Game vs World

najob75 · January 2012

I have been playing MMO-s for a decade now, reading forums, blogs and web sites dedicated to that part of gaming.

I played almost every MMO out there, including bunch of f2p asian grinders.

In that time, I followed many debates about sandbox against themepark, casual against hard core etc..

In last few weeks I tried one new game, very hot at the moment (I wont name it, you know which one) and I come to realization…

Do we actually try to find gaming worlds opposite to games?

Is that sorce of frustration for many of us, than failure to “live” in our games, opposite just to “play” them?

After few hours in that new game, I come to conclusion – it’s a nice game, its not a world.

UtukuMoon · January 2012

Nope the last two mmo releases are not world especially the latest effort.Vanguard and darkfall are worlds and it seems with AA and GW2 we might actually get our worlds back.

Classicstar · January 2012

Originally posted by najob75
I have been playing MMO-s for a decade now, reading forums, blogs and web sites dedicated to that part of gaming.
I played almost every MMO out there, including bunch of f2p asian grinders.
In that time, I followed many debates about sandbox against themepark, casual against hard core etc..In last few weeks I tried one new game, very hot at the moment (I wont name it, you know which one) and I come to realizationDo we actually try to find gaming worlds opposite to games?
Is that sorce of frustration for many of us, than failure to live in our games, opposite just to play them?After few hours in that new game, I come to conclusion its a nice game, its not a world.

I started in AC back in 99 but i would not for million years play a game you dare not mention but most here know witch one you mean.

Ive also try alot of these asian FtwoP MMOs and there almost all crap to me i realy can't believe so many play them also the game you dare not mention is beyond me hehe.

Ive lost hope as ive seen how they also ruined L2 to a dumbed down themepark version so all themeparkers love it now its FtwoP.

Cuathon · January 2012

I think the fact that all themepark mmos are the same is actually part of their value.

With a sandbox or virtual world mmo, what if you don't like the world? There is a lot of variation among sandboxes and that makes an even smaller demographic break down to smaller groups because half of sandboxers don't like space mmos and half of them don't like fantasy mmos. Then a bunch of them like steampunk which isn't really fantasy or space and so on and so on. If you could find a genre of world that the majority of sandboxers could agree on you might get a viable game. If more people had been willing to play EvE we might have gotten companies to attempt another high quality sandbox game.

Purutzil · January 2012

Originally posted by Cuathon
I think the fact that all themepark mmos are the same is actually part of their value.

With a sandbox or virtual world mmo, what if you don't like the world? There is a lot of variation among sandboxes and that makes an even smaller demographic break down to smaller groups because half of sandboxers don't like space mmos and half of them don't like fantasy mmos. Then a bunch of them like steampunk which isn't really fantasy or space and so on and so on. If you could find a genre of world that the majority of sandboxers could agree on you might get a viable game. If more people had been willing to play EvE we might have gotten companies to attempt another high quality sandbox game.

Biggest problem is the sandbox mechanic lets the few become strong and once that happens, they pretty much stay there. Everyone else has very little chance of ever overthrowing a strong power. Having everyone the same would make most sandbox players shy away from the game since they want something to progress and get better with, but at the same time it creates an imbalance that goes beyond what a normal themepark would. Its a whole capitalism deal. A few top players take control of everything while the rest are little peons. The top dine on the finest foods, surf and turf all they like, while the lower end have bread and scraps every night.

Cuathon · January 2012

Originally posted by Purutzil

Originally posted by Cuathon

I think the fact that all themepark mmos are the same is actually part of their value.

With a sandbox or virtual world mmo, what if you don't like the world? There is a lot of variation among sandboxes and that makes an even smaller demographic break down to smaller groups because half of sandboxers don't like space mmos and half of them don't like fantasy mmos. Then a bunch of them like steampunk which isn't really fantasy or space and so on and so on. If you could find a genre of world that the majority of sandboxers could agree on you might get a viable game. If more people had been willing to play EvE we might have gotten companies to attempt another high quality sandbox game.

Biggest problem is the sandbox mechanic lets the few become strong and once that happens, they pretty much stay there. Everyone else has very little chance of ever overthrowing a strong power. Having everyone the same would make most sandbox players shy away from the game since they want something to progress and get better with, but at the same time it creates an imbalance that goes beyond what a normal themepark would. Its a whole capitalism deal. A few top players take control of everything while the rest are little peons. The top dine on the finest foods, surf and turf all they like, while the lower end have bread and scraps every night.

In any competitive system with progression and no cap, real or in game, some persons always take the lead. Why is it a problem in mmorpgs when mmorts games have millions of players who don't seem to give a shit? Some people have giant fleets and space empires and some don't and it takes up to 5 years for the game to end up just the top players. And that is in games where a single player can have unlimited armies, as opposed to rpgs with diminishing returns or something. It shouldn't be that difficult to design a system where in 90% of cases its more beneficial to cooperate than compete at least at micro scales. At macro scales it might be better to set the game to competition, though its not necessary.

Loktofeit · January 2012

Game is one of the components that can exist within a Virtual World. What people who see it as 'game vs world' are looking for is a greater sim component or more meaningful social component. This thread will prove that to be emphatically true.

toddze · January 2012

to me the biggest thing that makes an MMO is a world. without a world you dont have an mmo. A collection of zones is not a world. You can have a thempark or a sandbox in a world. Thats just my opinion, im sure others agree while others dont.

BCuse · January 2012

Originally posted by Purutzil

Originally posted by Cuathon

I think the fact that all themepark mmos are the same is actually part of their value.

With a sandbox or virtual world mmo, what if you don't like the world? There is a lot of variation among sandboxes and that makes an even smaller demographic break down to smaller groups because half of sandboxers don't like space mmos and half of them don't like fantasy mmos. Then a bunch of them like steampunk which isn't really fantasy or space and so on and so on. If you could find a genre of world that the majority of sandboxers could agree on you might get a viable game. If more people had been willing to play EvE we might have gotten companies to attempt another high quality sandbox game.

Biggest problem is the sandbox mechanic lets the few become strong and once that happens, they pretty much stay there. Everyone else has very little chance of ever overthrowing a strong power. Having everyone the same would make most sandbox players shy away from the game since they want something to progress and get better with, but at the same time it creates an imbalance that goes beyond what a normal themepark would. Its a whole capitalism deal. A few top players take control of everything while the rest are little peons. The top dine on the finest foods, surf and turf all they like, while the lower end have bread and scraps every night.

if someone puts in more hours works hard they should be able to have more than the guy who plays much less. i dont care if the person who plays a ton has more than me. in my opinion the idea that everyone has to be balanced or have the same as everyone else is the problem in mmorpgs today. for me i want my mmorpg to be virtual worlds, if i want to play thempark type games i play my console.

toddze · January 2012

Originally posted by BCuse

if someone puts in more hours works hard they should be able to have more than the guy who plays much less. i dont care if the person who plays a ton has more than me. in my opinion the idea that everyone has to be balanced or have the same as everyone else is the problem in mmorpgs today. for me i want my mmorpg to be virtual worlds, if i want to play thempark type games i play my console.

yes your right it should be that way, and your also right its not like that. That one of the top 5 issues with MMORPG's.

If something is easy to get....its not worth getting.

Amaranthar · January 2012

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by Purutzil

Originally posted by Cuathon

I think the fact that all themepark mmos are the same is actually part of their value.

With a sandbox or virtual world mmo, what if you don't like the world? There is a lot of variation among sandboxes and that makes an even smaller demographic break down to smaller groups because half of sandboxers don't like space mmos and half of them don't like fantasy mmos. Then a bunch of them like steampunk which isn't really fantasy or space and so on and so on. If you could find a genre of world that the majority of sandboxers could agree on you might get a viable game. If more people had been willing to play EvE we might have gotten companies to attempt another high quality sandbox game.

Biggest problem is the sandbox mechanic lets the few become strong and once that happens, they pretty much stay there. Everyone else has very little chance of ever overthrowing a strong power. Having everyone the same would make most sandbox players shy away from the game since they want something to progress and get better with, but at the same time it creates an imbalance that goes beyond what a normal themepark would. Its a whole capitalism deal. A few top players take control of everything while the rest are little peons. The top dine on the finest foods, surf and turf all they like, while the lower end have bread and scraps every night.

In any competitive system with progression and no cap, real or in game, some persons always take the lead. Why is it a problem in mmorpgs when mmorts games have millions of players who don't seem to give a shit? Some people have giant fleets and space empires and some don't and it takes up to 5 years for the game to end up just the top players. And that is in games where a single player can have unlimited armies, as opposed to rpgs with diminishing returns or something. It shouldn't be that difficult to design a system where in 90% of cases its more beneficial to cooperate than compete at least at micro scales. At macro scales it might be better to set the game to competition, though its not necessary.

Man, I can go on and on just on these comments. But I have to limit myself to something readable.

Cuathon, on your first comment. Be carefull how you read things. Most gamers post things without any real, in depth study of the subject, much less their own real feelings and reactions to what they experience. As an example, players are tired of Themeparks, and they post that they want "something different", and then someone thinks that maybe a Sci-Fi game would be "different", and then some more posters just like them chime in with the same thing for months, and it grows like a festering wound. So they get all excited about SWTOR, and then find out that the game play is the same thing and start talking about how GW2 will be different. In the end, I think it's far more important to consider the game play experience that players want than any one or few of these overall sorts of details. But I also believe that fantasy is the king, followed somewhat closely by Sci-Fi, and all the others (Zombies, mafia, modern day, furries, etc.) are way behind in what gamers want for their setting. One of the big basics that Eve misses on is actually having a humanoid avatar, and their complete mishandling of that is telling. They make up for that with what they do offer in an industry completely lacking of any quality compitition.

Purutzil, you have a point but that's only because the game (whichever one) is designed that way. Cuathon has a good point as a reply. "Diminishing returns" and a cooperative structure with social ties are huge here. Games can be built so that there's an increasingly difficult tree to that ladder of success, and leave it to players to decide individually where they want to stop along that tree and play the rest of the game. Sort of like in RL, if you want to be the head of a corporation, you need to do all the things required to get there and to run said corporation. Most people simply don't want to do that much, and would rather live their lives doing the things they want to do. I think big "success" (financially) in MMOs should also bring big organizational skills and constant attention to maintaining the "well oiled machine". I'm not sure, but I think Eve has a lot more right here than not.

AdamTM · January 2012

Originally posted by BCuse

Originally posted by Purutzil

Originally posted by Cuathon

I think the fact that all themepark mmos are the same is actually part of their value.

With a sandbox or virtual world mmo, what if you don't like the world? There is a lot of variation among sandboxes and that makes an even smaller demographic break down to smaller groups because half of sandboxers don't like space mmos and half of them don't like fantasy mmos. Then a bunch of them like steampunk which isn't really fantasy or space and so on and so on. If you could find a genre of world that the majority of sandboxers could agree on you might get a viable game. If more people had been willing to play EvE we might have gotten companies to attempt another high quality sandbox game.

Biggest problem is the sandbox mechanic lets the few become strong and once that happens, they pretty much stay there. Everyone else has very little chance of ever overthrowing a strong power. Having everyone the same would make most sandbox players shy away from the game since they want something to progress and get better with, but at the same time it creates an imbalance that goes beyond what a normal themepark would. Its a whole capitalism deal. A few top players take control of everything while the rest are little peons. The top dine on the finest foods, surf and turf all they like, while the lower end have bread and scraps every night.

if someone puts in more hours works hard they should be able to have more than the guy who plays much less. i dont care if the person who plays a ton has more than me. in my opinion the idea that everyone has to be balanced or have the same as everyone else is the problem in mmorpgs today. for me i want my mmorpg to be virtual worlds, if i want to play thempark type games i play my console.

At the same time, there needs to be at least the chance that you can get as good as people who play more and are more powerful.

Most sandboxes make this virtually impossible, making the game only for the top 10% of its established user-base.

Whats the point in playing a game in which, like in the real world, you will never be able to succeed at anything because someone else that was there before you will just roflstomp you.

Whats the motivation to play a game that is basically an excercise in futility. Working for something is fine, working towards something unobtainable is not.

Cuathon · January 2012

Originally posted by Amaranthar

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by Purutzil

Originally posted by Cuathon

I think the fact that all themepark mmos are the same is actually part of their value.

With a sandbox or virtual world mmo, what if you don't like the world? There is a lot of variation among sandboxes and that makes an even smaller demographic break down to smaller groups because half of sandboxers don't like space mmos and half of them don't like fantasy mmos. Then a bunch of them like steampunk which isn't really fantasy or space and so on and so on. If you could find a genre of world that the majority of sandboxers could agree on you might get a viable game. If more people had been willing to play EvE we might have gotten companies to attempt another high quality sandbox game.

Biggest problem is the sandbox mechanic lets the few become strong and once that happens, they pretty much stay there. Everyone else has very little chance of ever overthrowing a strong power. Having everyone the same would make most sandbox players shy away from the game since they want something to progress and get better with, but at the same time it creates an imbalance that goes beyond what a normal themepark would. Its a whole capitalism deal. A few top players take control of everything while the rest are little peons. The top dine on the finest foods, surf and turf all they like, while the lower end have bread and scraps every night.

In any competitive system with progression and no cap, real or in game, some persons always take the lead. Why is it a problem in mmorpgs when mmorts games have millions of players who don't seem to give a shit? Some people have giant fleets and space empires and some don't and it takes up to 5 years for the game to end up just the top players. And that is in games where a single player can have unlimited armies, as opposed to rpgs with diminishing returns or something. It shouldn't be that difficult to design a system where in 90% of cases its more beneficial to cooperate than compete at least at micro scales. At macro scales it might be better to set the game to competition, though its not necessary.

Man, I can go on and on just on these comments. But I have to limit myself to something readable.

Cuathon, on your first comment. Be carefull how you read things. Most gamers post things without any real, in depth study of the subject, much less their own real feelings and reactions to what they experience. As an example, players are tired of Themeparks, and they post that they want "something different", and then someone thinks that maybe a Sci-Fi game would be "different", and then some more posters just like them chime in with the same thing for months, and it grows like a festering wound. So they get all excited about SWTOR, and then find out that the game play is the same thing and start talking about how GW2 will be different. In the end, I think it's far more important to consider the game play experience that players want than any one or few of these overall sorts of details. But I also believe that fantasy is the king, followed somewhat closely by Sci-Fi, and all the others (Zombies, mafia, modern day, furries, etc.) are way behind in what gamers want for their setting. One of the big basics that Eve misses on is actually having a humanoid avatar, and their complete mishandling of that is telling. They make up for that with what they do offer in an industry completely lacking of any quality compitition.

Purutzil, you have a point but that's only because the game (whichever one) is designed that way. Cuathon has a good point as a reply. "Diminishing returns" and a cooperative structure with social ties are huge here. Games can be built so that there's an increasingly difficult tree to that ladder of success, and leave it to players to decide individually where they want to stop along that tree and play the rest of the game. Sort of like in RL, if you want to be the head of a corporation, you need to do all the things required to get there and to run said corporation. Most people simply don't want to do that much, and would rather live their lives doing the things they want to do. I think big "success" (financially) in MMOs should also bring big organizational skills and constant attention to maintaining the "well oiled machine". I'm not sure, but I think Eve has a lot more right here than not.

SWTOR isn't really a sci fi game in the same sense as EvE though. SWTOR is just a fantasy game reskinned. You have to actually change the mechanics to get a different game. For instance the idea that magic is something all players should be able to access. If magic is a scarce resource compared to bows or melee weapons you get an entirely new combat paradigm. If you ever read a book like we nerds of old have done, as opposed to someone too cool to like reading, which includes 90% of the population, even academically involved kids don't read for fun, you will see that magic was something special. Not every Tom, Dick, and Harry had it. Magical powers made a difference in a fight, as opposed to GW and WoW where they were not incredibly more useful than anyone else. Now that type of gameplay is fine, I love GW, but as long as you leave it that way you are not going to change anything fundamentally.

I've been working a long time on a way to recover magic as something special, but even so if players all want to be wizards we could have a problem. In any case we will see how players respond to it. There is a pretty serious separation between mages, crafters, explorers and so forth.

Cuathon · January 2012

Originally posted by AdamTM

Originally posted by BCuse

Originally posted by Purutzil

Originally posted by Cuathon

I think the fact that all themepark mmos are the same is actually part of their value.

With a sandbox or virtual world mmo, what if you don't like the world? There is a lot of variation among sandboxes and that makes an even smaller demographic break down to smaller groups because half of sandboxers don't like space mmos and half of them don't like fantasy mmos. Then a bunch of them like steampunk which isn't really fantasy or space and so on and so on. If you could find a genre of world that the majority of sandboxers could agree on you might get a viable game. If more people had been willing to play EvE we might have gotten companies to attempt another high quality sandbox game.

Biggest problem is the sandbox mechanic lets the few become strong and once that happens, they pretty much stay there. Everyone else has very little chance of ever overthrowing a strong power. Having everyone the same would make most sandbox players shy away from the game since they want something to progress and get better with, but at the same time it creates an imbalance that goes beyond what a normal themepark would. Its a whole capitalism deal. A few top players take control of everything while the rest are little peons. The top dine on the finest foods, surf and turf all they like, while the lower end have bread and scraps every night.

if someone puts in more hours works hard they should be able to have more than the guy who plays much less. i dont care if the person who plays a ton has more than me. in my opinion the idea that everyone has to be balanced or have the same as everyone else is the problem in mmorpgs today. for me i want my mmorpg to be virtual worlds, if i want to play thempark type games i play my console.

At the same time, there needs to be at least the chance that you can get as good as people who play more and are more powerful.

Most sandboxes make this virtually impossible, making the game only for the top 10% of its established user-base.

Whats the point in playing a game in which, like in the real world, you will never be able to succeed at anything because someone else that was there before you will just roflstomp you.

Whats the motivation to play a game that is basically an excercise in futility. Working for something is fine, working towards something unobtainable is not.

You can still achieve something in the game even if you cannot compete 1v1 with top players. What is my motivation to play more if someone who plays less can easily compete?

Your statement is utterly contradictory, you cannot have both of these at the same time:

"if someone puts in more hours works hard they should be able to have more than the guy who plays much less."

"At the same time, there needs to be at least the chance that you can get as good as people who play more and are more powerful."

These opinions are mutually exclusive.

If I play 10x more than you, why should you get to achieve as much as me? Whats my motivation to play a lot if it doesn't mean anything in terms of in game success. If you choose to focus on a social community or hobby that isn't that game that is your personal choice. Just as it is my personal choice to spend most of my time with online friends or irl friends who play a game instead of getting plastered or playing basketball. I don't get to automatically be as good at those things that you choose to do, so why should you automatically be just as good as me at what I chose to do? This argument works for playing other mmorpgs or literally any other hobby or activity that the more casual player of a specific game engages in. If I choose to play EvE and you choose to play Lineage we both don't get to be just as good at either game as each other.

Further, if you can't play a game without being in the top tier than maybe that game isn't for you. If I play a game where I am not a top tier crafter that doesn't mean that the time I spend crafting items for people who need them is useless. Which is what you seem to be insinuating. Sure if the game is 1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1... it would be a problem, but if you are so insistent on soloing all the time and never being involved in the community why are you playing an mmorpg instead of an srpg?

If my guild has 1 tier 1 crafter, 2 tier 2 crafters, 3 tier 3 crafters and 4 tier 4 crafters and the tier 1 and 2 crafters can't produce all the necessary gear for the guild than those lower tier crafters are vital to our success in getting gear. It would not be better to only have the 1 and 2 tier crafters.

Similarly for our mages, our explorers, and our melee fighters. The best mage isn't the only one that counts.

Amaranthar · January 2012

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by Amaranthar

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by Purutzil

Originally posted by Cuathon

I think the fact that all themepark mmos are the same is actually part of their value.

With a sandbox or virtual world mmo, what if you don't like the world? There is a lot of variation among sandboxes and that makes an even smaller demographic break down to smaller groups because half of sandboxers don't like space mmos and half of them don't like fantasy mmos. Then a bunch of them like steampunk which isn't really fantasy or space and so on and so on. If you could find a genre of world that the majority of sandboxers could agree on you might get a viable game. If more people had been willing to play EvE we might have gotten companies to attempt another high quality sandbox game.

Biggest problem is the sandbox mechanic lets the few become strong and once that happens, they pretty much stay there. Everyone else has very little chance of ever overthrowing a strong power. Having everyone the same would make most sandbox players shy away from the game since they want something to progress and get better with, but at the same time it creates an imbalance that goes beyond what a normal themepark would. Its a whole capitalism deal. A few top players take control of everything while the rest are little peons. The top dine on the finest foods, surf and turf all they like, while the lower end have bread and scraps every night.

In any competitive system with progression and no cap, real or in game, some persons always take the lead. Why is it a problem in mmorpgs when mmorts games have millions of players who don't seem to give a shit? Some people have giant fleets and space empires and some don't and it takes up to 5 years for the game to end up just the top players. And that is in games where a single player can have unlimited armies, as opposed to rpgs with diminishing returns or something. It shouldn't be that difficult to design a system where in 90% of cases its more beneficial to cooperate than compete at least at micro scales. At macro scales it might be better to set the game to competition, though its not necessary.

Man, I can go on and on just on these comments. But I have to limit myself to something readable.

Cuathon, on your first comment. Be carefull how you read things. Most gamers post things without any real, in depth study of the subject, much less their own real feelings and reactions to what they experience. As an example, players are tired of Themeparks, and they post that they want "something different", and then someone thinks that maybe a Sci-Fi game would be "different", and then some more posters just like them chime in with the same thing for months, and it grows like a festering wound. So they get all excited about SWTOR, and then find out that the game play is the same thing and start talking about how GW2 will be different. In the end, I think it's far more important to consider the game play experience that players want than any one or few of these overall sorts of details. But I also believe that fantasy is the king, followed somewhat closely by Sci-Fi, and all the others (Zombies, mafia, modern day, furries, etc.) are way behind in what gamers want for their setting. One of the big basics that Eve misses on is actually having a humanoid avatar, and their complete mishandling of that is telling. They make up for that with what they do offer in an industry completely lacking of any quality compitition.

Purutzil, you have a point but that's only because the game (whichever one) is designed that way. Cuathon has a good point as a reply. "Diminishing returns" and a cooperative structure with social ties are huge here. Games can be built so that there's an increasingly difficult tree to that ladder of success, and leave it to players to decide individually where they want to stop along that tree and play the rest of the game. Sort of like in RL, if you want to be the head of a corporation, you need to do all the things required to get there and to run said corporation. Most people simply don't want to do that much, and would rather live their lives doing the things they want to do. I think big "success" (financially) in MMOs should also bring big organizational skills and constant attention to maintaining the "well oiled machine". I'm not sure, but I think Eve has a lot more right here than not.

SWTOR isn't really a sci fi game in the same sense as EvE though. SWTOR is just a fantasy game reskinned. You have to actually change the mechanics to get a different game. For instance the idea that magic is something all players should be able to access. If magic is a scarce resource compared to bows or melee weapons you get an entirely new combat paradigm. If you ever read a book like we nerds of old have done, as opposed to someone too cool to like reading, which includes 90% of the population, even academically involved kids don't read for fun, you will see that magic was something special. Not every Tom, Dick, and Harry had it. Magical powers made a difference in a fight, as opposed to GW and WoW where they were not incredibly more useful than anyone else. Now that type of gameplay is fine, I love GW, but as long as you leave it that way you are not going to change anything fundamentally.

I've been working a long time on a way to recover magic as something special, but even so if players all want to be wizards we could have a problem. In any case we will see how players respond to it. There is a pretty serious separation between mages, crafters, explorers and so forth.

I'm 58 years old, and had an extensive reading background in this stuff. So, yeah, I agree.

And this is a very good point and an exciting one. I've already started reading your posts with more seriousness lately, this is welcome to hear. (I don't know if you have any financial means at all, and so I still have trouble getting into it, to be honest.)

Can I suggest that something along the lines of "deminishing returns", social interactions, and "maintenance" might be what you need? But then, lots of gamers just want to be a mage without difficulty and blast fireballs throughout the game, and there would be a lot of recoil to the mere suggestion.

Cuathon · January 2012

Originally posted by Amaranthar

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by Amaranthar

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by Purutzil

Originally posted by Cuathon

I think the fact that all themepark mmos are the same is actually part of their value.

With a sandbox or virtual world mmo, what if you don't like the world? There is a lot of variation among sandboxes and that makes an even smaller demographic break down to smaller groups because half of sandboxers don't like space mmos and half of them don't like fantasy mmos. Then a bunch of them like steampunk which isn't really fantasy or space and so on and so on. If you could find a genre of world that the majority of sandboxers could agree on you might get a viable game. If more people had been willing to play EvE we might have gotten companies to attempt another high quality sandbox game.

Biggest problem is the sandbox mechanic lets the few become strong and once that happens, they pretty much stay there. Everyone else has very little chance of ever overthrowing a strong power. Having everyone the same would make most sandbox players shy away from the game since they want something to progress and get better with, but at the same time it creates an imbalance that goes beyond what a normal themepark would. Its a whole capitalism deal. A few top players take control of everything while the rest are little peons. The top dine on the finest foods, surf and turf all they like, while the lower end have bread and scraps every night.

In any competitive system with progression and no cap, real or in game, some persons always take the lead. Why is it a problem in mmorpgs when mmorts games have millions of players who don't seem to give a shit? Some people have giant fleets and space empires and some don't and it takes up to 5 years for the game to end up just the top players. And that is in games where a single player can have unlimited armies, as opposed to rpgs with diminishing returns or something. It shouldn't be that difficult to design a system where in 90% of cases its more beneficial to cooperate than compete at least at micro scales. At macro scales it might be better to set the game to competition, though its not necessary.

Man, I can go on and on just on these comments. But I have to limit myself to something readable.

Cuathon, on your first comment. Be carefull how you read things. Most gamers post things without any real, in depth study of the subject, much less their own real feelings and reactions to what they experience. As an example, players are tired of Themeparks, and they post that they want "something different", and then someone thinks that maybe a Sci-Fi game would be "different", and then some more posters just like them chime in with the same thing for months, and it grows like a festering wound. So they get all excited about SWTOR, and then find out that the game play is the same thing and start talking about how GW2 will be different. In the end, I think it's far more important to consider the game play experience that players want than any one or few of these overall sorts of details. But I also believe that fantasy is the king, followed somewhat closely by Sci-Fi, and all the others (Zombies, mafia, modern day, furries, etc.) are way behind in what gamers want for their setting. One of the big basics that Eve misses on is actually having a humanoid avatar, and their complete mishandling of that is telling. They make up for that with what they do offer in an industry completely lacking of any quality compitition.

Purutzil, you have a point but that's only because the game (whichever one) is designed that way. Cuathon has a good point as a reply. "Diminishing returns" and a cooperative structure with social ties are huge here. Games can be built so that there's an increasingly difficult tree to that ladder of success, and leave it to players to decide individually where they want to stop along that tree and play the rest of the game. Sort of like in RL, if you want to be the head of a corporation, you need to do all the things required to get there and to run said corporation. Most people simply don't want to do that much, and would rather live their lives doing the things they want to do. I think big "success" (financially) in MMOs should also bring big organizational skills and constant attention to maintaining the "well oiled machine". I'm not sure, but I think Eve has a lot more right here than not.

SWTOR isn't really a sci fi game in the same sense as EvE though. SWTOR is just a fantasy game reskinned. You have to actually change the mechanics to get a different game. For instance the idea that magic is something all players should be able to access. If magic is a scarce resource compared to bows or melee weapons you get an entirely new combat paradigm. If you ever read a book like we nerds of old have done, as opposed to someone too cool to like reading, which includes 90% of the population, even academically involved kids don't read for fun, you will see that magic was something special. Not every Tom, Dick, and Harry had it. Magical powers made a difference in a fight, as opposed to GW and WoW where they were not incredibly more useful than anyone else. Now that type of gameplay is fine, I love GW, but as long as you leave it that way you are not going to change anything fundamentally.

I've been working a long time on a way to recover magic as something special, but even so if players all want to be wizards we could have a problem. In any case we will see how players respond to it. There is a pretty serious separation between mages, crafters, explorers and so forth.

I'm 58 years old, and had an extensive reading background in this stuff. So, yeah, I agree.

And this is a very good point and an exciting one. I've already started reading your posts with more seriousness lately, this is welcome to hear. (I don't know if you have any financial means at all, and so I still have trouble getting into it, to be honest.)

Can I suggest that something along the lines of "deminishing returns", social interactions, and "maintenance" might be what you need? But then, lots of gamers just want to be a mage without difficulty and blast fireballs throughout the game, and there would be a lot of recoil to the mere suggestion.

Well my financial means are quite limited, but my time and intellectual means(designing and coding) are quite high. I think that I could probably finish designing and then code the game and test the purely mechanical things one by one, such as does the spawn system work properly and does the crafting produce the expected results and does the world generator produce good distributions of resources magic and what not, but the question is could I get it hosted so that it is playable. I would say that what I am doing is more like a thought exercise, something full of interesting ideas to discuss and challenges in coding to figure out, rather than a realistic goal of getting the hardware that can run the software in its entirety.

AdamTM · January 2012

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by AdamTM

Originally posted by BCuse

Originally posted by Purutzil

Originally posted by Cuathon

I think the fact that all themepark mmos are the same is actually part of their value.

With a sandbox or virtual world mmo, what if you don't like the world? There is a lot of variation among sandboxes and that makes an even smaller demographic break down to smaller groups because half of sandboxers don't like space mmos and half of them don't like fantasy mmos. Then a bunch of them like steampunk which isn't really fantasy or space and so on and so on. If you could find a genre of world that the majority of sandboxers could agree on you might get a viable game. If more people had been willing to play EvE we might have gotten companies to attempt another high quality sandbox game.

Biggest problem is the sandbox mechanic lets the few become strong and once that happens, they pretty much stay there. Everyone else has very little chance of ever overthrowing a strong power. Having everyone the same would make most sandbox players shy away from the game since they want something to progress and get better with, but at the same time it creates an imbalance that goes beyond what a normal themepark would. Its a whole capitalism deal. A few top players take control of everything while the rest are little peons. The top dine on the finest foods, surf and turf all they like, while the lower end have bread and scraps every night.

if someone puts in more hours works hard they should be able to have more than the guy who plays much less. i dont care if the person who plays a ton has more than me. in my opinion the idea that everyone has to be balanced or have the same as everyone else is the problem in mmorpgs today. for me i want my mmorpg to be virtual worlds, if i want to play thempark type games i play my console.

At the same time, there needs to be at least the chance that you can get as good as people who play more and are more powerful.

Most sandboxes make this virtually impossible, making the game only for the top 10% of its established user-base.

Whats the point in playing a game in which, like in the real world, you will never be able to succeed at anything because someone else that was there before you will just roflstomp you.

Whats the motivation to play a game that is basically an excercise in futility. Working for something is fine, working towards something unobtainable is not.

You can still achieve something in the game even if you cannot compete 1v1 with top players. What is my motivation to play more if someone who plays less can easily compete?

Nobody said anything about "easily"

Your statement is utterly contradictory, you cannot have both of these at the same time:

"if someone puts in more hours works hard they should be able to have more than the guy who plays much less."

"At the same time, there needs to be at least the chance that you can get as good as people who play more and are more powerful."

These opinions are mutually exclusive.

Absolutely not. They are only mutually exclusive in a system where player-skill takes no part in the competition.

Lets take combat for example, there is no way that a player in a Velator can take on a Megathron in EVE, furthermore, there is not even a way of 10 (or maybe even 100) players in Velators taking on a Megathron in EvE. The stat-differences make it impossible, and there is nothing the player controls in combat.

A hybrid system is where it's at.

In games like LoL my lvl 30 summoners glyphs/talents, will give me a considerable edge vs. lvl1 players, however I'm not invincible, in fact, i can be taken down despite those bonuses if i meet a higher skilled player or a smurf.

This can be expanded to all activities in a sandbox environment. If solving a puzzle only requires you to have a certain skill on a certain level, the competition always ends in the powerful becoming more powerful.

EVEs only saving grace is that it has an extremely powerful metagame, where the competition comes from coordination outside the game, the game-design itself is built around an exploitative play-to-win system (pay to play, play to que more skills that are trained on a linear time-based scale).

If I play 10x more than you, why should you get to achieve as much as me? Whats my motivation to play a lot if it doesn't mean anything in terms of in game success.

Nobody said "anything", its not black-and-white.

Furthermore, there is a difference between playing a game and getting better at -the game- (bettering yourself) not just sinking more money and time into it then other players, because the latter borders on "pay to win".

If you choose to focus on a social community or hobby that isn't that game that is your personal choice. Just as it is my personal choice to spend most of my time with online friends or irl friends who play a game instead of getting plastered or playing basketball. I don't get to automatically be as good at those things that you choose to do, so why should you automatically be just as good as me at what I chose to do?

Hybrid system include your personal achievement in time-investment AND personal player skill, so its fair for -EVERYONE-

This argument works for playing other mmorpgs or literally any other hobby or activity that the more casual player of a specific game engages in. If I choose to play EvE and you choose to play Lineage we both don't get to be just as good at either game as each other.

Yes, if you interpret minmaxing your characters gear and grinding for money as "being better at the game", which i don't.

Further, if you can't play a game without being in the top tier than maybe that game isn't for you. If I play a game where I am not a top tier crafter that doesn't mean that the time I spend crafting items for people who need them is useless. Which is what you seem to be insinuating. Sure if the game is 1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1... it would be a problem, but if you are so insistent on soloing all the time and never being involved in the community why are you playing an mmorpg instead of an srpg?

Absolutely not. What I am advocating is equal -chance- for everyone, not equalizing everyone to the same level.

Simply put I do not see any motivation to play a game that is not giving me equal chances, i.e. a game that is rigged against me from the start. There can be no competition in such a game, except for the already established players.

If my guild has 1 tier 1 crafter, 2 tier 2 crafters, 3 tier 3 crafters and 4 tier 4 crafters and the tier 1 and 2 crafters can't produce all the necessary gear for the guild than those lower tier crafters are vital to our success in getting gear. It would not be better to only have the 1 and 2 tier crafters.

Similarly for our mages, our explorers, and our melee fighters. The best mage isn't the only one that counts.

I didn't mention usefulness at any point. Usefullness has nothing to do with fairness or competition.

Cuathon · January 2012

Originally posted by AdamTM

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by AdamTM

Originally posted by BCuse

Originally posted by Purutzil

Originally posted by Cuathon

I think the fact that all themepark mmos are the same is actually part of their value.

With a sandbox or virtual world mmo, what if you don't like the world? There is a lot of variation among sandboxes and that makes an even smaller demographic break down to smaller groups because half of sandboxers don't like space mmos and half of them don't like fantasy mmos. Then a bunch of them like steampunk which isn't really fantasy or space and so on and so on. If you could find a genre of world that the majority of sandboxers could agree on you might get a viable game. If more people had been willing to play EvE we might have gotten companies to attempt another high quality sandbox game.

Biggest problem is the sandbox mechanic lets the few become strong and once that happens, they pretty much stay there. Everyone else has very little chance of ever overthrowing a strong power. Having everyone the same would make most sandbox players shy away from the game since they want something to progress and get better with, but at the same time it creates an imbalance that goes beyond what a normal themepark would. Its a whole capitalism deal. A few top players take control of everything while the rest are little peons. The top dine on the finest foods, surf and turf all they like, while the lower end have bread and scraps every night.

if someone puts in more hours works hard they should be able to have more than the guy who plays much less. i dont care if the person who plays a ton has more than me. in my opinion the idea that everyone has to be balanced or have the same as everyone else is the problem in mmorpgs today. for me i want my mmorpg to be virtual worlds, if i want to play thempark type games i play my console.

At the same time, there needs to be at least the chance that you can get as good as people who play more and are more powerful.

Most sandboxes make this virtually impossible, making the game only for the top 10% of its established user-base.

Whats the point in playing a game in which, like in the real world, you will never be able to succeed at anything because someone else that was there before you will just roflstomp you.

Whats the motivation to play a game that is basically an excercise in futility. Working for something is fine, working towards something unobtainable is not.

You can still achieve something in the game even if you cannot compete 1v1 with top players. What is my motivation to play more if someone who plays less can easily compete?

Nobody said anything about "easily"

Your statement is utterly contradictory, you cannot have both of these at the same time:

"if someone puts in more hours works hard they should be able to have more than the guy who plays much less."

"At the same time, there needs to be at least the chance that you can get as good as people who play more and are more powerful."

These opinions are mutually exclusive.

Absolutely not. They are only mutually exclusive in a system where player-skill takes no part in the competition.

RPGs are supposed to be about a specific set of skills. Why do people insist of shoving twitch into non twitch games. Go play LoL if you like LoL, stop trying to make every game like LoL. I have played something like 6000 games in LoL. I love LoL, but LoL is not a sandbox, or even a themepark its a battle arena.

Lets take combat for example, there is no way that a player in a Velator can take on a Megathron in EVE, furthermore, there is not even a way of 10 (or maybe even 100) players in Velators taking on a Megathron in EvE. The stat-differences make it impossible, and there is nothing the player controls in combat.

A hybrid system is where it's at.

In games like LoL my lvl 30 summoners glyphs/talents, will give me a considerable edge vs. lvl1 players, however I'm not invincible, in fact, i can be taken down despite those bonuses if i meet a higher skilled player or a smurf.

LoL has an incredibly small progression cap both outside and inside the game. That is not sandbox. Sandboxes do not have progression caps.

This can be expanded to all activities in a sandbox environment. If solving a puzzle only requires you to have a certain skill on a certain level, the competition always ends in the powerful becoming more powerful.

EVEs only saving grace is that it has an extremely powerful metagame, where the competition comes from coordination outside the game, the game-design itself is built around an exploitative play-to-win system (pay to play, play to que more skills that are trained on a linear time-based scale).

If I play 10x more than you, why should you get to achieve as much as me? Whats my motivation to play a lot if it doesn't mean anything in terms of in game success.

Nobody said "anything", its not black-and-white.

Furthermore, there is a difference between playing a game and getting better at -the game- (bettering yourself) not just sinking more money and time into it then other players, because the latter borders on "pay to win".

In original RPGs it was mostly dice rolls. The way to become more powerful is to put in time. That's what RPGs are for. You are supposed to invest yourself in the game world and thereby get more powerful.

If you choose to focus on a social community or hobby that isn't that game that is your personal choice. Just as it is my personal choice to spend most of my time with online friends or irl friends who play a game instead of getting plastered or playing basketball. I don't get to automatically be as good at those things that you choose to do, so why should you automatically be just as good as me at what I chose to do?

Hybrid system include your personal achievement in time-investment AND personal player skill, so its fair for -EVERYONE-

And who decides just how much twitch counts? Twitch is a biological function. Not everyone can get the same twitch. Everyone can make the choice to play a game. Thats why its based on time, because some people choose to play it. If you choose to go and get drunk or play football 10 hours a week, you lose out to players who decided to invest in the game world.

This argument works for playing other mmorpgs or literally any other hobby or activity that the more casual player of a specific game engages in. If I choose to play EvE and you choose to play Lineage we both don't get to be just as good at either game as each other.

Yes, if you interpret minmaxing your characters gear and grinding for money as "being better at the game", which i don't.

I make a distinction between being better at the game, and being more powerful in the game. RPGs are not supposed to be about twitch. The learning curve is both in game knowledge and lore and time invested, RPGs are games where you pretend its real. Thats what role playing is. An rpg is supposed to be an "alternate world."

Further, if you can't play a game without being in the top tier than maybe that game isn't for you. If I play a game where I am not a top tier crafter that doesn't mean that the time I spend crafting items for people who need them is useless. Which is what you seem to be insinuating. Sure if the game is 1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1... it would be a problem, but if you are so insistent on soloing all the time and never being involved in the community why are you playing an mmorpg instead of an srpg?

Absolutely not. What I am advocating is equal -chance- for everyone, not equalizing everyone to the same level.

That is not what you are advocating. I am willing to concede that you believe you are advocating that, but that is not reality. Not everyone can be equally good at twitch.

Simply put I do not see any motivation to play a game that is not giving me equal chances, i.e. a game that is rigged against me from the start. There can be no competition in such a game, except for the already established players.

Because its not a fucking esport, its a virtual world. If you want an esport play a god damn esport. Stop trying to make all mmorpgs esports or facebook casual games.

If my guild has 1 tier 1 crafter, 2 tier 2 crafters, 3 tier 3 crafters and 4 tier 4 crafters and the tier 1 and 2 crafters can't produce all the necessary gear for the guild than those lower tier crafters are vital to our success in getting gear. It would not be better to only have the 1 and 2 tier crafters.

Similarly for our mages, our explorers, and our melee fighters. The best mage isn't the only one that counts.

I didn't mention usefulness at any point. Usefullness has nothing to do with fairness or competition.

You mean balance and competition. Balance and fairness arent the same in technical design terms. The whole point of a sandbox is that its not balanced. Thats was a sandbox is. Play a MOBA or a Themepark if you don't like sandboxes. Or, if you r eally insist, make your own "balanced" sandbox. See how many people wan't t o play that. Sandboxes are not supposed to be balanced the same way as a MOBA or other esport game, thats why they are separate genres.

AdamTM · January 2012

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by AdamTM

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by AdamTM

Originally posted by BCuse

Originally posted by Purutzil

Originally posted by Cuathon

I think the fact that all themepark mmos are the same is actually part of their value.

With a sandbox or virtual world mmo, what if you don't like the world? There is a lot of variation among sandboxes and that makes an even smaller demographic break down to smaller groups because half of sandboxers don't like space mmos and half of them don't like fantasy mmos. Then a bunch of them like steampunk which isn't really fantasy or space and so on and so on. If you could find a genre of world that the majority of sandboxers could agree on you might get a viable game. If more people had been willing to play EvE we might have gotten companies to attempt another high quality sandbox game.

Biggest problem is the sandbox mechanic lets the few become strong and once that happens, they pretty much stay there. Everyone else has very little chance of ever overthrowing a strong power. Having everyone the same would make most sandbox players shy away from the game since they want something to progress and get better with, but at the same time it creates an imbalance that goes beyond what a normal themepark would. Its a whole capitalism deal. A few top players take control of everything while the rest are little peons. The top dine on the finest foods, surf and turf all they like, while the lower end have bread and scraps every night.

if someone puts in more hours works hard they should be able to have more than the guy who plays much less. i dont care if the person who plays a ton has more than me. in my opinion the idea that everyone has to be balanced or have the same as everyone else is the problem in mmorpgs today. for me i want my mmorpg to be virtual worlds, if i want to play thempark type games i play my console.

At the same time, there needs to be at least the chance that you can get as good as people who play more and are more powerful.

Most sandboxes make this virtually impossible, making the game only for the top 10% of its established user-base.

Whats the point in playing a game in which, like in the real world, you will never be able to succeed at anything because someone else that was there before you will just roflstomp you.

Whats the motivation to play a game that is basically an excercise in futility. Working for something is fine, working towards something unobtainable is not.

You can still achieve something in the game even if you cannot compete 1v1 with top players. What is my motivation to play more if someone who plays less can easily compete?

Nobody said anything about "easily"

Your statement is utterly contradictory, you cannot have both of these at the same time:

"if someone puts in more hours works hard they should be able to have more than the guy who plays much less."

"At the same time, there needs to be at least the chance that you can get as good as people who play more and are more powerful."

These opinions are mutually exclusive.

Absolutely not. They are only mutually exclusive in a system where player-skill takes no part in the competition.

RPGs are supposed to be about a specific set of skills. Why do people insist of shoving twitch into non twitch games. Go play LoL if you like LoL, stop trying to make every game like LoL. I have played something like 6000 games in LoL. I love LoL, but LoL is not a sandbox, or even a themepark its a battle arena.

Lets take combat for example, there is no way that a player in a Velator can take on a Megathron in EVE, furthermore, there is not even a way of 10 (or maybe even 100) players in Velators taking on a Megathron in EvE. The stat-differences make it impossible, and there is nothing the player controls in combat.

A hybrid system is where it's at.

In games like LoL my lvl 30 summoners glyphs/talents, will give me a considerable edge vs. lvl1 players, however I'm not invincible, in fact, i can be taken down despite those bonuses if i meet a higher skilled player or a smurf.

LoL has an incredibly small progression cap both outside and inside the game. That is not sandbox. Sandboxes do not have progression caps.

This can be expanded to all activities in a sandbox environment. If solving a puzzle only requires you to have a certain skill on a certain level, the competition always ends in the powerful becoming more powerful.

EVEs only saving grace is that it has an extremely powerful metagame, where the competition comes from coordination outside the game, the game-design itself is built around an exploitative play-to-win system (pay to play, play to que more skills that are trained on a linear time-based scale).

If I play 10x more than you, why should you get to achieve as much as me? Whats my motivation to play a lot if it doesn't mean anything in terms of in game success.

Nobody said "anything", its not black-and-white.

Furthermore, there is a difference between playing a game and getting better at -the game- (bettering yourself) not just sinking more money and time into it then other players, because the latter borders on "pay to win".

In original RPGs it was mostly dice rolls. The way to become more powerful is to put in time. That's what RPGs are for. You are supposed to invest yourself in the game world and thereby get more powerful.

If you choose to focus on a social community or hobby that isn't that game that is your personal choice. Just as it is my personal choice to spend most of my time with online friends or irl friends who play a game instead of getting plastered or playing basketball. I don't get to automatically be as good at those things that you choose to do, so why should you automatically be just as good as me at what I chose to do?

Hybrid system include your personal achievement in time-investment AND personal player skill, so its fair for -EVERYONE-

And who decides just how much twitch counts? Twitch is a biological function. Not everyone can get the same twitch. Everyone can make the choice to play a game. Thats why its based on time, because some people choose to play it. If you choose to go and get drunk or play football 10 hours a week, you lose out to players who decided to invest in the game world.

This argument works for playing other mmorpgs or literally any other hobby or activity that the more casual player of a specific game engages in. If I choose to play EvE and you choose to play Lineage we both don't get to be just as good at either game as each other.

Yes, if you interpret minmaxing your characters gear and grinding for money as "being better at the game", which i don't.

I make a distinction between being better at the game, and being more powerful in the game. RPGs are not supposed to be about twitch. The learning curve is both in game knowledge and lore and time invested, RPGs are games where you pretend its real. Thats what role playing is. An rpg is supposed to be an "alternate world."

Further, if you can't play a game without being in the top tier than maybe that game isn't for you. If I play a game where I am not a top tier crafter that doesn't mean that the time I spend crafting items for people who need them is useless. Which is what you seem to be insinuating. Sure if the game is 1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1... it would be a problem, but if you are so insistent on soloing all the time and never being involved in the community why are you playing an mmorpg instead of an srpg?

Absolutely not. What I am advocating is equal -chance- for everyone, not equalizing everyone to the same level.

That is not what you are advocating. I am willing to concede that you believe you are advocating that, but that is not reality. Not everyone can be equally good at twitch.

Simply put I do not see any motivation to play a game that is not giving me equal chances, i.e. a game that is rigged against me from the start. There can be no competition in such a game, except for the already established players.

Because its not a fucking esport, its a virtual world. If you want an esport play a god damn esport. Stop trying to make all mmorpgs esports or facebook casual games.

If my guild has 1 tier 1 crafter, 2 tier 2 crafters, 3 tier 3 crafters and 4 tier 4 crafters and the tier 1 and 2 crafters can't produce all the necessary gear for the guild than those lower tier crafters are vital to our success in getting gear. It would not be better to only have the 1 and 2 tier crafters.

Similarly for our mages, our explorers, and our melee fighters. The best mage isn't the only one that counts.

I didn't mention usefulness at any point. Usefullness has nothing to do with fairness or competition.

You mean balance and competition. Balance and fairness arent the same in technical design terms. The whole point of a sandbox is that its not balanced. Thats was a sandbox is. Play a MOBA or a Themepark if you don't like sandboxes. Or, if you r eally insist, make your own "balanced" sandbox. See how many people wan't t o play that. Sandboxes are not supposed to be balanced the same way as a MOBA or other esport game, thats why they are separate genres.

I find your hostile tone to be not deserving of a response, you didn't understand a word i said. g'day

Cuathon · January 2012

Originally posted by AdamTM

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by AdamTM

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by AdamTM

Originally posted by BCuse

Originally posted by Purutzil

Originally posted by Cuathon

I think the fact that all themepark mmos are the same is actually part of their value.

With a sandbox or virtual world mmo, what if you don't like the world? There is a lot of variation among sandboxes and that makes an even smaller demographic break down to smaller groups because half of sandboxers don't like space mmos and half of them don't like fantasy mmos. Then a bunch of them like steampunk which isn't really fantasy or space and so on and so on. If you could find a genre of world that the majority of sandboxers could agree on you might get a viable game. If more people had been willing to play EvE we might have gotten companies to attempt another high quality sandbox game.

Biggest problem is the sandbox mechanic lets the few become strong and once that happens, they pretty much stay there. Everyone else has very little chance of ever overthrowing a strong power. Having everyone the same would make most sandbox players shy away from the game since they want something to progress and get better with, but at the same time it creates an imbalance that goes beyond what a normal themepark would. Its a whole capitalism deal. A few top players take control of everything while the rest are little peons. The top dine on the finest foods, surf and turf all they like, while the lower end have bread and scraps every night.

if someone puts in more hours works hard they should be able to have more than the guy who plays much less. i dont care if the person who plays a ton has more than me. in my opinion the idea that everyone has to be balanced or have the same as everyone else is the problem in mmorpgs today. for me i want my mmorpg to be virtual worlds, if i want to play thempark type games i play my console.

At the same time, there needs to be at least the chance that you can get as good as people who play more and are more powerful.

Most sandboxes make this virtually impossible, making the game only for the top 10% of its established user-base.

Whats the point in playing a game in which, like in the real world, you will never be able to succeed at anything because someone else that was there before you will just roflstomp you.

Whats the motivation to play a game that is basically an excercise in futility. Working for something is fine, working towards something unobtainable is not.

You can still achieve something in the game even if you cannot compete 1v1 with top players. What is my motivation to play more if someone who plays less can easily compete?

Nobody said anything about "easily"

Your statement is utterly contradictory, you cannot have both of these at the same time:

"if someone puts in more hours works hard they should be able to have more than the guy who plays much less."

"At the same time, there needs to be at least the chance that you can get as good as people who play more and are more powerful."

These opinions are mutually exclusive.

Absolutely not. They are only mutually exclusive in a system where player-skill takes no part in the competition.

RPGs are supposed to be about a specific set of skills. Why do people insist of shoving twitch into non twitch games. Go play LoL if you like LoL, stop trying to make every game like LoL. I have played something like 6000 games in LoL. I love LoL, but LoL is not a sandbox, or even a themepark its a battle arena.

Lets take combat for example, there is no way that a player in a Velator can take on a Megathron in EVE, furthermore, there is not even a way of 10 (or maybe even 100) players in Velators taking on a Megathron in EvE. The stat-differences make it impossible, and there is nothing the player controls in combat.

A hybrid system is where it's at.

In games like LoL my lvl 30 summoners glyphs/talents, will give me a considerable edge vs. lvl1 players, however I'm not invincible, in fact, i can be taken down despite those bonuses if i meet a higher skilled player or a smurf.

LoL has an incredibly small progression cap both outside and inside the game. That is not sandbox. Sandboxes do not have progression caps.

This can be expanded to all activities in a sandbox environment. If solving a puzzle only requires you to have a certain skill on a certain level, the competition always ends in the powerful becoming more powerful.

EVEs only saving grace is that it has an extremely powerful metagame, where the competition comes from coordination outside the game, the game-design itself is built around an exploitative play-to-win system (pay to play, play to que more skills that are trained on a linear time-based scale).

If I play 10x more than you, why should you get to achieve as much as me? Whats my motivation to play a lot if it doesn't mean anything in terms of in game success.

Nobody said "anything", its not black-and-white.

Furthermore, there is a difference between playing a game and getting better at -the game- (bettering yourself) not just sinking more money and time into it then other players, because the latter borders on "pay to win".

In original RPGs it was mostly dice rolls. The way to become more powerful is to put in time. That's what RPGs are for. You are supposed to invest yourself in the game world and thereby get more powerful.

If you choose to focus on a social community or hobby that isn't that game that is your personal choice. Just as it is my personal choice to spend most of my time with online friends or irl friends who play a game instead of getting plastered or playing basketball. I don't get to automatically be as good at those things that you choose to do, so why should you automatically be just as good as me at what I chose to do?

Hybrid system include your personal achievement in time-investment AND personal player skill, so its fair for -EVERYONE-

And who decides just how much twitch counts? Twitch is a biological function. Not everyone can get the same twitch. Everyone can make the choice to play a game. Thats why its based on time, because some people choose to play it. If you choose to go and get drunk or play football 10 hours a week, you lose out to players who decided to invest in the game world.

This argument works for playing other mmorpgs or literally any other hobby or activity that the more casual player of a specific game engages in. If I choose to play EvE and you choose to play Lineage we both don't get to be just as good at either game as each other.

Yes, if you interpret minmaxing your characters gear and grinding for money as "being better at the game", which i don't.

I make a distinction between being better at the game, and being more powerful in the game. RPGs are not supposed to be about twitch. The learning curve is both in game knowledge and lore and time invested, RPGs are games where you pretend its real. Thats what role playing is. An rpg is supposed to be an "alternate world."

Further, if you can't play a game without being in the top tier than maybe that game isn't for you. If I play a game where I am not a top tier crafter that doesn't mean that the time I spend crafting items for people who need them is useless. Which is what you seem to be insinuating. Sure if the game is 1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1... it would be a problem, but if you are so insistent on soloing all the time and never being involved in the community why are you playing an mmorpg instead of an srpg?

Absolutely not. What I am advocating is equal -chance- for everyone, not equalizing everyone to the same level.

That is not what you are advocating. I am willing to concede that you believe you are advocating that, but that is not reality. Not everyone can be equally good at twitch.

Simply put I do not see any motivation to play a game that is not giving me equal chances, i.e. a game that is rigged against me from the start. There can be no competition in such a game, except for the already established players.

Because its not a fucking esport, its a virtual world. If you want an esport play a god damn esport. Stop trying to make all mmorpgs esports or facebook casual games.

If my guild has 1 tier 1 crafter, 2 tier 2 crafters, 3 tier 3 crafters and 4 tier 4 crafters and the tier 1 and 2 crafters can't produce all the necessary gear for the guild than those lower tier crafters are vital to our success in getting gear. It would not be better to only have the 1 and 2 tier crafters.

Similarly for our mages, our explorers, and our melee fighters. The best mage isn't the only one that counts.

I didn't mention usefulness at any point. Usefullness has nothing to do with fairness or competition.

You mean balance and competition. Balance and fairness arent the same in technical design terms. The whole point of a sandbox is that its not balanced. Thats was a sandbox is. Play a MOBA or a Themepark if you don't like sandboxes. Or, if you r eally insist, make your own "balanced" sandbox. See how many people wan't t o play that. Sandboxes are not supposed to be balanced the same way as a MOBA or other esport game, thats why they are separate genres.

I find your hostile tone to be not deserving of a response, you didn't understand a word i said. g'day

Blah blah blah, tell truth get blasted with tone argument. I responded very specifically to everything you said. You complained quite a bit about several inherent aspects of a sandbox. Sandboxes are not esports and you refuse to understand this. You kept arguing about how LoL does things as if MOBA gameplay was remotely relevant to a sandbox and it started frustrating me because so many people insist on this. MOBAs are not Sandboxes.

Bossalinie · January 2012

Maybe mmo's key requirement is a 'world.' I can understand the needed for that. At the same time, there needs to, well I would like, for games like SWTOR to continue to be made. I don't have time anymore to prepare ingame for a couple of hours to engage in the content. I can't compete with people who put 10 hours plus in a game because I don't have 10 hours to put in. I'm not knocking it though; if they can do it, more power to them and I hope they have fun in that game. But why can't the other model exist also? Why does SWTOR take so much heat for making a game for its targetted audience? Why do MMO's have to be absolute with their game style or requirements within their product? If SWTOR called itself a SPORPG, which in fact it is not even close to being one, would there still be so much rage on how Bioware wanted to make its game?

redcapp · January 2012

Thread title says it all. Seriously

yewsef · January 2012

I believe in Hybrids.

A typical Sandbox is too empty and a typical Themepark is very limiting and we got plenty of them already.

If a developer can make a world with enough freedom but at the same time enough content (without the hand holding) we'd get a gem of a game.

Problem with themepark MMORPGs is that all the content are spoon fed to you, forced on you and you're never free. The key is freedom we need a game that doesn't give us any kind of linearity or "quest driven" content. The content instead should be in the world for the players to explore. Just like EverQuest the player wasn't hand held at all and they made their choice to fare as they wish. If there's enough content (like dungeons for instance) they player will be busy in the world. The fact that MMORPGs control how we play the game is growing old on me. I don't want a game that plays me... I want to be in a world free to do whatever I want.

Clerigo · January 2012

The perfect MMORPG will be the one that manages to integrate a complexe and vaste network of areas, non-instanced, while successfuly imitating a live breathing world.

Something taken out of a mix between WoW/vanguard open world, Skyrim life screaming honey, EVE structural size, GW skill structure and Phantom Dust character development.

Take all that, elevate it to exponential paralel growth of lets say the TRON world imagined by someone in a time where the rest of the world was playing Space Invaders, and we will have a game that will please all the veteran players that are sick and tired of playing the same pre-formated and recycled ideas...

...not happening anytime soon...but GW2 will do while we wait...

kantseeme · January 2012

i think we need to change Cuathons name to Charlie Sheen... because hes WINNING!

Cuathon · January 2012

Originally posted by kantseeme
i think we need to change Cuathons name to Charlie Sheen... because hes WINNING!

can not tell if serious, suspect sarcasm, would like to note that apostrophe for possessive was forgotten. Winning, or biwinning?

Howdy, Stranger!

Game vs World

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Game vs World

Comments