Originally posted by Lord.Bachus The poll is totally wrong, EQN is not going to be a sandbox. Sure it will have certain sandbox feutures, but if you´re expecting a sandbox you will be very dissapointed at 2nd August.
You just broke the NDA , good one man way to spoil Aug 2nd surprise.
I honestly don't care how a game is done ,just whatever you do make it right.
A developer should be able to look at a design and realize weather it is a good idea or not,of course your never going to please everyone but any developer /producer should be able to think for himself without asking anyone.
I could think of many ways to make both leveling and no levels work,both are great ideas,it would do nothing to hurt the genre no matter what direction was taken.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Originally posted by ice-vortex I fully support a horizontal progression system. Instead of getting more powerful, you simply get more choice and flexibility in your builds.
No. Horizontal progression is the death of games. See GW2. It's player base dropped dramatically because there was NOTHING TO DO AFTER 1 WEEK OF PLAY. You got to level 80 and literally nothing mattered because you could never get any better. Just look different/silly
Couldnt agree more. Horizontal progression is NOT progression. Its basically the MMO equivalent of socialism and trying to confuse the masses into thinking they're getting ahead when they really arent.
Its just like in RL if someone says they got a new position within the company, and you say "oh you got a promotion" and they respond with, "well no it was more of a side step".
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
Originally posted by ice-vortex I fully support a horizontal progression system. Instead of getting more powerful, you simply get more choice and flexibility in your builds.
No. Horizontal progression is the death of games. See GW2. It's player base dropped dramatically because there was NOTHING TO DO AFTER 1 WEEK OF PLAY. You got to level 80 and literally nothing mattered because you could never get any better. Just look different/silly
Couldnt agree more. Horizontal progression is NOT progression. Its basically the MMO equivalent of socialism and trying to confuse the masses into thinking they're getting ahead when they really arent.
Its just like in RL if someone says they got a new position within the company, and you say "oh you got a promotion" and they respond with, "well no it was more of a side step".
Socialism? Are you serious? Having the freedom to choose what you want to do and how you want to do it is socialist to you? If so then you're the text book example of why the US in terms of freedom is going down the shitter faster than the overall temperature of the Universe.
Horizontal progression with maybe some localized vertical progression (like EVE's skill levels) would work best but seeing as how EQN is catering to the lowest common denominators I'd say it's a pretty safe bet the only sandbox elements in the game will be (maybe) territory control (just like how the above likes his freedom, positively fascist).
I suspect the way the original post and poll was worded was an attempt to push a PvP agenda. To me, PvP is a take it or leave it, but I'd much rather leave it. There have been enough PvP discussions / arguments on this forum already.
So, ignoring the PvP aspect of this question, unless SOE does something particularly amazing to replace the level grind, then I'm happy with what I know. Levels have been a staple (and bane) of RPGs since the original 1974 D&D was published. It was about the weakest part of the game, but has survived because it is one of the simplest (and easy to explain / understand) systems in the game. Fundamentally, character levels are one of the roots of mudflation problems. Higher levels, better abilities, players expect that. Levels are tied into character abilities (HP, Mana, Spells) and experience points, other fundamental aspects of RPG systems.
I'd love to see a viable alternative to character levels that didn't involve skill levels, but I think that may actually be asking a bit much for now. It would necessarily break too many RPG conventions, and I do not know if SOE is interesting in pursuing that particular path. So, I'm all for keeping the level progression for now.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Simply yes, since content by default would be designed as stand alone content to be fun and engaging. Rather than having mediocre content that is repetitive and rewards completion with the next phase of grind.
If devs can't make content fun and different then they have to use theme park mmos with the long grind and few fun mechanis for content at end game. Having a theme park mmo with horizontal progression would mean the devs are creative to make it work and to draw players to play different parts of the game.
Write bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble
Here's an idea if you don't like levels or any other kind of vertical character progression....don't play anything with the letters RPG in it instead of trying to make RPG type MMOs into first/third person shooter/hack and slash action MMOs.
Originally posted by Drakynn Here's an idea if you don't like levels or any other kind of vertical character progression....don't play anything with the letters RPG in it instead of trying to make RPG type MMOs into first/third person shooter/hack and slash action MMOs.
RPG= Role Playing Game, do not attribute every RPG in existence to D&D .
While we're at it: Don't come into a thread right out of the gate acting in one way or another, RPGs evolve in many ways (christ the first RPGs didn't even really have graphics or that much in the way of choices, if you want pure RPGs go back to PnP).
It's hard to say, since there isn't any real working example and many people tend to be hyper-critical of any MMO that removes a part of the grind.
GW2 met with a lot of criticism by simply removing gear-progression from the end game.
Even though it had levels, skill unlocks and cosmetic gear you could grind for, just removing the traditional stat-gear grind treadmill from the end-game was not well received by many people.
GW2 is still doing great, even without it... but I shudder to think what the MMO community would think if they made an RPG that played more like Planetside 2. Where there are no levels, gear only makes tiny differences and every character basically on par and a threat with every other character in the game, regardless of how much time they played.
Do you guys think that kind of game would appeal to you?
Where you could learn "different" spells, attacks and abilities.... and obtain a variety of gear/weapons... but none of them would really be "better" than each other? Just have different pros and cons, and offer a way to customize your character, but not make you "more powerful"?
Would this kind of skill based, action gameplay appeal to you guys?
A game where Crushbone and Blackburrow are still dungeons capable of killing you a year after you've played the game?
I think it would be cool to see a system like this because it would make the whole world fun and viable to play in, and wouldn't pigeon hole you into a few "end game" zones/mobs.
Leveling skills is just another form of vertical progression, I mean the most common term for it is skill levels after all. It's not really different or thinking outside the box when a game like say TSW does it. It's basically the same thing as having skill levels, except maybe a bit more grindy in a sense. There are 3 ways to do it:
Level via skill use (Everquest 1 had this and character levels as did Ultima with level via skill use only and many MUDs). This is generally pretty grindy and repetitive. Your relative "level" is going to be based on the skills you bring.
Skills can "XP" similar to character levels where if you kill monsters with weapons and gain normal XP or do a certain amount of damage or unlocks you'll gain XP via the skills to gain levels in those. This is no different than say FFXI / FFXIV where you have job levels you gain by equipping certain weapons and leveling each of those jobs separately, just replace skills with jobs.
You gain skill points by leveling as you would via the character level system, and instead of having a direct level you allocate skill points instead (TSW did this). This really is no different than the standard leveling system, since technically your level is going to be how many skill points you have.
As you can see none of these systems are really different than character levels. You still have the vertical progression and technically still have a level of some sort with each system.
Now if we are talking about removing vertical progression altogether it doesn't work very well. RPGs are all about that vertical progression, and people generally like the notion of levels and vertical progression that's why so many other genres are constantly mixing RPG elements.
So I hope Everquest Next just has player character levels. No reason to change a system that works. I do hope they take a cue from Everquest II and implement a robust AA system, mentoring, and things like chronomagus and other features like leveling syncing/scaling dynamically to conent to allow for people to experience all content in the game without it ever becoming a push over and to allow friends to play together without having to worry about staying around the same level.
It's hard to say, since there isn't any real working example and many people tend to be hyper-critical of any MMO that removes a part of the grind.
GW2 met with a lot of criticism by simply removing gear-progression from the end game.
Even though it had levels, skill unlocks and cosmetic gear you could grind for, just removing the traditional stat-gear grind treadmill from the end-game was not well received by many people.
GW2 is still doing great, even without it... but I shudder to think what the MMO community would think if they made an RPG that played more like Planetside 2. Where there are no levels, gear only makes tiny differences and every character basically on par and a threat with every other character in the game, regardless of how much time they played.
Do you guys think that kind of game would appeal to you?
Where you could learn "different" spells, attacks and abilities.... and obtain a variety of gear/weapons... but none of them would really be "better" than each other? Just have different pros and cons, and offer a way to customize your character, but not make you "more powerful"?
Would this kind of skill based, action gameplay appeal to you guys?
A game where Crushbone and Blackburrow are still dungeons capable of killing you a year after you've played the game?
I think it would be cool to see a system like this because it would make the whole world fun and viable to play in, and wouldn't pigeon hole you into a few "end game" zones/mobs.
But I may be a minority.
How could you rationalize Clan Crushbone's home and the Gnolls of Blackburrow being difficult to the same adventurer that has taken part in an expedition to kill Lord Nagafen or Lady Vox?
GW2 is still doing great, even without it... but I shudder to think what the MMO community would think if they made an RPG that played more like Planetside 2. Where there are no levels, gear only makes tiny differences and every character basically on par and a threat with every other character in the game, regardless of how much time they played.
It actually isn't. Lowest players it's had so far. That's what the whole 2-week-content-schedule PR thing is for. To get people back. It wasn't content people hated about Gw2...
It's hard to say, since there isn't any real working example and many people tend to be hyper-critical of any MMO that removes a part of the grind.
GW2 met with a lot of criticism by simply removing gear-progression from the end game.
Even though it had levels, skill unlocks and cosmetic gear you could grind for, just removing the traditional stat-gear grind treadmill from the end-game was not well received by many people.
GW2 is still doing great, even without it... but I shudder to think what the MMO community would think if they made an RPG that played more like Planetside 2. Where there are no levels, gear only makes tiny differences and every character basically on par and a threat with every other character in the game, regardless of how much time they played.
Do you guys think that kind of game would appeal to you?
Where you could learn "different" spells, attacks and abilities.... and obtain a variety of gear/weapons... but none of them would really be "better" than each other? Just have different pros and cons, and offer a way to customize your character, but not make you "more powerful"?
Would this kind of skill based, action gameplay appeal to you guys?
A game where Crushbone and Blackburrow are still dungeons capable of killing you a year after you've played the game?
I think it would be cool to see a system like this because it would make the whole world fun and viable to play in, and wouldn't pigeon hole you into a few "end game" zones/mobs.
But I may be a minority.
How could you rationalize Clan Crushbone's home and the Gnolls of Blackburrow being difficult to the same adventurer that has taken part in an expedition to kill Lord Nagafen or Lady Vox?
They got better gear? you got more complacent ? they had traps? there are any number of things which could explain such an event (there are many examples of people in real life surviving ridiculous accidents unscathed and then dying to something completely random and stupid, might be mixing up cases but I remember one where one dude fell 20 stories, landed through a stain glass window into a pool and walked away with a few scratches, this guy later died choking on a cherry stem).
GW2 is still doing great, even without it... but I shudder to think what the MMO community would think if they made an RPG that played more like Planetside 2. Where there are no levels, gear only makes tiny differences and every character basically on par and a threat with every other character in the game, regardless of how much time they played.
It actually isn't. Lowest players it's had so far. That's what the whole 2-week-content-schedule PR thing is for. To get people back. It wasn't content people hated about Gw2...
Unfortunately NCsoft's stock reports suggest otherwise when you look at the data for GW2.
Originally posted by Lord.Bachus The poll is totally wrong, EQN is not going to be a sandbox. Sure it will have certain sandbox feutures, but if you´re expecting a sandbox you will be very dissapointed at 2nd August.
WAIT! So you mean Smedley lied again when he said EQN will be the biggest sandbox game to date when it is announced?
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
It's hard to say, since there isn't any real working example and many people tend to be hyper-critical of any MMO that removes a part of the grind.
GW2 met with a lot of criticism by simply removing gear-progression from the end game.
Even though it had levels, skill unlocks and cosmetic gear you could grind for, just removing the traditional stat-gear grind treadmill from the end-game was not well received by many people.
GW2 is still doing great, even without it... but I shudder to think what the MMO community would think if they made an RPG that played more like Planetside 2. Where there are no levels, gear only makes tiny differences and every character basically on par and a threat with every other character in the game, regardless of how much time they played.
Do you guys think that kind of game would appeal to you?
Where you could learn "different" spells, attacks and abilities.... and obtain a variety of gear/weapons... but none of them would really be "better" than each other? Just have different pros and cons, and offer a way to customize your character, but not make you "more powerful"?
Would this kind of skill based, action gameplay appeal to you guys?
A game where Crushbone and Blackburrow are still dungeons capable of killing you a year after you've played the game?
I think it would be cool to see a system like this because it would make the whole world fun and viable to play in, and wouldn't pigeon hole you into a few "end game" zones/mobs.
But I may be a minority.
How could you rationalize Clan Crushbone's home and the Gnolls of Blackburrow being difficult to the same adventurer that has taken part in an expedition to kill Lord Nagafen or Lady Vox?
Well Lady Vox and Lord Nagafen would clearly be epic battles that take multiple groups of people to win at.
Where a small group of adventurers could wade through Crush bone fighting orcs.
Even the mightiest warriors are still vulnerable to all sorts of attacks. Gandalf stood toe to toe with the mighty Balrog, but a stray arrow from a goblin hitting his neck, or sword in his back from an orc would have killed him just the same.
Which goes to my realism of combat comments. At what point does a knight or a wizard become immune to getting hit in the head by an orc's mace? I suspect never. Yet this is common place in MMORPGs... lol.
Let me ask you something.
I can log into EQ right now, and as a ranger I can melee auto attack Lord Nagefen and Lady Vox to death without any thought, solo, because of the level system and it's effect on the game world.
In a vertical leveling system, eventually a swarm of Crush bone orcs are unable to you kill and eventually gods and dragons are unable to kill you.
Originally posted by Drakynn Here's an idea if you don't like levels or any other kind of vertical character progression....don't play anything with the letters RPG in it instead of trying to make RPG type MMOs into first/third person shooter/hack and slash action MMOs.
RPG= Role Playing Game, do not attribute every RPG in existence to D&D .
While we're at it: Don't come into a thread right out of the gate acting in one way or another, RPGs evolve in many ways (christ the first RPGs didn't even really have graphics or that much in the way of choices, if you want pure RPGs go back to PnP).
You chose to focus on only one word in my post...I specifically said "or any other kind of vertical progression" that would include skill levelling,stat levelling anything that vertically improves your character.Such progression is one of the pillars of RPGs,you take that away and it will not be an RPG any more.
You may want the whole genre to disappear into other genres but I certainly do not.Others apparently agree hence the wildly successful funding of projects liek Wasteland 2 and Torment:Planes of Numera,not to mention the dozens of none action indie RPGs that have been successful.
Originally posted by killahh There has to be some indicator of advancement in any game that has any kind of progression, and any indicator is in itself, a kind of level. I think to uo, where titles were given based on proficiency,and notoriety, those were levels, regardless of what you actually thought of them, and even in eve, there are levels of advancement, based of the requirements of the ships, and activities you do. Cheers,
But thats kind of the point. Since Nobody has ever designed a MMO from the ground up to not have levels (including hidden levels), how would you ever know how fun it really can be?
The Secret World would have a word with your assessment.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
Originally posted by killahh There has to be some indicator of advancement in any game that has any kind of progression, and any indicator is in itself, a kind of level. I think to uo, where titles were given based on proficiency,and notoriety, those were levels, regardless of what you actually thought of them, and even in eve, there are levels of advancement, based of the requirements of the ships, and activities you do. Cheers,
But thats kind of the point. Since Nobody has ever designed a MMO from the ground up to not have levels (including hidden levels), how would you ever know how fun it really can be?
The Secret World would have a word with your assessment.
The secret world has levels, they are just hidden.
You have a exp bar at the bottom of your screen just like in a player character level MMO.
You cant go everywhere you want to go because of this as well. Zones are locked off.
Skills unlock as you level and gain points per level. come on. It has levels.
Calling character levels, something else, or not calling it anything at all is still levels.
Lets have a new system that doesnt use character levels at all, nether hidden or traditional method.
That doesnt stop progression.
Look at WoW for example. Most of the game time is spent at endgame when leveling stops. so what motivates progression there, because WoW's progression never stopped because of levels ending.
I'd personally feel relieved if they chose leveless. Though, it would mean a lot of innovation on their part, because they'll have to find ways to make it work. Not everyone can turn out a leveless sandbox MMO and have it be a hit overnight. Copying other games makes it feel like content you've blazed already, or like something is missing. As though it were parts of a previous game implemented into an irrelevant genre.
Being SoE, Sandbox isn't really their forte, in fact... They hardly hold the general MMO medal anymore. This CAN change though, but it really depends on if they're up for it or not.
The lack of levels would allow more freedom on the players part, to interact with the world. Everyone fighting to have levels, why? Do you really want someone to push you around and tell you how to have your adventure? Or maybe you'd like to take a risk and see what an adventure, unique to you, can really be like? Things such as exploration are so much more interesting when you take out levels. People will feel more inclined to go out and have a peek. There is far more branching of progression and the feeling that you are growing, when you do not have levels. Levels are numbers, lack of levels are SO much MORE!
I voted levels, but also would like a very large and complicated AA no refund system as in EQ1, its long been proven that the concept of leveling/progression is the addiction that feeds the MMORPG, and I hold up the very long operations of EQ1.
However I would also like to point out that stream lining or dumbing down the AA system to some class points system with only 2 or 3 must have builds is fine to get the Dexi popping 2 month max person to play a game but 6000 point Aa system will get you 10 years plus.
I am not using WOW at all, even though the retard AA/class system does fit, I am refering to the whole market, for instances the Eve skilling system is an intresting one as it appears to gets lots of players to sub, never really play but log in once a day/week/month to update skill tree, always chasing a perfect moment to actualy get into the game and play, its really that strange, so its an addication so a case in point.
Originally posted by ice-vortex I fully support a horizontal progression system. Instead of getting more powerful, you simply get more choice and flexibility in your builds.
No. Horizontal progression is the death of games. See GW2. It's player base dropped dramatically because there was NOTHING TO DO AFTER 1 WEEK OF PLAY. You got to level 80 and literally nothing mattered because you could never get any better. Just look different/silly
Guild Wars 2 does not have horizontal progression. It has pure vertical progression just like most other MMORPGs. You level to 80 and you obtain gear with better stats. Just like every other MMORPG with the vertical progression, there's a cutoff point where your power maxes out and there's nothing to do.
Originally posted by ice-vortex I fully support a horizontal progression system. Instead of getting more powerful, you simply get more choice and flexibility in your builds.
No. Horizontal progression is the death of games. See GW2. It's player base dropped dramatically because there was NOTHING TO DO AFTER 1 WEEK OF PLAY. You got to level 80 and literally nothing mattered because you could never get any better. Just look different/silly
Guild Wars 2 does not have horizontal progression. It has pure vertical progression just like most other MMORPGs. You level to 80 and you obtain gear with better stats. Just like every other MMORPG with the vertical progression, there's a cutoff point where your power maxes out and there's nothing to do.
Yes, the game had vertical progression with a twist. The twist is the down leveling that happens when you go into old zones.
This worked well to alleviate some of the problems with vertical systems (like useless low level content and segregation of player population) but it was still technically a vertical leveling system.
But GW2 is by far the most successful of all the major MMORPG releases from the past few years. 3 million in box sales and a huge community that has stuck around many months after the game released. Every MMORPG has a drop off of players, but GW2 is far from doom and gloom. In fact the only game so far that's been more successful than GW2 in the west has been WoW, which launched like 10 years ago lol.
The advantages of a horizontal progression system is that all content can remain relevant to all players. Veterans and new players stay on a much closer power level which allows new players to enjoy the new content and the veterans to enjoy the older content. This means that it isn't as intimidating for new players. How many potential players is World of Warcraft or Everquest losing simply because players don't want to advance through all those levels and spend all that time gearing up just to play the actual game? The only MMOs with any form of a horizontal progression system to my knowledge are Guild Wars 1 and Planetside 2.
Comments
You just broke the NDA , good one man way to spoil Aug 2nd surprise.
I honestly don't care how a game is done ,just whatever you do make it right.
A developer should be able to look at a design and realize weather it is a good idea or not,of course your never going to please everyone but any developer /producer should be able to think for himself without asking anyone.
I could think of many ways to make both leveling and no levels work,both are great ideas,it would do nothing to hurt the genre no matter what direction was taken.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Couldnt agree more. Horizontal progression is NOT progression. Its basically the MMO equivalent of socialism and trying to confuse the masses into thinking they're getting ahead when they really arent.
Its just like in RL if someone says they got a new position within the company, and you say "oh you got a promotion" and they respond with, "well no it was more of a side step".
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Socialism? Are you serious? Having the freedom to choose what you want to do and how you want to do it is socialist to you? If so then you're the text book example of why the US in terms of freedom is going down the shitter faster than the overall temperature of the Universe.
Horizontal progression with maybe some localized vertical progression (like EVE's skill levels) would work best but seeing as how EQN is catering to the lowest common denominators I'd say it's a pretty safe bet the only sandbox elements in the game will be (maybe) territory control (just like how the above likes his freedom, positively fascist).
I voted 2. EQ fan and want levels.
I suspect the way the original post and poll was worded was an attempt to push a PvP agenda. To me, PvP is a take it or leave it, but I'd much rather leave it. There have been enough PvP discussions / arguments on this forum already.
So, ignoring the PvP aspect of this question, unless SOE does something particularly amazing to replace the level grind, then I'm happy with what I know. Levels have been a staple (and bane) of RPGs since the original 1974 D&D was published. It was about the weakest part of the game, but has survived because it is one of the simplest (and easy to explain / understand) systems in the game. Fundamentally, character levels are one of the roots of mudflation problems. Higher levels, better abilities, players expect that. Levels are tied into character abilities (HP, Mana, Spells) and experience points, other fundamental aspects of RPG systems.
I'd love to see a viable alternative to character levels that didn't involve skill levels, but I think that may actually be asking a bit much for now. It would necessarily break too many RPG conventions, and I do not know if SOE is interesting in pursuing that particular path. So, I'm all for keeping the level progression for now.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Simply yes, since content by default would be designed as stand alone content to be fun and engaging. Rather than having mediocre content that is repetitive and rewards completion with the next phase of grind.
If devs can't make content fun and different then they have to use theme park mmos with the long grind and few fun mechanis for content at end game. Having a theme park mmo with horizontal progression would mean the devs are creative to make it work and to draw players to play different parts of the game.
Write bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble
RPG= Role Playing Game, do not attribute every RPG in existence to D&D
.
While we're at it: Don't come into a thread right out of the gate acting in one way or another, RPGs evolve in many ways (christ the first RPGs didn't even really have graphics or that much in the way of choices, if you want pure RPGs go back to PnP).
It's hard to say, since there isn't any real working example and many people tend to be hyper-critical of any MMO that removes a part of the grind.
GW2 met with a lot of criticism by simply removing gear-progression from the end game.
Even though it had levels, skill unlocks and cosmetic gear you could grind for, just removing the traditional stat-gear grind treadmill from the end-game was not well received by many people.
GW2 is still doing great, even without it... but I shudder to think what the MMO community would think if they made an RPG that played more like Planetside 2. Where there are no levels, gear only makes tiny differences and every character basically on par and a threat with every other character in the game, regardless of how much time they played.
Do you guys think that kind of game would appeal to you?
Where you could learn "different" spells, attacks and abilities.... and obtain a variety of gear/weapons... but none of them would really be "better" than each other? Just have different pros and cons, and offer a way to customize your character, but not make you "more powerful"?
Would this kind of skill based, action gameplay appeal to you guys?
A game where Crushbone and Blackburrow are still dungeons capable of killing you a year after you've played the game?
I think it would be cool to see a system like this because it would make the whole world fun and viable to play in, and wouldn't pigeon hole you into a few "end game" zones/mobs.
But I may be a minority.
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
Leveling skills is just another form of vertical progression, I mean the most common term for it is skill levels after all. It's not really different or thinking outside the box when a game like say TSW does it. It's basically the same thing as having skill levels, except maybe a bit more grindy in a sense. There are 3 ways to do it:
How could you rationalize Clan Crushbone's home and the Gnolls of Blackburrow being difficult to the same adventurer that has taken part in an expedition to kill Lord Nagafen or Lady Vox?
It actually isn't. Lowest players it's had so far. That's what the whole 2-week-content-schedule PR thing is for. To get people back. It wasn't content people hated about Gw2...
They got better gear? you got more complacent ? they had traps? there are any number of things which could explain such an event (there are many examples of people in real life surviving ridiculous accidents unscathed and then dying to something completely random and stupid, might be mixing up cases but I remember one where one dude fell 20 stories, landed through a stain glass window into a pool and walked away with a few scratches, this guy later died choking on a cherry stem).
Unfortunately NCsoft's stock reports suggest otherwise when you look at the data for GW2.
Sorry to pop your bubble.
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
WAIT! So you mean Smedley lied again when he said EQN will be the biggest sandbox game to date when it is announced?
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Chavez y Chavez
Well Lady Vox and Lord Nagafen would clearly be epic battles that take multiple groups of people to win at.
Where a small group of adventurers could wade through Crush bone fighting orcs.
Even the mightiest warriors are still vulnerable to all sorts of attacks. Gandalf stood toe to toe with the mighty Balrog, but a stray arrow from a goblin hitting his neck, or sword in his back from an orc would have killed him just the same.
Which goes to my realism of combat comments. At what point does a knight or a wizard become immune to getting hit in the head by an orc's mace? I suspect never. Yet this is common place in MMORPGs... lol.
Let me ask you something.
I can log into EQ right now, and as a ranger I can melee auto attack Lord Nagefen and Lady Vox to death without any thought, solo, because of the level system and it's effect on the game world.
In a vertical leveling system, eventually a swarm of Crush bone orcs are unable to you kill and eventually gods and dragons are unable to kill you.
How can YOU rationalize this?
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
You chose to focus on only one word in my post...I specifically said "or any other kind of vertical progression" that would include skill levelling,stat levelling anything that vertically improves your character.Such progression is one of the pillars of RPGs,you take that away and it will not be an RPG any more.
You may want the whole genre to disappear into other genres but I certainly do not.Others apparently agree hence the wildly successful funding of projects liek Wasteland 2 and Torment:Planes of Numera,not to mention the dozens of none action indie RPGs that have been successful.
The Secret World would have a word with your assessment.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
The secret world has levels, they are just hidden.
You have a exp bar at the bottom of your screen just like in a player character level MMO.
You cant go everywhere you want to go because of this as well. Zones are locked off.
Skills unlock as you level and gain points per level. come on. It has levels.
Calling character levels, something else, or not calling it anything at all is still levels.
Lets have a new system that doesnt use character levels at all, nether hidden or traditional method.
That doesnt stop progression.
Look at WoW for example. Most of the game time is spent at endgame when leveling stops. so what motivates progression there, because WoW's progression never stopped because of levels ending.
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
I'd personally feel relieved if they chose leveless. Though, it would mean a lot of innovation on their part, because they'll have to find ways to make it work. Not everyone can turn out a leveless sandbox MMO and have it be a hit overnight. Copying other games makes it feel like content you've blazed already, or like something is missing. As though it were parts of a previous game implemented into an irrelevant genre.
Being SoE, Sandbox isn't really their forte, in fact... They hardly hold the general MMO medal anymore. This CAN change though, but it really depends on if they're up for it or not.
The lack of levels would allow more freedom on the players part, to interact with the world. Everyone fighting to have levels, why? Do you really want someone to push you around and tell you how to have your adventure? Or maybe you'd like to take a risk and see what an adventure, unique to you, can really be like? Things such as exploration are so much more interesting when you take out levels. People will feel more inclined to go out and have a peek. There is far more branching of progression and the feeling that you are growing, when you do not have levels. Levels are numbers, lack of levels are SO much MORE!
I voted levels, but also would like a very large and complicated AA no refund system as in EQ1, its long been proven that the concept of leveling/progression is the addiction that feeds the MMORPG, and I hold up the very long operations of EQ1.
However I would also like to point out that stream lining or dumbing down the AA system to some class points system with only 2 or 3 must have builds is fine to get the Dexi popping 2 month max person to play a game but 6000 point Aa system will get you 10 years plus.
I am not using WOW at all, even though the retard AA/class system does fit, I am refering to the whole market, for instances the Eve skilling system is an intresting one as it appears to gets lots of players to sub, never really play but log in once a day/week/month to update skill tree, always chasing a perfect moment to actualy get into the game and play, its really that strange, so its an addication so a case in point.
Guild Wars 2 does not have horizontal progression. It has pure vertical progression just like most other MMORPGs. You level to 80 and you obtain gear with better stats. Just like every other MMORPG with the vertical progression, there's a cutoff point where your power maxes out and there's nothing to do.
Yes, the game had vertical progression with a twist. The twist is the down leveling that happens when you go into old zones.
This worked well to alleviate some of the problems with vertical systems (like useless low level content and segregation of player population) but it was still technically a vertical leveling system.
But GW2 is by far the most successful of all the major MMORPG releases from the past few years. 3 million in box sales and a huge community that has stuck around many months after the game released. Every MMORPG has a drop off of players, but GW2 is far from doom and gloom. In fact the only game so far that's been more successful than GW2 in the west has been WoW, which launched like 10 years ago lol.
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
The advantages of a horizontal progression system is that all content can remain relevant to all players. Veterans and new players stay on a much closer power level which allows new players to enjoy the new content and the veterans to enjoy the older content. This means that it isn't as intimidating for new players. How many potential players is World of Warcraft or Everquest losing simply because players don't want to advance through all those levels and spend all that time gearing up just to play the actual game? The only MMOs with any form of a horizontal progression system to my knowledge are Guild Wars 1 and Planetside 2.