a level number really means nothing aside from basically saying you did 500 linear quests just like everyone else is going to do.
There are actually some significantly different ways to implement leveling. I was just working with a single-player RPG system where level number = (number of stat points + number of trunk skill points)/20. Stat points can be gained (up to a practically unreachable max of 10,000) by practicing relevant actions, until you hit the difficulty level of the particular action, at which point you've mastered it and can't get any more stat points from it. Trunk skill points can be gained (again, up to 10,000) by learning new branch skills and practicing those branch skills up to their level of difficulty. So overall, your level represents the total amount of time you've spent seeking out new activities within the game and doing the activities you've discovered. And the player receives 5 tokens to spend in any unlocked faction shop each time they level up. Level does correspond vaguely to how difficult an opponent might be in combat or in a social or economic struggle, but because the combat and non-combat stats and skills are counted together it's much less accurate for humanoids than for monsters. Pretty hilarious though when you try to attack an NPC humanoid that is weak as a kitten but has ridiculously high charisma, and they are just too appealing and persuasive to attack.
I perfer usage base gains like UO where you get better at what you do by doing what you like.
This _is_ a system where usage improves stats and skills used, lol. For example, doing actions that require physical strength is the easiest way to gain strength stat points as well as points in whatever specific physical skill you are using. Chopping things with a sword will not make you better at magic.
I want to help design and develop a PvE-focused, solo-friendly, sandpark MMO which combines crafting, monster hunting, and story. So PM me if you are starting one.
And I do not want living breathing worlds if they interfere with rich story experiences.
I do not think massively multiplayer games are capable of telling rich dev-created stories. Games such as SWTOR have tried but it feels watered down compared to what a single player game could do with the same material. MMORPG devs should just stop trying to use MMOs to tell stories and let players create their own emergent narratives IMO.
I don't agree with that at all. I think MMOs have tremendous potential for telling individualized interactive stories in a shared world. The day MMOs quit even trying to tell stories is the day I quit playing MMOs. You can have an emergent narrative with a paper and pencil or some blocks and action figures; that kind of sandboxy play doesn't require a virtual world environment at all, and it doesn't use even half the potential of the video game medium. Story poor worlds feel as dead to me as the the type of games the OP is complaining about feeling dead to them.
I want to help design and develop a PvE-focused, solo-friendly, sandpark MMO which combines crafting, monster hunting, and story. So PM me if you are starting one.
Originally posted by Consuetudo I believe you all are being very pessimistically extreme about a single element that can be countered with a player or even an NPC-run police force or even security/protective measures that prevent griefing. Don't blind yourselves by these concepts.
I got the feeling from your original post that NPCs were not wanted in your game. No NPC "stores", "quest givers", or "opponents." Perhaps I was mistaken?
Never become tied down to ideology when practical demands call. If an NPC police force is necessary to stop griefing, and players as a whole do not want to be griefed--if this is the best measure we can take towards reducing griefing, shouldn't we implement it?
Yes, I agree. One has to be careful, though. As one implementation gets approved, you may lose the players you are trying to attract. Laws, consequences, and a police force may deter the players that want to do anything and everything. Not saying this is your target audience, just an example
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Originally posted by whisperwynd You can only make a game you'd like to play and hope others will enjoy it too.
This is what is lost in gaming today
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
And I do not want living breathing worlds if they interfere with rich story experiences.
I do not think massively multiplayer games are capable of telling rich dev-created stories. Games such as SWTOR have tried but it feels watered down compared to what a single player game could do with the same material. MMORPG devs should just stop trying to use MMOs to tell stories and let players create their own emergent narratives IMO.
nah .. they just don't use instances, and phasing well enough. If they put enough scripting into instances ... there should be little difference between that, and SP games, which can tell good stories.
Unfortunately, with the level of instancing and phasing needed to level those grounds, it splits into a different genre. Thus, the original point remains.
Originally posted by MadFrenchie Unfortunately, with the level of instancing and phasing needed to level those grounds, it splits into a different genre. Thus, the original point remains.
well, MMO is already turning into another genre, just that it is keeping its name for convenience.
Originally posted by MadFrenchie Unfortunately, with the level of instancing and phasing needed to level those grounds, it splits into a different genre. Thus, the original point remains.
And even still SWTOR stopped putting money into expanding its personal story and even with all the money they did originally put into it it still just feels like a poor man's single player RPG to me padded out by typical boring MMO quests.
I'm skeptical that MMOs can ever be used as a great storytelling medium especially for typical "You're the chosen hero who will save the universe!" stories. If I'm supposed to be the chosen one I don't want to see 50 other chosen ones with mostly stupid names all running around town.
I'm skeptical that MMOs can ever be used as a great storytelling medium especially for typical "You're the chosen hero who will save the universe!" stories. If I'm supposed to be the chosen one I don't want to see 50 other chosen ones with mostly stupid names all running around town.
You don't have to, if the story part is all done in instances.
Then the town is no different than a lobby for pvp games ... not unlike CoD, and other online games with both a SP campaign, and some other MP game modes.
Meh, games that aren't MMOs by definition of core features are using the namesake. The genre isn't foresaking it's core definition; that'd be like FPSs foregoing the first-person view because, "many players like having a wider viewing range." Once you change the core, it's a different genre. MOBAs and lobby games are no more massively multiplayer than are the Battlefield and Borderlands series. If you're defining a game by its core features, MMOs are still exactly what the name implies. But if you're speaking of MOBAs and lobby games using the namesake, you're right; it's for convenience and nothing more. I don't consider that changing the genre itself.
Originally posted by MadFrenchie Meh, games that aren't MMOs by definition of core features are using the namesake. The genre isn't foresaking it's core definition; that'd be like FPSs foregoing the first-person view because, "many players like having a wider viewing range." Once you change the core, it's a different genre. MOBAs and lobby games are no more massively multiplayer than are the Battlefield and Borderlands series. If you're defining a game by its core features, MMOs are still exactly what the name implies. But if you're speaking of MOBAs and lobby games using the namesake, you're right; it's for convenience and nothing more. I don't consider that changing the genre itself.
May be because the core features are no longer that attractive and the genre needs to broaden to survive (or just be successful)?
This happens all the time. The genre "adventure" has been broadened from the original point & click (which almost died but revived recently) to "action adventure" like DMC and GoW.
And if you just interpret the word "massively" .. clearly a lobby game can match you with a massively population of players. MOST MMO gameplay (dungeons, raids ...) are not massive anyway .. so i doubt many care.
No, a lobby game doesn't. Battlefield is a lobby game. As is Warframe. Neither are MMOs, nor are any classified as such. Nor is The Last of Us considered an MMO because it has 4 on 4 multiplayer.
Massively multiplayer online games implied a specific feature: that they are massively multiplayer. Distinguished from multiplayer games by the amount of players that could interact at the same time in the same gameworld. Much like first-person shooters are distinguished from third-person shooters by a very measurable quality.
"Adventure" isn't nearly as clear a label. Most RPG games have major adventure elements. Skyrim can be argued to be a much more "adventurous" game than is DMC. However, it could never be construed as multiplayer. Nor could The Last of Us multiplayer mode, with only 8 player matches, ever be construed as "massively multiplayer." And if Battlefield's 64 player battles don't qualify it as an MMO, it's downright silly to imply a game that pits 5 players against another 5 (MOBAs) as MMOs.
Originally posted by MadFrenchie No, a lobby game doesn't. Battlefield is a lobby game. As is Warframe. Neither are MMOs, nor are any classified as such. Nor is The Last of Us considered an MMO because it has 4 on 4 multiplayer.
LoL is classifed as a MMO. It is a lobby game.
WoT is classified as a MMO. It is a lobby game.
Vindictus is classified as a MMO, it is a lobby game.
GW1 is classified as a MMO, it is a lobby game.
Heck, WoW is mostly a lobby game at end-game, the city is mainly used as a lobby.
Sure .. some lobby games are not classified as MMOs .. but so what. It is not like people are using the "MMO" label with any rigorous definition anyway.
It's not like you are, you mean. Nor are gaming sites that use it for convenience and/or per request from game developers for marketing purposes. But for its true definition as a genre, it is very clear. And games that do not allow a substantially larger player base to interact freely and simultaneously than the merely online multiplayer game are not MMOs, by definition.
That isn't going to change. You can call Slipknot simply, "contemporary rock music" when talking to Foo Fighters fans if you think that will make them more likely to try it. It does not, however, change the definition of contemporary rock to include heavy metal.
Originally posted by MadFrenchie No, a lobby game doesn't. Battlefield is a lobby game. As is Warframe. Neither are MMOs, nor are any classified as such. Nor is The Last of Us considered an MMO because it has 4 on 4 multiplayer.
LoL is classifed as a MMO. It is a lobby game.
WoT is classified as a MMO. It is a lobby game.
Vindictus is classified as a MMO, it is a lobby game.
GW1 is classified as a MMO, it is a lobby game.
Heck, WoW is mostly a lobby game at end-game, the city is mainly used as a lobby.
Sure .. some lobby games are not classified as MMOs .. but so what. It is not like people are using the "MMO" label with any rigorous definition anyway.
All that does is prove that people have no idea wtf the acronym means.
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Comments
This _is_ a system where usage improves stats and skills used, lol. For example, doing actions that require physical strength is the easiest way to gain strength stat points as well as points in whatever specific physical skill you are using. Chopping things with a sword will not make you better at magic.
I don't agree with that at all. I think MMOs have tremendous potential for telling individualized interactive stories in a shared world. The day MMOs quit even trying to tell stories is the day I quit playing MMOs. You can have an emergent narrative with a paper and pencil or some blocks and action figures; that kind of sandboxy play doesn't require a virtual world environment at all, and it doesn't use even half the potential of the video game medium. Story poor worlds feel as dead to me as the the type of games the OP is complaining about feeling dead to them.
Could we just get an mmo that gives us the feeling like we are being on a journey?
And by journey i mean something else than grinding to xy lvl then get the best gear before the next content is coming.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
nah .. they just don't use instances, and phasing well enough. If they put enough scripting into instances ... there should be little difference between that, and SP games, which can tell good stories.
well, MMO is already turning into another genre, just that it is keeping its name for convenience.
And even still SWTOR stopped putting money into expanding its personal story and even with all the money they did originally put into it it still just feels like a poor man's single player RPG to me padded out by typical boring MMO quests.
I'm skeptical that MMOs can ever be used as a great storytelling medium especially for typical "You're the chosen hero who will save the universe!" stories. If I'm supposed to be the chosen one I don't want to see 50 other chosen ones with mostly stupid names all running around town.
You don't have to, if the story part is all done in instances.
Then the town is no different than a lobby for pvp games ... not unlike CoD, and other online games with both a SP campaign, and some other MP game modes.
May be because the core features are no longer that attractive and the genre needs to broaden to survive (or just be successful)?
This happens all the time. The genre "adventure" has been broadened from the original point & click (which almost died but revived recently) to "action adventure" like DMC and GoW.
And if you just interpret the word "massively" .. clearly a lobby game can match you with a massively population of players. MOST MMO gameplay (dungeons, raids ...) are not massive anyway .. so i doubt many care.
Massively multiplayer online games implied a specific feature: that they are massively multiplayer. Distinguished from multiplayer games by the amount of players that could interact at the same time in the same gameworld. Much like first-person shooters are distinguished from third-person shooters by a very measurable quality.
"Adventure" isn't nearly as clear a label. Most RPG games have major adventure elements. Skyrim can be argued to be a much more "adventurous" game than is DMC. However, it could never be construed as multiplayer. Nor could The Last of Us multiplayer mode, with only 8 player matches, ever be construed as "massively multiplayer." And if Battlefield's 64 player battles don't qualify it as an MMO, it's downright silly to imply a game that pits 5 players against another 5 (MOBAs) as MMOs.
LoL is classifed as a MMO. It is a lobby game.
WoT is classified as a MMO. It is a lobby game.
Vindictus is classified as a MMO, it is a lobby game.
GW1 is classified as a MMO, it is a lobby game.
Heck, WoW is mostly a lobby game at end-game, the city is mainly used as a lobby.
Sure .. some lobby games are not classified as MMOs .. but so what. It is not like people are using the "MMO" label with any rigorous definition anyway.
That isn't going to change. You can call Slipknot simply, "contemporary rock music" when talking to Foo Fighters fans if you think that will make them more likely to try it. It does not, however, change the definition of contemporary rock to include heavy metal.
All that does is prove that people have no idea wtf the acronym means.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/