One of the discussion around the 'checkpoint' is this preference to make sure progress isn't lost, I feel. And it isn't about people who 'only have 15mins', but about people who cannot commit to longer than 30mins.
I have 2 toddlers. There is no way I can commit to any long length of time. But if the content is bite sized, I can play for 25 mins and if I am called away, all i've lost is 10mins. Compare this to EVE where a 2 hour slosh op is normal.
It shows what PvP games are really all about, and no, it's not about more realism and immersion. It's about cowards hiding behind a screen to they can bully other defenseless players without any risk of direct retaliation like there would be if they acted like asshats in "real life". -Jean-Luc_Picard
Life itself is a game. So why shouldn't your game be ruined? - justmemyselfandi
No that had nothing to do with sandboxes, what's he opportunity cost of spending 20 mins a day on above in terms of power loss or equivelant in garrisons?
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Originally posted by JohnP0100 I feel like there are 2 train of thought here.1. The games cited EVE-Online / Archeage doesn't represent Sandboxes well. 2. The activities within them are separate from the 'sandbox'.
Marvels of inductive reasoning...
Is there any point in this thread if you keep refusing arguments pointing out your premise being false?
Is there any point in this thread if you keep refusing arguments pointing out your premise being false?
Apologies but I don't see much point in engaging a discussion with someone who resorts to personal insults because they can't form a coherent argument / sentence.
It shows what PvP games are really all about, and no, it's not about more realism and immersion. It's about cowards hiding behind a screen to they can bully other defenseless players without any risk of direct retaliation like there would be if they acted like asshats in "real life". -Jean-Luc_Picard
Life itself is a game. So why shouldn't your game be ruined? - justmemyselfandi
So the issue is not all of these games allow people to have fun in small bites, and that's a large factor in why they meet with such limited success.
I agree with that statement. Such is the case with a niche genre. Which, let's be honest, is exactly what the MMORPG genre really is in North America. Other than the outlier WoW, the genre has never enjoyed mainstream success. In no small part due to the sentence quoted above.
MMORPGs aren't conducive to competing with singleplayer RPGs or smaller-scale PvP games because MMORPGs almost always require a more significant time investment to reach the most intricate and deeply satisfying gameplay experiences. When you say "I can log in and LFR in 30 minutes," you're ignoring the time required to reach the point of raiding. The extended "tutorial" that is the leveling process is quite the put off for many gamers these days. Even in themeparks, this is true. Has anyone ever considered the newbie zone in an MMO a richer experience than, say, the first 30 minutes of any of the Dead Space series? The first round of the new CoD multiplayer? The introduction sequence of The Last of Us?
I'll enjoy the shift in development back towards the inherent strengths of the genre.
I don't agree that MMOs can't offer gameplay superior to single player games.
SWTOR has better stories than most single games in the market; certainly compared to the dreadful story in Dead Space.
Why not gameplay?
Having time investment is fine but the thread is about asking 'can that time investment be done in small chunks for sandbox MMOs'?
It shows what PvP games are really all about, and no, it's not about more realism and immersion. It's about cowards hiding behind a screen to they can bully other defenseless players without any risk of direct retaliation like there would be if they acted like asshats in "real life". -Jean-Luc_Picard
Life itself is a game. So why shouldn't your game be ruined? - justmemyselfandi
One of the perceptions surrounding 'Sandbox / old school' MMOs is that they do not cater to people who can only play in small chunks.
Sandbox? Well, I've played EVE before and no, 15-20mins of 'playing' doesn't work. Gate-camps? 1-3 hours, Structure bashing op? 1-3 hours. Heaven forbid if you are crazy enough to get into 'logistics' cause that's 2 hours (plus 2 hours outside the game). The only 15-20mins activity are niche PVE stuff and PVE in EVE-O is literally the worst.
So what is the reason for this? Why does it seem like 'bite sized' and 'sandbox' don't work?
EVE DOES support small fights and small skirmishes.
You just did not take the effort to find the right people or just followed the FOTM corp/alliance.
"going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"
EVE DOES support small fights and small skirmishes.
You just did not take the effort to find the right people or just followed the FOTM corp/alliance.
I'm pretty sure even small skirmishes takes more than 15-20mins to find / conclude.
Small skirmishes also have a chance on becoming 'oh god! Titans titans titans!' - 23 hour fight till downtime!!!!
Jeez, is this 'Grrrr Goons'?
It shows what PvP games are really all about, and no, it's not about more realism and immersion. It's about cowards hiding behind a screen to they can bully other defenseless players without any risk of direct retaliation like there would be if they acted like asshats in "real life". -Jean-Luc_Picard
Life itself is a game. So why shouldn't your game be ruined? - justmemyselfandi
Originally posted by Stone_Fountain FIrst off, if I only have 20 minutes I am likely NOT going to jump into an MMORPG unless it is LOTRO or SWTOR or something like this. Sandboxes have crafting and other things also so if you just set your character where it needs to be to log on and do what you need to do it can be done but I'm not sure that your posted topic makes much sense to even bring up. I can't even do a run through in Diablo in 20 minutes most times. or a dungeon crawl in Icewind Dale or even a witch hunt in Salem unless I die right away.
Exactly!
I just do not get players who have the "I have 15-20 minutes to play, guess I'll log into <MMO title>." attitude. How different is this from, "We have 1 hour, while the kids are at their friends. Let's go see a movie." It ain't gonna happen.
This piggybacks onto the very vilified "downtime." Downtime allows players to do the real life things that pop up while playing a game, therefor lengthening the time available to play enormously.
Solitaire, Minesweeper, or Freecell takes 15-20 minutes. A single player game (with saves) can take 15-20 minutes.
In an MMO, unless you have a specific activity like checking the Auction House or doing some crafting, there is not a lot a player can accomplish in 15-30 minutes. Heck, logging in can take a few minutes, especially if there is an update
- 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
MMO with short play sessions would be new and strange, but we are going for exactly that in our game.
In order to accomplish this, we are focus on two areas, time and asynchronous.
For time, we made our game mobile friendly, dungeons smaller, quests shorter, log-out instant, and puzzles relatively straightforward. Players can make progress while waiting for the bus.
For asynchronous, we made your friends list and pet list sources of power. Friend's avatar, even while offline, can be used to fight monsters, buf, and heal (their class dependent). Pets have their own abilities that show up as extra actions, like a buck's 'Gore'
MMO with short play sessions would be new and strange...
...because it would be a lot like most MMOs prior to World of Warcraft.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I just do not get players who have the "I have 15-20 minutes to play, guess I'll log into ." attitude. How different is this from, "We have 1 hour, while the kids are at their friends. Let's go see a movie." It ain't gonna happen.
This piggybacks onto the very vilified "downtime." Downtime allows players to do the real life things that pop up while playing a game, therefor lengthening the time available to play enormously.
Solitaire, Minesweeper, or Freecell takes 15-20 minutes. A single player game (with saves) can take 15-20 minutes.
In an MMO, unless you have a specific activity like checking the Auction House or doing some crafting, there is not a lot a player can accomplish in 15-30 minutes. Heck, logging in can take a few minutes, especially if there is an update
But...
We have movies which can be enjoyed in less than an hour. They're called TV shows. The best serial TV shows are more enjoyable than movies (since they're essentially extra-long movies which get more time to develop characters and plot at a rate that doesn't feel artificially rushed to fit in a movie.)
Downtime doesn't help games fit into peoples' lives. Downtime forcibly wastes players' time, whether they're ready for a break or not.
Conversely, short-sessions definitely do help games fit into peoples' lives, allowing them to do something meaningful in 15-20 minutes. Got more time? Do more content. Want a break? Take one between chunks of content!
Short sessions put the player in control.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I just do not get players who have the "I have 15-20 minutes to play, guess I'll log into ." attitude. How different is this from, "We have 1 hour, while the kids are at their friends. Let's go see a movie." It ain't gonna happen.
This piggybacks onto the very vilified "downtime." Downtime allows players to do the real life things that pop up while playing a game, therefor lengthening the time available to play enormously.
Solitaire, Minesweeper, or Freecell takes 15-20 minutes. A single player game (with saves) can take 15-20 minutes.
In an MMO, unless you have a specific activity like checking the Auction House or doing some crafting, there is not a lot a player can accomplish in 15-30 minutes. Heck, logging in can take a few minutes, especially if there is an update
I thought I mentioned it before, this isn't 'I only have 15-20mins to play'. It is 'I MIGHT have 15-20mins to play'.
It is not the length that is the issue, the issue is the amount of continuous length.
I can probably play video games 2 hours a night. I would have no idea on how many interruptions and how long the interruptions would be though. When your 8 month old is crying, it is 'jump out of the chair and run'.
Hence why we are talking about checkpoints / activities.
It shows what PvP games are really all about, and no, it's not about more realism and immersion. It's about cowards hiding behind a screen to they can bully other defenseless players without any risk of direct retaliation like there would be if they acted like asshats in "real life". -Jean-Luc_Picard
Life itself is a game. So why shouldn't your game be ruined? - justmemyselfandi
log on to spend and join pvp or better wvw for 20 mins Logon and craft Logon and gather, fish, explore (assuming your virtual world works, hunting for resources,lore,skills,artifacts etc) Logon and quest (either with your main in the case of games like eve/eso/gw2 or alts) Logon and do a solo instance.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Originally posted by AlBQuirky Exactly!I just do not get players who have the "I have 15-20 minutes to play, guess I'll log into ." attitude. How different is this from, "We have 1 hour, while the kids are at their friends. Let's go see a movie." It ain't gonna happen.This piggybacks onto the very vilified "downtime." Downtime allows players to do the real life things that pop up while playing a game, therefor lengthening the time available to play enormously.Solitaire, Minesweeper, or Freecell takes 15-20 minutes. A single player game (with saves) can take 15-20 minutes.In an MMO, unless you have a specific activity like checking the Auction House or doing some crafting, there is not a lot a player can accomplish in 15-30 minutes. Heck, logging in can take a few minutes, especially if there is an update
But... We have movies which can be enjoyed in less than an hour. They're called TV shows. The best serial TV shows are more enjoyable than movies (since they're essentially extra-long movies which get more time to develop characters and plot at a rate that doesn't feel artificially rushed to fit in a movie.) Downtime doesn't help games fit into peoples' lives. Downtime forcibly wastes players' time, whether they're ready for a break or not. Conversely, short-sessions definitely do help games fit into peoples' lives, allowing them to do something meaningful in 15-20 minutes. Got more time? Do more content. Want a break? Take one between chunks of content!Short sessions put the player in control.
But...
There are "other" games a player can play. I listed 3 of them. There are millions more, none of them MMOs.
We will never agree on downtime. You despise and I enjoy it
"Fitting into players lives." All well and good on paper and "single player games." In games where any singular player is not the be-all, end-all, they need to fit the games into their lives, or play single player games. Once a player logs into an MMO, they are no longer playing a game that ONLY they play.
I will agree that short sessions put the player in control. However, I have yet to find an MMO that FORCED me stay logged in past any time I desired to log out. Have you found differently?
Now, other players have kept me logged in past a time that I wanted to log off. It is the way I am that I will not leave players in my group high and dry in the midst of a battle.
In old EQ, players in groups came and went regularly. Players logged in for whatever time they had, got into a group, and played until they had to log off. The thing in that game was that most of the players were seeking groups so the vacancies were easily filled. Many times there were "lists" that group leaders had of players waiting to get into a group. As openings came, players were notified. Sometimes they had left to do other things or got into another group or simply logged off. Next name on the list.
I am grinning right now thinking of the ages of some of those players... "Mom says I need to eat NOW!" was a common statement in group chats
- 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 AlBQuirky Exactly!I just do not get players who have the "I have 15-20 minutes to play, guess I'll log into ." attitude. How different is this from, "We have 1 hour, while the kids are at their friends. Let's go see a movie." It ain't gonna happen.This piggybacks onto the very vilified "downtime." Downtime allows players to do the real life things that pop up while playing a game, therefor lengthening the time available to play enormously.Solitaire, Minesweeper, or Freecell takes 15-20 minutes. A single player game (with saves) can take 15-20 minutes.In an MMO, unless you have a specific activity like checking the Auction House or doing some crafting, there is not a lot a player can accomplish in 15-30 minutes. Heck, logging in can take a few minutes, especially if there is an update
I thought I mentioned it before, this isn't 'I only have 15-20mins to play'. It is 'I MIGHT have 15-20mins to play'.It is not the length that is the issue, the issue is the amount of continuous length.I can probably play video games 2 hours a night. I would have no idea on how many interruptions and how long the interruptions would be though. When your 8 month old is crying, it is 'jump out of the chair and run'.Hence why we are talking about checkpoints / activities.
I do understand that. But MMOs are not about "checkpoints." That is a single player thing.
Activities are another ball of wax There are some a player can do in MMOs in a short "bite-sized" chunk. Many have been mentioned. And there are some that a player need not even look at of they have a limited time to play, like dungeon crawling with a group.
The point being, if a player realizes they do not have a lot of time to play in a certain session, they really should look at another genre for the time they do have. It is not fair to the other players in the MMO if one wants to involve them.
This is the crux of my point with Axehilt. MMOs are about other players, not any one singular player. We live in a "Massively ME" society right now. I can understand players desiring a "Massively Multi-Player" game to cater to them, but is that realistic for the genre?
- 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
I think one of the major underlying differences between sandbox and themepark activities often lies in the fact that themepark activities are "well encapsulated" whereas sandbox activities tend to not be.
Sandboxes tend to be "virtual worlds" where things are less predictable and less regulated. You may set out to do some mining, but something may happen along the way. And there often is travel time involved (i.e virtual world simulation), so "along the way" actually is a thing. And if a castle takes 36 man-hours of effort to build, nobody will be happy if it can be knocked down in 30 minutes...
Modern themeparks have loads of bite-sized content. If you want to do a certain quest, just fast-travel to the closest point and do the quest. Queue for a dungeon or BG and insta-port right to where the action is. Very little can interfere with that, unless you're playing on a PVP server where you may get ganked while doing the quest.
I do understand that. But MMOs are not about "checkpoints." That is a single player thing.
Activities are another ball of wax There are some a player can do in MMOs in a short "bite-sized" chunk. Many have been mentioned. And there are some that a player need not even look at of they have a limited time to play, like dungeon crawling with a group.
The point being, if a player realizes they do not have a lot of time to play in a certain session, they really should look at another genre for the time they do have. It is not fair to the other players in the MMO if one wants to involve them.
This is the crux of my point with Axehilt. MMOs are about other players, not any one singular player. We live in a "Massively ME" society right now. I can understand players desiring a "Massively Multi-Player" game to cater to them, but is that realistic for the genre?
I think that is the reality to be honest. Putting people in control will always be more popular than not.
What this thread is looking at though is, does 'sandbox' prevent that?
Themeparks went down the 'bite sized content' path.
Why can't Sandbox?
It shows what PvP games are really all about, and no, it's not about more realism and immersion. It's about cowards hiding behind a screen to they can bully other defenseless players without any risk of direct retaliation like there would be if they acted like asshats in "real life". -Jean-Luc_Picard
Life itself is a game. So why shouldn't your game be ruined? - justmemyselfandi
I think one of the major underlying differences between sandbox and themepark activities often lies in the fact that themepark activities are "well encapsulated" whereas sandbox activities tend to not be.
Sandboxes tend to be "virtual worlds" where things are less predictable and less regulated. You may set out to do some mining, but something may happen along the way. And there often is travel time involved (i.e virtual world simulation), so "along the way" actually is a thing. And if a castle takes 36 man-hours of effort to build, nobody will be happy if it can be knocked down in 30 minutes...
Modern themeparks have loads of bite-sized content. If you want to do a certain quest, just fast-travel to the closest point and do the quest. Queue for a dungeon or BG and insta-port right to where the action is. Very little can interfere with that, unless you're playing on a PVP server where you may get ganked while doing the quest.
I like this post.
If the design of a sandbox inherently means 'virtual worlds', I think that'll prevent content from being broken down.
We all know how 'I'll just pick this up tomorrow at the city' can lead to hilarious situations in real life.
It shows what PvP games are really all about, and no, it's not about more realism and immersion. It's about cowards hiding behind a screen to they can bully other defenseless players without any risk of direct retaliation like there would be if they acted like asshats in "real life". -Jean-Luc_Picard
Life itself is a game. So why shouldn't your game be ruined? - justmemyselfandi
There are "other" games a player can play. I listed 3 of them. There are millions more, none of them MMOs.
We will never agree on downtime. You despise and I enjoy it
"Fitting into players lives." All well and good on paper and "single player games." In games where any singular player is not the be-all, end-all, they need to fit the games into their lives, or play single player games. Once a player logs into an MMO, they are no longer playing a game that ONLY they play.
I will agree that short sessions put the player in control. However, I have yet to find an MMO that FORCED me stay logged in past any time I desired to log out. Have you found differently?
Now, other players have kept me logged in past a time that I wanted to log off. It is the way I am that I will not leave players in my group high and dry in the midst of a battle.
In old EQ, players in groups came and went regularly. Players logged in for whatever time they had, got into a group, and played until they had to log off. The thing in that game was that most of the players were seeking groups so the vacancies were easily filled. Many times there were "lists" that group leaders had of players waiting to get into a group. As openings came, players were notified. Sometimes they had left to do other things or got into another group or simply logged off. Next name on the list.
I am grinning right now thinking of the ages of some of those players... "Mom says I need to eat NOW!" was a common statement in group chats
Er, the traits I described aren't actually something you can disagree with. It's more describing the underlying mathematical truth of it all. For any player who needs to take breaks at any random sets of time, short-session games will allow them to play the game and more consistently find fun than long-session games, or games with mandatory downtime.
There's basically no solid reason not to fit into those busy players' lives. The purpose of games is to entertain. A rigid design which refuses to yield to the ways players are able to be entertained will entertain less. A fluid design which adapts its shape to fit in each player's life will entertain more. Shorter sessions are the easiest way for games to adapt in that manner. It's sort of like Bruce Lee's "be like water" philosophy, except instead of a person adapting to their environment, it's the game's design adapting to its environment.
Until you present a reason not to fit into those players' lives, the reasons you want this are most likely one of these:
Change-hating / nostalgia. "Things used to be one way. Now they're not. I hate that."
Maintain the advantage! "They don't fit into those players' lives, but they fit into mine, so this gives me a gameplay advantage, and you shouldn't take that."
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Themeparks went down the 'bite sized content' path.
Why can't Sandbox?
It's already been mentioned by several that sandbox style MMOs do have that. Can you give us examples of the sandbox MMOs you've played, so we can see why you are so rigid about this rather false premise you are basing this on?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
EVE DOES support small fights and small skirmishes.
You just did not take the effort to find the right people or just followed the FOTM corp/alliance.
I'm pretty sure even small skirmishes takes more than 15-20mins to find / conclude.
Small skirmishes also have a chance on becoming 'oh god! Titans titans titans!' - 23 hour fight till downtime!!!!
Jeez, is this 'Grrrr Goons'?
In EVE you can do everything, get 2-3 friends, go into a fight, I doubt they last longer then 2 minutes.
I have been playing since beta and never stopped, and I have been in many battles that lasted up to 12 hours and I have been in thousands of skirmishes solo and small gang, which could last from 2 seconds to 2 minutes.
So when someone says EVE fights last too long, I can not take that statement serious and that certain poster usually has sat in large gangs waiting for a fleet commander to shout orders before calling it a day.
If you sit in capitals doign small figths doing not-so-smart things, then yes, you are a juicy target for a bored supercap pilot and you migth end up as content filler and thus a escalation. When you are doing small skirmishes, the big blobs should not be able to get you anyway. And if they do, the fight is over fast anyway.
The only long fights in EVE are when you are using capitals or fight in big blobs.
But when you sit in (super)capitals and/or blobs you open up the window for a escalation and a long fight yourself.
"going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"
Themeparks (some of them). Went down the guarantee-a-reward per bite size, and tries to break everything down by design into small reward giving bites. Sandboxes offers freedom to take any size bite you like and doesn't punish you through opportunity cost if you define your own goals.
Aside from this, as above this thread was answered early on, both support bites.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Comments
One of the discussion around the 'checkpoint' is this preference to make sure progress isn't lost, I feel. And it isn't about people who 'only have 15mins', but about people who cannot commit to longer than 30mins.
I have 2 toddlers. There is no way I can commit to any long length of time. But if the content is bite sized, I can play for 25 mins and if I am called away, all i've lost is 10mins. Compare this to EVE where a 2 hour slosh op is normal.
It shows what PvP games are really all about, and no, it's not about more realism and immersion. It's about cowards hiding behind a screen to they can bully other defenseless players without any risk of direct retaliation like there would be if they acted like asshats in "real life". -Jean-Luc_Picard
Life itself is a game. So why shouldn't your game be ruined? - justmemyselfandi
There are sandbox bite sized contents .
Plant trees , few minutes ,
chop trees , few minutes ,
mining , few minutes
Crafting , few minutes
kill some mob for materials , few minutes
Play with your pet , few minute ... wait , this not sandbox ... right ?
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
Marvels of inductive reasoning...
Is there any point in this thread if you keep refusing arguments pointing out your premise being false?
Apologies but I don't see much point in engaging a discussion with someone who resorts to personal insults because they can't form a coherent argument / sentence.
It shows what PvP games are really all about, and no, it's not about more realism and immersion. It's about cowards hiding behind a screen to they can bully other defenseless players without any risk of direct retaliation like there would be if they acted like asshats in "real life". -Jean-Luc_Picard
Life itself is a game. So why shouldn't your game be ruined? - justmemyselfandi
I don't agree that MMOs can't offer gameplay superior to single player games.
SWTOR has better stories than most single games in the market; certainly compared to the dreadful story in Dead Space.
Why not gameplay?
Having time investment is fine but the thread is about asking 'can that time investment be done in small chunks for sandbox MMOs'?
It shows what PvP games are really all about, and no, it's not about more realism and immersion. It's about cowards hiding behind a screen to they can bully other defenseless players without any risk of direct retaliation like there would be if they acted like asshats in "real life". -Jean-Luc_Picard
Life itself is a game. So why shouldn't your game be ruined? - justmemyselfandi
EVE DOES support small fights and small skirmishes.
You just did not take the effort to find the right people or just followed the FOTM corp/alliance.
"going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"
I'm pretty sure even small skirmishes takes more than 15-20mins to find / conclude.
Small skirmishes also have a chance on becoming 'oh god! Titans titans titans!' - 23 hour fight till downtime!!!!
Jeez, is this 'Grrrr Goons'?
It shows what PvP games are really all about, and no, it's not about more realism and immersion. It's about cowards hiding behind a screen to they can bully other defenseless players without any risk of direct retaliation like there would be if they acted like asshats in "real life". -Jean-Luc_Picard
Life itself is a game. So why shouldn't your game be ruined? - justmemyselfandi
I just do not get players who have the "I have 15-20 minutes to play, guess I'll log into <MMO title>." attitude. How different is this from, "We have 1 hour, while the kids are at their friends. Let's go see a movie." It ain't gonna happen.
This piggybacks onto the very vilified "downtime." Downtime allows players to do the real life things that pop up while playing a game, therefor lengthening the time available to play enormously.
Solitaire, Minesweeper, or Freecell takes 15-20 minutes. A single player game (with saves) can take 15-20 minutes.
In an MMO, unless you have a specific activity like checking the Auction House or doing some crafting, there is not a lot a player can accomplish in 15-30 minutes. Heck, logging in can take a few minutes, especially if there is an update
- 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
MMO with short play sessions would be new and strange, but we are going for exactly that in our game.
In order to accomplish this, we are focus on two areas, time and asynchronous.
For time, we made our game mobile friendly, dungeons smaller, quests shorter, log-out instant, and puzzles relatively straightforward. Players can make progress while waiting for the bus.
For asynchronous, we made your friends list and pet list sources of power. Friend's avatar, even while offline, can be used to fight monsters, buf, and heal (their class dependent). Pets have their own abilities that show up as extra actions, like a buck's 'Gore'
-WL
Werewolf Online(R) - Lead Developer
...because it would be a lot like most MMOs prior to World of Warcraft.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
But...
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I thought I mentioned it before, this isn't 'I only have 15-20mins to play'. It is 'I MIGHT have 15-20mins to play'.
It is not the length that is the issue, the issue is the amount of continuous length.
I can probably play video games 2 hours a night. I would have no idea on how many interruptions and how long the interruptions would be though. When your 8 month old is crying, it is 'jump out of the chair and run'.
Hence why we are talking about checkpoints / activities.
It shows what PvP games are really all about, and no, it's not about more realism and immersion. It's about cowards hiding behind a screen to they can bully other defenseless players without any risk of direct retaliation like there would be if they acted like asshats in "real life". -Jean-Luc_Picard
Life itself is a game. So why shouldn't your game be ruined? - justmemyselfandi
log on to spend and join pvp or better wvw for 20 mins
Logon and craft
Logon and gather, fish, explore (assuming your virtual world works, hunting for resources,lore,skills,artifacts etc)
Logon and quest (either with your main in the case of games like eve/eso/gw2 or alts)
Logon and do a solo instance.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
There are "other" games a player can play. I listed 3 of them. There are millions more, none of them MMOs.
We will never agree on downtime. You despise and I enjoy it
"Fitting into players lives." All well and good on paper and "single player games." In games where any singular player is not the be-all, end-all, they need to fit the games into their lives, or play single player games. Once a player logs into an MMO, they are no longer playing a game that ONLY they play.
I will agree that short sessions put the player in control. However, I have yet to find an MMO that FORCED me stay logged in past any time I desired to log out. Have you found differently?
Now, other players have kept me logged in past a time that I wanted to log off. It is the way I am that I will not leave players in my group high and dry in the midst of a battle.
In old EQ, players in groups came and went regularly. Players logged in for whatever time they had, got into a group, and played until they had to log off. The thing in that game was that most of the players were seeking groups so the vacancies were easily filled. Many times there were "lists" that group leaders had of players waiting to get into a group. As openings came, players were notified. Sometimes they had left to do other things or got into another group or simply logged off. Next name on the list.
I am grinning right now thinking of the ages of some of those players... "Mom says I need to eat NOW!" was a common statement in group chats
- 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
Activities are another ball of wax
There are some a player can do in MMOs in a short "bite-sized" chunk. Many have been mentioned. And there are some that a player need not even look at of they have a limited time to play, like dungeon crawling with a group.
The point being, if a player realizes they do not have a lot of time to play in a certain session, they really should look at another genre for the time they do have. It is not fair to the other players in the MMO if one wants to involve them.
This is the crux of my point with Axehilt. MMOs are about other players, not any one singular player. We live in a "Massively ME" society right now. I can understand players desiring a "Massively Multi-Player" game to cater to them, but is that realistic for the genre?
- 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
I think one of the major underlying differences between sandbox and themepark activities often lies in the fact that themepark activities are "well encapsulated" whereas sandbox activities tend to not be.
Sandboxes tend to be "virtual worlds" where things are less predictable and less regulated. You may set out to do some mining, but something may happen along the way. And there often is travel time involved (i.e virtual world simulation), so "along the way" actually is a thing. And if a castle takes 36 man-hours of effort to build, nobody will be happy if it can be knocked down in 30 minutes...
Modern themeparks have loads of bite-sized content. If you want to do a certain quest, just fast-travel to the closest point and do the quest. Queue for a dungeon or BG and insta-port right to where the action is. Very little can interfere with that, unless you're playing on a PVP server where you may get ganked while doing the quest.
I think that is the reality to be honest. Putting people in control will always be more popular than not.
What this thread is looking at though is, does 'sandbox' prevent that?
Themeparks went down the 'bite sized content' path.
Why can't Sandbox?
It shows what PvP games are really all about, and no, it's not about more realism and immersion. It's about cowards hiding behind a screen to they can bully other defenseless players without any risk of direct retaliation like there would be if they acted like asshats in "real life". -Jean-Luc_Picard
Life itself is a game. So why shouldn't your game be ruined? - justmemyselfandi
I like this post.
If the design of a sandbox inherently means 'virtual worlds', I think that'll prevent content from being broken down.
We all know how 'I'll just pick this up tomorrow at the city' can lead to hilarious situations in real life.
It shows what PvP games are really all about, and no, it's not about more realism and immersion. It's about cowards hiding behind a screen to they can bully other defenseless players without any risk of direct retaliation like there would be if they acted like asshats in "real life". -Jean-Luc_Picard
Life itself is a game. So why shouldn't your game be ruined? - justmemyselfandi
Er, the traits I described aren't actually something you can disagree with. It's more describing the underlying mathematical truth of it all. For any player who needs to take breaks at any random sets of time, short-session games will allow them to play the game and more consistently find fun than long-session games, or games with mandatory downtime.
There's basically no solid reason not to fit into those busy players' lives. The purpose of games is to entertain. A rigid design which refuses to yield to the ways players are able to be entertained will entertain less. A fluid design which adapts its shape to fit in each player's life will entertain more. Shorter sessions are the easiest way for games to adapt in that manner. It's sort of like Bruce Lee's "be like water" philosophy, except instead of a person adapting to their environment, it's the game's design adapting to its environment.
Until you present a reason not to fit into those players' lives, the reasons you want this are most likely one of these:
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
It's already been mentioned by several that sandbox style MMOs do have that. Can you give us examples of the sandbox MMOs you've played, so we can see why you are so rigid about this rather false premise you are basing this on?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
In EVE you can do everything, get 2-3 friends, go into a fight, I doubt they last longer then 2 minutes.
I have been playing since beta and never stopped, and I have been in many battles that lasted up to 12 hours and I have been in thousands of skirmishes solo and small gang, which could last from 2 seconds to 2 minutes.
So when someone says EVE fights last too long, I can not take that statement serious and that certain poster usually has sat in large gangs waiting for a fleet commander to shout orders before calling it a day.
If you sit in capitals doign small figths doing not-so-smart things, then yes, you are a juicy target for a bored supercap pilot and you migth end up as content filler and thus a escalation. When you are doing small skirmishes, the big blobs should not be able to get you anyway. And if they do, the fight is over fast anyway.
The only long fights in EVE are when you are using capitals or fight in big blobs.
But when you sit in (super)capitals and/or blobs you open up the window for a escalation and a long fight yourself.
"going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"
This argument was solved on the first page. Reread that. Then realize you are are all just arguing for arguments sake now.
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
Aside from this, as above this thread was answered early on, both support bites.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D