Eh, I remember when making a long trek over multiple zones on your own was seen as a rite of passage in Saga of Ryzom and a good way to weed out weak guild candidates. But I guess those were different times.
Now there's a pickup line that's sure to impress.
"So, what do you do for a living?
"My job is not important, gal. All you need to know is the number 'three.' That's right. I'ma three-zoner in Ryzom. Unscathed passage everytime. Soooooo... your place or mine?"
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Skyrim was used as a loose example of a more live world anyway. The point is that even in an MMO, a lot can be done in the world design that would make adventuring and exploring while traveling much more exciting.
For that to work, one would have to get rid of level disparity, especially if players need to be grouped to complete tasks or fight certain mobs. Without a significant shift to another progression system that is more tolerant of solo endeavors and unlike levels in groups, all that adventuring and exploring content would just be a nuisance for the majority of players as their goal is to reach their destination without impediment. The diesng you suggest works in games like Skyrim because it doesn't make a difference to the player if they level or not. In the majority of level-based MMOs, the guy that plays MMOs the way he plays Skyrim will consistently end up behind the curve of his group. Most adventurer/explorer types in MMOs are already familiar with that procedure even in the current state of these games.
Again, Skyrim is simply being used as an example of how exploring can be fun. Dynamic content can eaisly be implemented into MMOs. I'm not even talking ahout big tihngs. Something small, like randomly generated teasure chests, mini-bosses, rare metal from meteorites that fall from the sky, resources or anything that gets you out and about. You're right, though, people that are strictly task-oriented won't really be concerned with random crap that happens just off the road; it's a different mentality, a mentality that has taken over the industry and produced countless WoW clones.
Also, part of your argument seems to imply that a system that favors exploration wouldn't be beneficial. Why couldn't it? If your goal is just to wander out and find content, instead it simply being put on your plate, then who says you can't level effeciantly doing so?
I'm a big advocate of diversity in a market. There shouldn't be one type of MMO. I imagne that the people getting annoyed at this system can keep playing WoW, or TOR, or any of the million facsimiles. However, there are limited options for this style of play.
Skyrim was used as a loose example of a more live world anyway. The point is that even in an MMO, a lot can be done in the world design that would make adventuring and exploring while traveling much more exciting.
For that to work, one would have to get rid of level disparity, especially if players need to be grouped to complete tasks or fight certain mobs. Without a significant shift to another progression system that is more tolerant of solo endeavors and unlike levels in groups, all that adventuring and exploring content would just be a nuisance for the majority of players as their goal is to reach their destination without impediment. The diesng you suggest works in games like Skyrim because it doesn't make a difference to the player if they level or not. In the majority of level-based MMOs, the guy that plays MMOs the way he plays Skyrim will consistently end up behind the curve of his group. Most adventurer/explorer types in MMOs are already familiar with that procedure even in the current state of these games.
Again, Skyrim is simply being used as an example of how exploring can be fun. Dynamic content can eaisly be implemented into MMOs. I'm not even talking ahout big tihngs. Something small, like randomly generated teasure chests, mini-bosses, rare metal from meteorites that fall from the sky, resources or anything that gets you out and about. You're right, though, people that are strictly task-oriented won't really be concerned with random crap that happens just off the road; it's a different mentality, a mentality that has taken over the industry and produced countless WoW clones.
That looks good on paper and sounds great in theory. Your best bet is to actually walk through your idea with the consideration of other people inthe game world. The issues become glaringly evident. With all these cool triggers and events, are they visible to the rest of the playerbase? Accessible by the rest of the playerbase? What happens to the chests and bosses that aren't cleaned up?
You'll quickly find that the solutions are in the form of phasing, instancing and other manners of basically taking the player or small group out of the multiplayer experience and into a single player or small group experience, separate from the persistent multiplayer game world.
It's not that "The Industry" has some collective groupthink that has them stuck on a single path. What you are suggesting - dynamic content can be easily implemented - looks great on paper until you actually walk through it and see how it actually plays out.
It's not that it cannot be implemented but that the best implentations are at the expenseof the multiplayer experience.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Skyrim was used as a loose example of a more live world anyway. The point is that even in an MMO, a lot can be done in the world design that would make adventuring and exploring while traveling much more exciting.
For that to work, one would have to get rid of level disparity, especially if players need to be grouped to complete tasks or fight certain mobs. Without a significant shift to another progression system that is more tolerant of solo endeavors and unlike levels in groups, all that adventuring and exploring content would just be a nuisance for the majority of players as their goal is to reach their destination without impediment. The diesng you suggest works in games like Skyrim because it doesn't make a difference to the player if they level or not. In the majority of level-based MMOs, the guy that plays MMOs the way he plays Skyrim will consistently end up behind the curve of his group. Most adventurer/explorer types in MMOs are already familiar with that procedure even in the current state of these games.
Again, Skyrim is simply being used as an example of how exploring can be fun. Dynamic content can eaisly be implemented into MMOs. I'm not even talking ahout big tihngs. Something small, like randomly generated teasure chests, mini-bosses, rare metal from meteorites that fall from the sky, resources or anything that gets you out and about. You're right, though, people that are strictly task-oriented won't really be concerned with random crap that happens just off the road; it's a different mentality, a mentality that has taken over the industry and produced countless WoW clones.
That looks good on paper and sounds great in theory. Your best bet is to actually walk through your idea with the consideration of other people inthe game world. The issues become glaringly evident. With all these cool triggers and events, are they visible to the rest of the playerbase? Accessible by the rest of the playerbase? What happens to the chests and bosses that aren't cleaned up?
You'll quickly find that the solutions are in the form of phasing, instancing and other manners of basically taking the player or small group out of the multiplayer experience and into a single player or small group experience, separate from the persistent multiplayer game world.
It's not that "The Industry" has some collective groupthink that has them stuck on a single path. What you are suggesting - dynamic content can be easily implemented - looks great on paper until you actually walk through it and see how it actually plays out.
It's not that it cannot be implemented but that the best implentations are at the expenseof the multiplayer experience.
How does something like a randomly spawning treasure chest look good on paper and sound good in theory yet still not transition well to a multiplayer experience? Or even the other suggestion about rare meteorite metal? The issues are not presenting themselves to me in a glaring manner. Those two things that were mentioned aren't exactly events. More like randomly spanwing resource nodes akin to resource nodes as seen in WoW (perhaps they can make the treasure chest spawn in a few discreet, variable locations). Oh, the chests that aren't looted also sit around being discreet untill someone does loot them.
Skyrim was used as a loose example of a more live world anyway. The point is that even in an MMO, a lot can be done in the world design that would make adventuring and exploring while traveling much more exciting.
For that to work, one would have to get rid of level disparity, especially if players need to be grouped to complete tasks or fight certain mobs. Without a significant shift to another progression system that is more tolerant of solo endeavors and unlike levels in groups, all that adventuring and exploring content would just be a nuisance for the majority of players as their goal is to reach their destination without impediment. The diesng you suggest works in games like Skyrim because it doesn't make a difference to the player if they level or not. In the majority of level-based MMOs, the guy that plays MMOs the way he plays Skyrim will consistently end up behind the curve of his group. Most adventurer/explorer types in MMOs are already familiar with that procedure even in the current state of these games.
Again, Skyrim is simply being used as an example of how exploring can be fun. Dynamic content can eaisly be implemented into MMOs. I'm not even talking ahout big tihngs. Something small, like randomly generated teasure chests, mini-bosses, rare metal from meteorites that fall from the sky, resources or anything that gets you out and about. You're right, though, people that are strictly task-oriented won't really be concerned with random crap that happens just off the road; it's a different mentality, a mentality that has taken over the industry and produced countless WoW clones.
That looks good on paper and sounds great in theory. Your best bet is to actually walk through your idea with the consideration of other people inthe game world. The issues become glaringly evident. With all these cool triggers and events, are they visible to the rest of the playerbase? Accessible by the rest of the playerbase? What happens to the chests and bosses that aren't cleaned up?
You'll quickly find that the solutions are in the form of phasing, instancing and other manners of basically taking the player or small group out of the multiplayer experience and into a single player or small group experience, separate from the persistent multiplayer game world.
It's not that "The Industry" has some collective groupthink that has them stuck on a single path. What you are suggesting - dynamic content can be easily implemented - looks great on paper until you actually walk through it and see how it actually plays out.
It's not that it cannot be implemented but that the best implentations are at the expenseof the multiplayer experience.
I can't tell if you're being willfully argumentative, or if you're really not grasping the concept. Yes, dynamic content that I'm talking is quite esay to implement. I've seen similar things in several games. Not to mention that Guild Wars 2 is being even more ambitious with its dynamic content. They're making work somehow. Perhaps they employ wizards.
I'm sorry if I'm not buying into the sincerity of your argument, but you seem to be claiming that things that have already been done are impossible. Maybe you could be more specific about why these things won't work. We may have completely different things in mind.
I imagine the "worst case scenario" is so much crowding that you always walk into scenarios mid way through or towards the end and there are so many people it's all just a zerg anyway.
Best case scenario they limit the server populations enough to keep things from going too over board.
Really? no wonder these people hate anything new, there probably still using rotary telephones and typewriters , thyey had some really nice "features"
No, we just like video games to be difficult and challenging rather than the easy mode crap you see today. You know what I HATE? It's when I hear things like "That game wouldn't sell in the west, because it's too difficult for western gamers." I love video games but I don't really get to play many these days because I am not contant to spend 60 dollars to prance through an 8 hour "adventure".
Long travel time is a great feature. It makes the world feel like a massive place where you might actually have to make preparations to travel in, rather than just clicking "I can go here pleaz". Anyway, I hope all the western gamers that don't like challenge all play SWTOR and WoW so some other developer can make a challenging online game. Asia is probably the only hope now.
Are you a Pavlovian Fish Biscuit Addict? Get Help Now! I will play no more MMORPGs until somethign good comes out!
Really? no wonder these people hate anything new, there probably still using rotary telephones and typewriters , thyey had some really nice "features"
No, we just like video games to be difficult and challenging rather than the easy mode crap you see today. You know what I HATE? It's when I hear things like "That game wouldn't sell in the west, because it's too difficult for western gamers." I love video games but I don't really get to play many these days because I am not contant to spend 60 dollars to prance through an 8 hour "adventure".
Long travel time is a great feature. It makes the world feel like a massive place where you might actually have to make preparations to travel in, rather than just clicking "I can go here pleaz". Anyway, I hope all the western gamers that don't like challenge all play SWTOR and WoW so some other developer can make a challenging online game. Asia is probably the only hope now.
long travel times ISNT a feature, its a timesink, liking something doesnt make it a feature, theres no reason for it to be there other than to waste your time, thats it, its not some awesme challenge that makes you super leet if you do it, its holding one button to walk forward, congradulations!
Ive got a game for you, just take whatever game you already like, then make it take 10x as long to do anything, boom, you should love that, nice and "challenging"
Apparently stating the truth in my sig is "trolling" Sig typo fixed thanks to an observant stragen001.
Skyrim was used as a loose example of a more live world anyway. The point is that even in an MMO, a lot can be done in the world design that would make adventuring and exploring while traveling much more exciting.
For that to work, one would have to get rid of level disparity, especially if players need to be grouped to complete tasks or fight certain mobs. Without a significant shift to another progression system that is more tolerant of solo endeavors and unlike levels in groups, all that adventuring and exploring content would just be a nuisance for the majority of players as their goal is to reach their destination without impediment. The diesng you suggest works in games like Skyrim because it doesn't make a difference to the player if they level or not. In the majority of level-based MMOs, the guy that plays MMOs the way he plays Skyrim will consistently end up behind the curve of his group. Most adventurer/explorer types in MMOs are already familiar with that procedure even in the current state of these games.
Again, Skyrim is simply being used as an example of how exploring can be fun. Dynamic content can eaisly be implemented into MMOs. I'm not even talking ahout big tihngs. Something small, like randomly generated teasure chests, mini-bosses, rare metal from meteorites that fall from the sky, resources or anything that gets you out and about. You're right, though, people that are strictly task-oriented won't really be concerned with random crap that happens just off the road; it's a different mentality, a mentality that has taken over the industry and produced countless WoW clones.
That looks good on paper and sounds great in theory. Your best bet is to actually walk through your idea with the consideration of other people inthe game world. The issues become glaringly evident. With all these cool triggers and events, are they visible to the rest of the playerbase? Accessible by the rest of the playerbase? What happens to the chests and bosses that aren't cleaned up?
You'll quickly find that the solutions are in the form of phasing, instancing and other manners of basically taking the player or small group out of the multiplayer experience and into a single player or small group experience, separate from the persistent multiplayer game world.
It's not that "The Industry" has some collective groupthink that has them stuck on a single path. What you are suggesting - dynamic content can be easily implemented - looks great on paper until you actually walk through it and see how it actually plays out.
It's not that it cannot be implemented but that the best implentations are at the expenseof the multiplayer experience.
How does something like a randomly spawning treasure chest look good on paper and sound good in theory yet still not transition well to a multiplayer experience? Or even the other suggestion about rare meteorite metal? The issues are not presenting themselves to me in a glaring manner. Those two things that were mentioned aren't exactly events. More like randomly spanwing resource nodes akin to resource nodes as seen in WoW (perhaps they can make the treasure chest spawn in a few discreet, variable locations). Oh, the chests that aren't looted also sit around being discreet untill someone does loot them.
WOW's nodes are static. He talking about dynamic content generated by player actions. If 40 people come into the zone at once, does everyone get their own chest in different locations or do they all take a number at a node? Is the spawn public or single person. If songle person, then a small group can litter or lockdown an area. If public then there is ninja looting. There's a lot more involved. Keep in mind, you chose only the most innocuous of the list. If you consider it in the light of mini-bosses and metoerites I think it will be easier for you to see the greater issue at hand.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Skyrim was used as a loose example of a more live world anyway. The point is that even in an MMO, a lot can be done in the world design that would make adventuring and exploring while traveling much more exciting.
For that to work, one would have to get rid of level disparity, especially if players need to be grouped to complete tasks or fight certain mobs. Without a significant shift to another progression system that is more tolerant of solo endeavors and unlike levels in groups, all that adventuring and exploring content would just be a nuisance for the majority of players as their goal is to reach their destination without impediment. The diesng you suggest works in games like Skyrim because it doesn't make a difference to the player if they level or not. In the majority of level-based MMOs, the guy that plays MMOs the way he plays Skyrim will consistently end up behind the curve of his group. Most adventurer/explorer types in MMOs are already familiar with that procedure even in the current state of these games.
Again, Skyrim is simply being used as an example of how exploring can be fun. Dynamic content can eaisly be implemented into MMOs. I'm not even talking ahout big tihngs. Something small, like randomly generated teasure chests, mini-bosses, rare metal from meteorites that fall from the sky, resources or anything that gets you out and about. You're right, though, people that are strictly task-oriented won't really be concerned with random crap that happens just off the road; it's a different mentality, a mentality that has taken over the industry and produced countless WoW clones.
That looks good on paper and sounds great in theory. Your best bet is to actually walk through your idea with the consideration of other people inthe game world. The issues become glaringly evident. With all these cool triggers and events, are they visible to the rest of the playerbase? Accessible by the rest of the playerbase? What happens to the chests and bosses that aren't cleaned up?
You'll quickly find that the solutions are in the form of phasing, instancing and other manners of basically taking the player or small group out of the multiplayer experience and into a single player or small group experience, separate from the persistent multiplayer game world.
It's not that "The Industry" has some collective groupthink that has them stuck on a single path. What you are suggesting - dynamic content can be easily implemented - looks great on paper until you actually walk through it and see how it actually plays out.
It's not that it cannot be implemented but that the best implentations are at the expense of the multiplayer experience.
I can't tell if you're being willfully argumentative, or if you're really not grasping the concept. Yes, dynamic content that I'm talking is quite esay to implement. I've seen similar things in several games. Not to mention that Guild Wars 2 is being even more ambitious with its dynamic content. They're making work somehow. Perhaps they employ wizards.
I'm sorry if I'm not buying into the sincerity of your argument, but you seem to be claiming that things that have already been done are impossible. Maybe you could be more specific about why these things won't work. We may have completely different things in mind.
I never said they don't work or can't work. I said "It's not that it cannot be implemented but that the best implentations are at the expense of the multiplayer experience."
That being said, I'd like to apologize for an assumption that I had made, as that assumption led me off on what I now realize is a tangent to the current conversation. Since general dynamic content such as rifts(Rifts), environment growth/decay (AC2/SB), rare spawns(various), elite/champ spawns(UO) and random treasure chests (AC and a dozen others), I made the assumption we were talking about dynamic content tailored to the player or group itself, such as what was present in the early incarnations of UOX. The confusion here is my fault, and I apologize for misunderstanding the context of the discussion.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Really? no wonder these people hate anything new, there probably still using rotary telephones and typewriters , thyey had some really nice "features"
No, we just like video games to be difficult and challenging rather than the easy mode crap you see today. You know what I HATE? It's when I hear things like "That game wouldn't sell in the west, because it's too difficult for western gamers." I love video games but I don't really get to play many these days because I am not contant to spend 60 dollars to prance through an 8 hour "adventure".
Long travel time is a great feature. It makes the world feel like a massive place where you might actually have to make preparations to travel in, rather than just clicking "I can go here pleaz". Anyway, I hope all the western gamers that don't like challenge all play SWTOR and WoW so some other developer can make a challenging online game. Asia is probably the only hope now.
long travel times ISNT a feature, its a timesink, liking something doesnt make it a feature, theres no reason for it to be there other than to waste your time, thats it, its not some awesme challenge that makes you super leet if you do it, its holding one button to walk forward, congradulations!
Ive got a game for you, just take whatever game you already like, then make it take 10x as long to do anything, boom, you should love that, nice and "challenging"
Hope you realize that almost EVERYTHING can be labelled as "timesink".
Why you need to run instance x 100 times to get enough medallions or whatever to get your armor ? You had beat it once so everything aside of this first time is time sink and made to make you play this instance(s) longer.
Just an example.
There is very few things that can objectively be tagged as "timesink", other than that it is just subjective player opinion.
One person will view travels as interesting part of gameplay and second as timesink, same with running isntances dozens of times, or questing or participating in BG's, etc -
line between "gameplay" and "timesink" is simply diffrently placed for diffrent people.
Really? no wonder these people hate anything new, there probably still using rotary telephones and typewriters , thyey had some really nice "features"
No, we just like video games to be difficult and challenging rather than the easy mode crap you see today. You know what I HATE? It's when I hear things like "That game wouldn't sell in the west, because it's too difficult for western gamers." I love video games but I don't really get to play many these days because I am not contant to spend 60 dollars to prance through an 8 hour "adventure".
Long travel time is a great feature. It makes the world feel like a massive place where you might actually have to make preparations to travel in, rather than just clicking "I can go here pleaz". Anyway, I hope all the western gamers that don't like challenge all play SWTOR and WoW so some other developer can make a challenging online game. Asia is probably the only hope now.
long travel times ISNT a feature, its a timesink, liking something doesnt make it a feature, theres no reason for it to be there other than to waste your time, thats it, its not some awesme challenge that makes you super leet if you do it, its holding one button to walk forward, congradulations!
Ive got a game for you, just take whatever game you already like, then make it take 10x as long to do anything, boom, you should love that, nice and "challenging"
Hope you realize that almost EVERYTHING can be labelled as "timesink".
Why you need to run instance x 100 times to get enough medallions or whatever to get your armor ? You had beat it once so everything aside of this first time is time sink and made to make you play this instance(s) longer.
Just an example.
There is very few things that can objectively be tagged as "timesink", other than that it is just subjective player opinion.
One person will view travels as interesting part of gameplay and second as timesink, same with running isntances dozens of times, or questing or participating in BG's, etc -
line between "gameplay" and "timesink" is simply diffrently placed for diffrent people.
Warmaster also simply assumes that travel equates to only moving from point A to point B with no impediment or possible other points of interest along the way. Maybe in a very static and linear game this is true. If the game makes the travel interesting it can be enjoyable.
It must be the fact that I grew up with computer games where challenge consisted of needing faster and faster reaction, being able to solve more and more complex puzzles, having to anticipate the next move etc. I never saw long traveltimes as one of the more interesting challenges in a game. Or even a challenge at all, except in terms of not quitting out of sheer boredom.
Dont get me wrong, I love exploring in a gameworld. For example in Vanguard I loved to travel in some random direction, being curious to see what was around the next corner. I did the same in Fallen Earth. What I never liked though, was simple fetch quests that sent me to some remote city and then again back along the same road to where I started and then I had to get back again because I forgot something. I also never saw this as challenging. Staring at a screen while autorun is activated is not particularly challenging imo. It is also definately not a feature in my eyes, At most it became a petpeeve for me in some games.
So while I love exploring, I also love being able to fast travel to parts of the world that I already discovered.
As a scout or ranger in Pre-cu SWG, you would leave the city with basic supplies and walk out into the wilderness for days at a time, when you ran into someone you would stop and chat, or invite them to use your crafted campsite so they would be protected from animal attack whilst they rested out there. If you struck lucky you might find a rare creature lair or resource.
The journey was the whole point.
Travel might be a timesink but then it's a computer game, you are playing them because you haven't got anything real to do, so they all all timesinks. If like me you want your timesink to be a virtual world then the timesinks are varied and not just combat based eg. Teleport in, clear dungeon, teleport out, rinse and repeat.
I never said they don't work or can't work. I said "It's not that it cannot be implemented but that the best implentations are at the expense of the multiplayer experience."
That being said, I'd like to apologize for an assumption that I had made, as that assumption led me off on what I now realize is a tangent to the current conversation. Since general dynamic content such as rifts(Rifts), environment growth/decay (AC2/SB), rare spawns(various), elite/champ spawns(UO) and random treasure chests (AC and a dozen others), I made the assumption we were talking about dynamic content tailored to the player or group itself, such as what was present in the early incarnations of UOX. The confusion here is my fault, and I apologize for misunderstanding the context of the discussion.
Haha. No need for appologies; I understand where you're coming from now. I can see how using Skyrim as an example can lead to that assumption, but I think it was just being brought up to contrast typical themepark games that don't really have a lot of content outside of quests. I was just taking it a step further in agreeing that more content should just be out and about in the world, ready to be found, instead of just given in a quest hub. Obviously the way Skyrim does those things couldn't be brought over to an MMO (without sacrificing multiplayer experience, that is), but I think that the feeling of satisfying exploration that exists in Skyrim could also be a part of an MMO to enhance the multiplayer experience.
As for the travel thing, I think we may just have to accept the fact that some people like to parade over the hillside, and some don't. Perhaps "long travels" is giving the wrong connotation. I agree that the instant gratification of queueing up and teleporting to a dungeon kills some of the experience, but we have to realize that 10 million people susbscribe to that system. Obviously there are people that like it. Would more players want to manually make the hike if there was more intersting content along the way? Perhaps, but there are still people that wouldn't. That's just a difference of opinion, and I wake up everyday thanking god that there is enough room in this world for both types of game. Amen!
It must be the fact that I grew up with computer games where challenge consisted of needing faster and faster reaction, being able to solve more and more complex puzzles, having to anticipate the next move etc. I never saw long traveltimes as one of the more interesting challenges in a game. Or even a challenge at all, except in terms of not quitting out of sheer boredom.
Dont get me wrong, I love exploring in a gameworld. For example in Vanguard I loved to travel in some random direction, being curious to see what was around the next corner. I did the same in Fallen Earth. What I never liked though, was simple fetch quests that sent me to some remote city and then again back along the same road to where I started and then I had to get back again because I forgot something. I also never saw this as challenging. Staring at a screen while autorun is activated is not particularly challenging imo. It is also definately not a feature in my eyes, At most it became a petpeeve for me in some games.
So while I love exploring, I also love being able to fast travel to parts of the world that I already discovered.
That seems to be a popular view, and it's why devs develop the systems the way they do - the flightpaths or fast travel options only unlock once you've made the trip at least once.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Really? no wonder these people hate anything new, there probably still using rotary telephones and typewriters , thyey had some really nice "features"
No, we just like video games to be difficult and challenging rather than the easy mode crap you see today. You know what I HATE? It's when I hear things like "That game wouldn't sell in the west, because it's too difficult for western gamers." I love video games but I don't really get to play many these days because I am not contant to spend 60 dollars to prance through an 8 hour "adventure".
Long travel time is a great feature. It makes the world feel like a massive place where you might actually have to make preparations to travel in, rather than just clicking "I can go here pleaz". Anyway, I hope all the western gamers that don't like challenge all play SWTOR and WoW so some other developer can make a challenging online game. Asia is probably the only hope now.
long travel times ISNT a feature, its a timesink, liking something doesnt make it a feature, theres no reason for it to be there other than to waste your time, thats it, its not some awesme challenge that makes you super leet if you do it, its holding one button to walk forward, congradulations!
Ive got a game for you, just take whatever game you already like, then make it take 10x as long to do anything, boom, you should love that, nice and "challenging"
Hope you realize that almost EVERYTHING can be labelled as "timesink".
Why you need to run instance x 100 times to get enough medallions or whatever to get your armor ? You had beat it once so everything aside of this first time is time sink and made to make you play this instance(s) longer.
Just an example.
There is very few things that can objectively be tagged as "timesink", other than that it is just subjective player opinion.
One person will view travels as interesting part of gameplay and second as timesink, same with running isntances dozens of times, or questing or participating in BG's, etc -
line between "gameplay" and "timesink" is simply diffrently placed for diffrent people.
Warmaster also simply assumes that travel equates to only moving from point A to point B with no impediment or possible other points of interest along the way. Maybe in a very static and linear game this is true. If the game makes the travel interesting it can be enjoyable.
Which can all easily exist without needing to make stupidly long trips.
AS for fenistil, difference between this and dong an instance for items is, you actually get something from teh instance, youll get items, game exp and personal exp, what does making a long run get you? nothing.
Really, how can someone sit here and think that game devolpers put in long travel times for any other reason? it adds nothing to the gameplay, especially when you have a map.
Apparently stating the truth in my sig is "trolling" Sig typo fixed thanks to an observant stragen001.
Really, how can someone sit here and think that game devolpers put in long travel times for any other reason? it adds nothing to the gameplay, especially when you have a map.
That was a big part of the discussions in designing the game world for Lord of the Rings Online, and the reason they went with a more compact world than some players were expecting. They wanted to releasea world where there was always something of interest as the player travelled, so instead of creating a large world with filler content, they opted for a smaller world design so that players wouldn't simply be travelling through emptiness or arbitrary content.
Just as with WOW, Vanguard and other mainstream MMOs, as the playerbase matured , more travel paths were added in order to reduce the amount of time the player is spending going through 'used' content or regions they have already experienced.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Really, how can someone sit here and think that game devolpers put in long travel times for any other reason? it adds nothing to the gameplay, especially when you have a map.
That was a big part of the discussions in designing the game world for Lord of the Rings Online, and the reason they went with a more compact world than some players were expecting. They wanted to releasea world where there was always something of interest as the player travelled, so instead of creating a large world with filler content, they opted for a smaller world design so that players wouldn't simply be travelling through emptiness or arbitrary content.
Just as with WOW, Vanguard and other mainstream MMOs, as the playerbase matured , more travel paths were added in order to reduce the amount of time the player is spending going through 'used' content or regions they have already experienced.
I forgot about lotro, No stupidly long travel times yet I could wander around and find cool scenes like bilbos trolls in teh trollshaws.
Apparently stating the truth in my sig is "trolling" Sig typo fixed thanks to an observant stragen001.
Really, how can someone sit here and think that game devolpers put in long travel times for any other reason? it adds nothing to the gameplay, especially when you have a map.
That was a big part of the discussions in designing the game world for Lord of the Rings Online, and the reason they went with a more compact world than some players were expecting. They wanted to releasea world where there was always something of interest as the player travelled, so instead of creating a large world with filler content, they opted for a smaller world design so that players wouldn't simply be travelling through emptiness or arbitrary content.
Just as with WOW, Vanguard and other mainstream MMOs, as the playerbase matured , more travel paths were added in order to reduce the amount of time the player is spending going through 'used' content or regions they have already experienced.
I forgot about lotro, No stupidly long travel times yet I could wander around and find cool scenes like bilbos trolls in teh trollshaws.
You said "stupidly long travels" in your two last messages. Do you have any respect for people that enjoy something you don't, or you just try to ofend us?
Skyrim was used as a loose example of a more live world anyway. The point is that even in an MMO, a lot can be done in the world design that would make adventuring and exploring while traveling much more exciting.
For that to work, one would have to get rid of level disparity, especially if players need to be grouped to complete tasks or fight certain mobs. Without a significant shift to another progression system that is more tolerant of solo endeavors and unlike levels in groups, all that adventuring and exploring content would just be a nuisance for the majority of players as their goal is to reach their destination without impediment. The diesng you suggest works in games like Skyrim because it doesn't make a difference to the player if they level or not. In the majority of level-based MMOs, the guy that plays MMOs the way he plays Skyrim will consistently end up behind the curve of his group. Most adventurer/explorer types in MMOs are already familiar with that procedure even in the current state of these games.
Again, Skyrim is simply being used as an example of how exploring can be fun. Dynamic content can eaisly be implemented into MMOs. I'm not even talking ahout big tihngs. Something small, like randomly generated teasure chests, mini-bosses, rare metal from meteorites that fall from the sky, resources or anything that gets you out and about. You're right, though, people that are strictly task-oriented won't really be concerned with random crap that happens just off the road; it's a different mentality, a mentality that has taken over the industry and produced countless WoW clones.
That looks good on paper and sounds great in theory. Your best bet is to actually walk through your idea with the consideration of other people inthe game world. The issues become glaringly evident. With all these cool triggers and events, are they visible to the rest of the playerbase? Accessible by the rest of the playerbase? What happens to the chests and bosses that aren't cleaned up?
You'll quickly find that the solutions are in the form of phasing, instancing and other manners of basically taking the player or small group out of the multiplayer experience and into a single player or small group experience, separate from the persistent multiplayer game world.
It's not that "The Industry" has some collective groupthink that has them stuck on a single path. What you are suggesting - dynamic content can be easily implemented - looks great on paper until you actually walk through it and see how it actually plays out.
It's not that it cannot be implemented but that the best implentations are at the expenseof the multiplayer experience.
How does something like a randomly spawning treasure chest look good on paper and sound good in theory yet still not transition well to a multiplayer experience? Or even the other suggestion about rare meteorite metal? The issues are not presenting themselves to me in a glaring manner. Those two things that were mentioned aren't exactly events. More like randomly spanwing resource nodes akin to resource nodes as seen in WoW (perhaps they can make the treasure chest spawn in a few discreet, variable locations). Oh, the chests that aren't looted also sit around being discreet untill someone does loot them.
WOW's nodes are static. He talking about dynamic content generated by player actions. If 40 people come into the zone at once, does everyone get their own chest in different locations or do they all take a number at a node? Is the spawn public or single person. If songle person, then a small group can litter or lockdown an area. If public then there is ninja looting. There's a lot more involved. Keep in mind, you chose only the most innocuous of the list. If you consider it in the light of mini-bosses and metoerites I think it will be easier for you to see the greater issue at hand.
Dynamic content don't necessarily have to be generated by player actions. The random chest can just spawn randomly, whether or not players have entered. There's no point to camp a chest because the chests can appear anywhere in the world at any time, so instead of camping a location players should just be doing what they were doing, but if they explore they might randomly come across something to reward them.
Special bosses and what also should not be limited to a set location. They should all have wandering paths that go over a large area of land. They should spawn at random intervals that make them impossible to camp. You could have really large special bosses that cause people to try to actively track down, and require entire guilds to take down, and everyone who contributes can get a reward (like what GW2 is doing). This would promote a more cohesive community where people are willing to help each other and share rather than keep everything for themselves.
There could even be random dungeons that spawn as people travel across the land, and will only last for a few hours at a time. If a adventuring group comes across it, they can choose to go inside. A single person might want to look for other players to group up and venture inside before the instance disappears.
All these things can easily make the MMO game world feel more alive and would make adventuring interesting, and wouldn't take that much more effort to do.
I tihnk that part of the problem is that once a path has been troden there is nary a reason to return. That's why in games like WoW having to travel back through the same area is taboo. That stems from graduating from a level zone too quickly. By that, I mean that after two or three levels beyond what a zone is designed for, it's almost compeltely useless. If you were a good little player and even harvested resources as you went through your first visit, then having to go back across it certainly is a waste of time. That's poor design in my opinion.
Really? no wonder these people hate anything new, there probably still using rotary telephones and typewriters , thyey had some really nice "features"
Just wow, you missed the ENTIRE point of the post and defaulted to long travel equals feature LOLZ and then dove straight into insults. I will not even take the time to explain what you missed just enough time to acknowledge your shallow thought process.
Dynamic content don't necessarily have to be generated by player actions. The random chest can just spawn randomly, whether or not players have entered. There's no point to camp a chest because the chests can appear anywhere in the world at any time, so instead of camping a location players should just be doing what they were doing, but if they explore they might randomly come across something to reward them.
Special bosses and what also should not be limited to a set location. They should all have wandering paths that go over a large area of land. They should spawn at random intervals that make them impossible to camp. You could have really large special bosses that cause people to try to actively track down, and require entire guilds to take down, and everyone who contributes can get a reward (like what GW2 is doing). This would promote a more cohesive community where people are willing to help each other and share rather than keep everything for themselves.
There could even be random dungeons that spawn as people travel across the land, and will only last for a few hours at a time. If a adventuring group comes across it, they can choose to go inside. A single person might want to look for other players to group up and venture inside before the instance disappears.
All these things can easily make the MMO game world feel more alive and would make adventuring interesting, and wouldn't take that much more effort to do.
Yes, that's pretty much what I was trying to get across with my post, but some wires got crossed along that way. Many games already do stuff like this, but it's just not enough. I think more focus of a game needs to surround this type of content. I like the direction that Guild Wars 2 seems to be going. However, the dynamic content in Rift got old pretty quickly, for me. Did anyone else have that issue?
I apologize, but I didn't read a bunch of this thread. I don't like travel times. Maybe the first time around, since I can experience the scenery or oif I'm a crafter and I'm looking for resources. But, I'm pretty busy and if I only have limited time to play, I'd like to play and not sight see.
For example, I've been messing around in ATITD. I actually like that game. Last night I wanted to go trade with someone, but they are a 20 minute run away from my home base. Twenty whole minutes of running. That specific time I had other things to do and luckily those things on either on the way, or not that far from my path. But normally, a 20 minute run would deter me from trading.
ATITD is different from a bunch of other games, so I don't really think I can compare the travel time in that game to the travel time between zones on other MMORPGs. I was just using that as an example. Long story short: If I want to play now, I want to play.
Comments
Now there's a pickup line that's sure to impress.
"So, what do you do for a living?
"My job is not important, gal. All you need to know is the number 'three.' That's right. I'ma three-zoner in Ryzom. Unscathed passage everytime. Soooooo... your place or mine?"
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Again, Skyrim is simply being used as an example of how exploring can be fun. Dynamic content can eaisly be implemented into MMOs. I'm not even talking ahout big tihngs. Something small, like randomly generated teasure chests, mini-bosses, rare metal from meteorites that fall from the sky, resources or anything that gets you out and about. You're right, though, people that are strictly task-oriented won't really be concerned with random crap that happens just off the road; it's a different mentality, a mentality that has taken over the industry and produced countless WoW clones.
Also, part of your argument seems to imply that a system that favors exploration wouldn't be beneficial. Why couldn't it? If your goal is just to wander out and find content, instead it simply being put on your plate, then who says you can't level effeciantly doing so?
I'm a big advocate of diversity in a market. There shouldn't be one type of MMO. I imagne that the people getting annoyed at this system can keep playing WoW, or TOR, or any of the million facsimiles. However, there are limited options for this style of play.
That looks good on paper and sounds great in theory. Your best bet is to actually walk through your idea with the consideration of other people inthe game world. The issues become glaringly evident. With all these cool triggers and events, are they visible to the rest of the playerbase? Accessible by the rest of the playerbase? What happens to the chests and bosses that aren't cleaned up?
You'll quickly find that the solutions are in the form of phasing, instancing and other manners of basically taking the player or small group out of the multiplayer experience and into a single player or small group experience, separate from the persistent multiplayer game world.
It's not that "The Industry" has some collective groupthink that has them stuck on a single path. What you are suggesting - dynamic content can be easily implemented - looks great on paper until you actually walk through it and see how it actually plays out.
It's not that it cannot be implemented but that the best implentations are at the expenseof the multiplayer experience.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
How does something like a randomly spawning treasure chest look good on paper and sound good in theory yet still not transition well to a multiplayer experience? Or even the other suggestion about rare meteorite metal? The issues are not presenting themselves to me in a glaring manner. Those two things that were mentioned aren't exactly events. More like randomly spanwing resource nodes akin to resource nodes as seen in WoW (perhaps they can make the treasure chest spawn in a few discreet, variable locations). Oh, the chests that aren't looted also sit around being discreet untill someone does loot them.
I can't tell if you're being willfully argumentative, or if you're really not grasping the concept. Yes, dynamic content that I'm talking is quite esay to implement. I've seen similar things in several games. Not to mention that Guild Wars 2 is being even more ambitious with its dynamic content. They're making work somehow. Perhaps they employ wizards.
I'm sorry if I'm not buying into the sincerity of your argument, but you seem to be claiming that things that have already been done are impossible. Maybe you could be more specific about why these things won't work. We may have completely different things in mind.
Very interested to see if GW2 can pull it off.
I imagine the "worst case scenario" is so much crowding that you always walk into scenarios mid way through or towards the end and there are so many people it's all just a zerg anyway.
Best case scenario they limit the server populations enough to keep things from going too over board.
No, we just like video games to be difficult and challenging rather than the easy mode crap you see today. You know what I HATE? It's when I hear things like "That game wouldn't sell in the west, because it's too difficult for western gamers." I love video games but I don't really get to play many these days because I am not contant to spend 60 dollars to prance through an 8 hour "adventure".
Long travel time is a great feature. It makes the world feel like a massive place where you might actually have to make preparations to travel in, rather than just clicking "I can go here pleaz". Anyway, I hope all the western gamers that don't like challenge all play SWTOR and WoW so some other developer can make a challenging online game. Asia is probably the only hope now.
Are you a Pavlovian Fish Biscuit Addict? Get Help Now!
I will play no more MMORPGs until somethign good comes out!
long travel times ISNT a feature, its a timesink, liking something doesnt make it a feature, theres no reason for it to be there other than to waste your time, thats it, its not some awesme challenge that makes you super leet if you do it, its holding one button to walk forward, congradulations!
Ive got a game for you, just take whatever game you already like, then make it take 10x as long to do anything, boom, you should love that, nice and "challenging"
Apparently stating the truth in my sig is "trolling"
Sig typo fixed thanks to an observant stragen001.
WOW's nodes are static. He talking about dynamic content generated by player actions. If 40 people come into the zone at once, does everyone get their own chest in different locations or do they all take a number at a node? Is the spawn public or single person. If songle person, then a small group can litter or lockdown an area. If public then there is ninja looting. There's a lot more involved. Keep in mind, you chose only the most innocuous of the list. If you consider it in the light of mini-bosses and metoerites I think it will be easier for you to see the greater issue at hand.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I never said they don't work or can't work. I said "It's not that it cannot be implemented but that the best implentations are at the expense of the multiplayer experience."
That being said, I'd like to apologize for an assumption that I had made, as that assumption led me off on what I now realize is a tangent to the current conversation. Since general dynamic content such as rifts(Rifts), environment growth/decay (AC2/SB), rare spawns(various), elite/champ spawns(UO) and random treasure chests (AC and a dozen others), I made the assumption we were talking about dynamic content tailored to the player or group itself, such as what was present in the early incarnations of UOX. The confusion here is my fault, and I apologize for misunderstanding the context of the discussion.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Hope you realize that almost EVERYTHING can be labelled as "timesink".
Why you need to run instance x 100 times to get enough medallions or whatever to get your armor ? You had beat it once so everything aside of this first time is time sink and made to make you play this instance(s) longer.
Just an example.
There is very few things that can objectively be tagged as "timesink", other than that it is just subjective player opinion.
One person will view travels as interesting part of gameplay and second as timesink, same with running isntances dozens of times, or questing or participating in BG's, etc -
line between "gameplay" and "timesink" is simply diffrently placed for diffrent people.
Warmaster also simply assumes that travel equates to only moving from point A to point B with no impediment or possible other points of interest along the way. Maybe in a very static and linear game this is true. If the game makes the travel interesting it can be enjoyable.
It must be the fact that I grew up with computer games where challenge consisted of needing faster and faster reaction, being able to solve more and more complex puzzles, having to anticipate the next move etc. I never saw long traveltimes as one of the more interesting challenges in a game. Or even a challenge at all, except in terms of not quitting out of sheer boredom.
Dont get me wrong, I love exploring in a gameworld. For example in Vanguard I loved to travel in some random direction, being curious to see what was around the next corner. I did the same in Fallen Earth. What I never liked though, was simple fetch quests that sent me to some remote city and then again back along the same road to where I started and then I had to get back again because I forgot something. I also never saw this as challenging. Staring at a screen while autorun is activated is not particularly challenging imo. It is also definately not a feature in my eyes, At most it became a petpeeve for me in some games.
So while I love exploring, I also love being able to fast travel to parts of the world that I already discovered.
Haha. No need for appologies; I understand where you're coming from now. I can see how using Skyrim as an example can lead to that assumption, but I think it was just being brought up to contrast typical themepark games that don't really have a lot of content outside of quests. I was just taking it a step further in agreeing that more content should just be out and about in the world, ready to be found, instead of just given in a quest hub. Obviously the way Skyrim does those things couldn't be brought over to an MMO (without sacrificing multiplayer experience, that is), but I think that the feeling of satisfying exploration that exists in Skyrim could also be a part of an MMO to enhance the multiplayer experience.
As for the travel thing, I think we may just have to accept the fact that some people like to parade over the hillside, and some don't. Perhaps "long travels" is giving the wrong connotation. I agree that the instant gratification of queueing up and teleporting to a dungeon kills some of the experience, but we have to realize that 10 million people susbscribe to that system. Obviously there are people that like it. Would more players want to manually make the hike if there was more intersting content along the way? Perhaps, but there are still people that wouldn't. That's just a difference of opinion, and I wake up everyday thanking god that there is enough room in this world for both types of game. Amen!
That seems to be a popular view, and it's why devs develop the systems the way they do - the flightpaths or fast travel options only unlock once you've made the trip at least once.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Which can all easily exist without needing to make stupidly long trips.
AS for fenistil, difference between this and dong an instance for items is, you actually get something from teh instance, youll get items, game exp and personal exp, what does making a long run get you? nothing.
Really, how can someone sit here and think that game devolpers put in long travel times for any other reason? it adds nothing to the gameplay, especially when you have a map.
Apparently stating the truth in my sig is "trolling"
Sig typo fixed thanks to an observant stragen001.
That was a big part of the discussions in designing the game world for Lord of the Rings Online, and the reason they went with a more compact world than some players were expecting. They wanted to releasea world where there was always something of interest as the player travelled, so instead of creating a large world with filler content, they opted for a smaller world design so that players wouldn't simply be travelling through emptiness or arbitrary content.
Just as with WOW, Vanguard and other mainstream MMOs, as the playerbase matured , more travel paths were added in order to reduce the amount of time the player is spending going through 'used' content or regions they have already experienced.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I forgot about lotro, No stupidly long travel times yet I could wander around and find cool scenes like bilbos trolls in teh trollshaws.
Apparently stating the truth in my sig is "trolling"
Sig typo fixed thanks to an observant stragen001.
You said "stupidly long travels" in your two last messages. Do you have any respect for people that enjoy something you don't, or you just try to ofend us?
An honest review of SW:TOR 6/10 (Danny Wojcicki)
Dynamic content don't necessarily have to be generated by player actions. The random chest can just spawn randomly, whether or not players have entered. There's no point to camp a chest because the chests can appear anywhere in the world at any time, so instead of camping a location players should just be doing what they were doing, but if they explore they might randomly come across something to reward them.
Special bosses and what also should not be limited to a set location. They should all have wandering paths that go over a large area of land. They should spawn at random intervals that make them impossible to camp. You could have really large special bosses that cause people to try to actively track down, and require entire guilds to take down, and everyone who contributes can get a reward (like what GW2 is doing). This would promote a more cohesive community where people are willing to help each other and share rather than keep everything for themselves.
There could even be random dungeons that spawn as people travel across the land, and will only last for a few hours at a time. If a adventuring group comes across it, they can choose to go inside. A single person might want to look for other players to group up and venture inside before the instance disappears.
All these things can easily make the MMO game world feel more alive and would make adventuring interesting, and wouldn't take that much more effort to do.
I tihnk that part of the problem is that once a path has been troden there is nary a reason to return. That's why in games like WoW having to travel back through the same area is taboo. That stems from graduating from a level zone too quickly. By that, I mean that after two or three levels beyond what a zone is designed for, it's almost compeltely useless. If you were a good little player and even harvested resources as you went through your first visit, then having to go back across it certainly is a waste of time. That's poor design in my opinion.
Just wow, you missed the ENTIRE point of the post and defaulted to long travel equals feature LOLZ and then dove straight into insults. I will not even take the time to explain what you missed just enough time to acknowledge your shallow thought process.
Yes, that's pretty much what I was trying to get across with my post, but some wires got crossed along that way. Many games already do stuff like this, but it's just not enough. I think more focus of a game needs to surround this type of content. I like the direction that Guild Wars 2 seems to be going. However, the dynamic content in Rift got old pretty quickly, for me. Did anyone else have that issue?
I apologize, but I didn't read a bunch of this thread. I don't like travel times. Maybe the first time around, since I can experience the scenery or oif I'm a crafter and I'm looking for resources. But, I'm pretty busy and if I only have limited time to play, I'd like to play and not sight see.
For example, I've been messing around in ATITD. I actually like that game. Last night I wanted to go trade with someone, but they are a 20 minute run away from my home base. Twenty whole minutes of running. That specific time I had other things to do and luckily those things on either on the way, or not that far from my path. But normally, a 20 minute run would deter me from trading.
ATITD is different from a bunch of other games, so I don't really think I can compare the travel time in that game to the travel time between zones on other MMORPGs. I was just using that as an example. Long story short: If I want to play now, I want to play.