timesinks. In a B2P game, the developer is motivated to maximize fun whereas in a P2P the developer maximizes time spent playing the game. P2P game only has to be "fun enough" so that the player will spend that maximum time playing and paying for the game.
Yes, MMO developers add timesinks knowlingly because they increase their profits. Fun is usually not part of timesinks. You can find fun inbetween the timesinks and hopefully they it will keep you playing until you find another bread crumb of fun.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Skyrim is a single player game and isn't plagued by the same degree of repetition that is common to MMORPGs. Single player games are able to offer far higher varation/hour ratio compared to MMORPGs due to the signifacantely lower life expectancy.
While a single player game is usually not primarely intended to last more than 100 hours, a MMORPG is, which makes MMORPGs far more plagued by repetition than single player games. This is why, instant travel is far better (even though only to a certain extent) in single player games than it is in MMORPGs: single player games have the resources to provide a far more entertaining alternative.
Until MMORPGs are able to have a similar budget per ingame hour compared to high-profile single player games, they cannot be seen in the same light.
That's all true, except for the idea that they're somehow completely different. Just because MMORPGs are designed to last longer (and therefore inevitably involve more repetition) does not prevent them from being immersive with fast travel.
It's fair to point out you'll experience greater repetition. But what hasn't changed is the idea that the repetition should certainly be spent predominantly in the best-polished best-designed features. A game should strongly limit how often (and for how long) it sends players to the weaker-designed systems.
You're going to spend more overall time in a MMORPG, so we expect to spend more time in those weaker systems, but the proportion of engagement with Good Features vs. Bad Features should still remain the same (strongly weighted towards the former.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Comments
But its not. Its matches. Matches aren't comparable to persistant world affecting pvp where a player's actual character is permanently affected.
Large scale PVP is large scale PVP. Both Planetside and BF3 actually have pretty beefy RPG systems, and the details of whether victory is attained through twitch skill or tactical decisionmaking is sort of irrelevant to this particular discussion.
If we were talking about a 100 vs. 100 player game mode in Guild Wars PVP, the things I've said would be just as true about the lack of a need to hide PVP behind excessive timesinks and rarity.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
But matches in BF3 are not connected to the campaign style play!
How did fighting in a pvp match affect your characters stats? Did it affect the game world at all? Not thar BF even has a persistant multiplayer world. Do you get loot from matches?
Well "persistent world" is the cause of excessive travel and PVP rarity. Which goes back to my "these features add a huge time cost and dilute gameplay without really adding anything most players care about" argument. Certainly a niche wants a world sim, but most players want dense gameplay.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
We will see if that holds true once Firefall comes out.
I'd disagree, I say that the lack of goals is the cause of diluted PVP. Its PVP for PVPs sake. Giving meaning to the PVP can be done in a persistant world. After all you can have teleporters, etc. aka the Global Agenda way.
The users of this site are so inconsistent. The poll clearly favors Old School freedom, but people are going absolutely stupid over SWTOR.
I think DAoC did it right.
My definition of videogame RPGs is basically (A) twitch-lite combat (or no twitch at all,) (B) emphasis on story, and (C) emphasis on character progression.
FPSes clearly fail the first criteria, even though BF3 does indeed let you increase your capabilities (by getting loot and perk upgrades) by fighting in PVP matches.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
See you keep saying you don't like mmorpgs and then you keep refusing to admit it! Why don't we just redefine mmorpg to battlefield 3 and then you can be happy, and we can invent a new term for mmorpg and clarify its meaning at the start so we don't have anymore definition drama. MMORPG has hereby been renamed as "online persistent synchronus world where players interact with each other within the same gameworld all the time". Bam! Now go away while we dicuss pvp in OPSWWPIWEOWTSGATTs!
Sure, and I don't mind an overarching metagame unless it interferes with gameplay (makes PVP rare, or makes PVP about non-skill factors like zerging or progression, or increases timesinks by a significant amount.)
Although personally I find PVP to be enjoyable for its own sake as long as the game is deep and interesting to figure out.
Actually as much as I enjoyed Global Agenda, I felt the metagame had some really boring non-gameplay to it. I remember spending an evening capping completely undefended maps. That's a waste of my time.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Old school freedom with a strong backbone new style story... Is it too much to ask?
My Blog About Hellgate Global, an ARPG/FPS hybrid MMO:
http://kashiewannaplay.wordpress.com/
Hellgate Global Official Fan Blog
http://t3funhellgate.wordpress.com/
Currently Playing: Hellgate Global, LoL, Skyrim, Morrowind
Recently Played: Cardmon Hero, Cabal, Oblivion
Like the majority of MMORPG players, I love a good PVE MMORPG.
But MMORPGs are notoriously bad for PVP. If the PVP quality justified the huge timesinks involved and rare PVP, then that'd be one thing (Planetside PVP often involved ~60 second timesinks, yet it justified itself by providing the most epic warfare in a PVP game.) But they don't -- they have even worse PVP than typical PVP games because non-skill factors make things casual, and often very one-sided. So you have the worst of all worlds.
However a good PVE MMORPG with polished combat and controls and no unnecessary timesinks? I'd be all over that. That was essentially why WOW exploded in popularity -- strip out the unnecessary timesinks and hassles; focus on gameplay.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Just as many if not more browser game players as WoW players play the sort of time sink infested pvp you seem to hate so much.
When you compare all diluted PVP with just WOW players, you're probably right.
But when you compare all diluted competitive gaming with all undiluted competitive gaming (all sports, RTS, FPS, MOBA, boardgames) you quickly realize that diluted PVP is a tiny drop in the ocean of competitive gaming.
It's reasonably popular due to how casual it is, but most players still seem to favor PVP which is about skillful competition (where non-skill elements are minimized or virtually nonexistant.)
The only reason more MMORPG PVP is diluted than undiluted is that all RPGs by definition are diluted by a non-skill element (player progression.) But most competitive gaming actually happens in "fair fight" style true competition where skill is by far the primary deciding force.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
A lot of strategy games are about skill too. How is taking away the last bastion of intellectual competition and replacing it with physical prowess when we already have a ridicilously over valued pro sports obessesion a good thing?
Strategy and tactics are clearly skill, not sure why you'd think I felt otherwise. But the type of skill exhibited (twitch, tactics, or strategy) in no way affects whether or not it's a good idea to add unnecessary timesinks
You don't play Catan against a "level 60" player who starts with 5 settlements (progression), nor do you play Chess where when you start to lose you can call in ten friends (each with full sets of pieces) to obliterate your opponent. These games are good skillful competition because they don't compromise their gameplay integrity with non-skill elements (the closest they get is the roll of the dice in Catan.)
You also don't play Chess where you're forced to craft your own Chess pieces by hand for 2 hours before the match, then sit and do nothing for 10 minutes while your pieces are "traveling to the battlefield" before you get to play. That would be silly and unnecessary and you'd only do that if you had an extreme (and extremely unusual) desire to simulate a world with your Chess-playing. (And those extra timesinks would in no way increase the intellectual competition involved.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Chess is not a social or group centered game. If you already have BF3 and Chess why do you need more games with the same pvp?
However, "fun" isn't the only form of entertainment a MMORPG can provide. Feeling that something makes sense, that something looks beautiful or that you are a part of something, are all aspects of immersion; being immersed is entertaining.
This is why I prefer a system that isn't completely void of such a fundemental immersion technique as "forcing the player do a non-instant travel to get from place A to B, from time to time" in games where there is not always a much more entertaining alternative, such as MMORPGs.
Once you've repeated a dungeon/raid/daily quest X times, the entertainment value of immersion techniques is definitely not small in comparison to the minimal "fun" value those tasks have besides the reward.
Games get old. You're not still playing the first game you ever played, so I'm sure you already knew that.
(As an aside, Chess is pretty darn social.)
While 90% of my PVPing in the last few years has been group-based, I'm a little curious why you think the social or group side of things matters? A great, non-social, 1v1 PVP game is still fun. Are there no RTS or Fighting games you enjoy?
Again, all are able tons of fun without excessive AFKable activities. No 5-minute timeout for losing a piece in Chess. Instant queueing/server joining in any PVP to be found online. The only exception is a few MMORPGs, and only when they're world simulation-focused.
That's really the solitary part that holds back sandbox success. The first polished sandbox to embrace being a game first and foremost (and worry about simulation afterwards, if they can fit it in) is going to hit it pretty big. People love customizing and creating things, but the game has to be fun. And diluting the fun with a lot of inconveniences and time-wasting is the quickest way to make something feel bland and boring.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Does Skyrim feel immersive, despite fast travel?
How often do you repeat content in Skyrim?
I don't mean to sound like I'm super fanboy about Skyrim (I'm not,) but it's clearly a game which wastes almost none of the player's time yet manages to be immersive and not repeat content. This would be equally true in a MMORPG designed the same way.
There are clearly other design goals which require slow travel, but they're definitely not immersion or a concern with repeat content. And my argument is that the design goals which require slow travel are -- for most players -- not fun enough to carry the disadvantages that it brings along. (Except in the case where slow travel is made to be chock-full of gameplay, unlike current MMORPGs.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Skyrim is a single player game and isn't plagued by the same degree of repetition that is common to MMORPGs. Single player games are able to offer far higher varation/hour ratio compared to MMORPGs due to the signifacantely lower life expectancy.
While a single player game is usually not primarely intended to last more than 100 hours, a MMORPG is, which makes MMORPGs far more plagued by repetition than single player games. This is why, instant travel is far better (even though only to a certain extent) in single player games than it is in MMORPGs: single player games have the resources to provide a far more entertaining alternative.
Until MMORPGs are able to have a similar budget per ingame hour compared to high-profile single player games, they cannot be seen in the same light.
Design the game around B2P model and you have very little reason to add timesinks. In a B2P game, the developer is motivated to maximize fun whereas in a P2P the developer maximizes time spent playing the game. P2P game only has to be "fun enough" so that the player will spend that maximum time playing and paying for the game.
Yes, MMO developers add timesinks knowlingly because they increase their profits. Fun is usually not part of timesinks. You can find fun inbetween the timesinks and hopefully they it will keep you playing until you find another bread crumb of fun.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
That's all true, except for the idea that they're somehow completely different. Just because MMORPGs are designed to last longer (and therefore inevitably involve more repetition) does not prevent them from being immersive with fast travel.
It's fair to point out you'll experience greater repetition. But what hasn't changed is the idea that the repetition should certainly be spent predominantly in the best-polished best-designed features. A game should strongly limit how often (and for how long) it sends players to the weaker-designed systems.
You're going to spend more overall time in a MMORPG, so we expect to spend more time in those weaker systems, but the proportion of engagement with Good Features vs. Bad Features should still remain the same (strongly weighted towards the former.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver