And horizontal health could also lead to weak spots in a combat mmo. Think about Doom with swords. Now imagine magic. You could actually aim your bolt of lightning avoiding the armor or at the metal chest piece instead of the leather arms. You could aim at the heart and shock the heart. You could aim at the fangs of a bear and break its teeth. You can't do that when you are critting for 1500 damage or 150% more its non critical in a combat scenerio. Games like these are already out there, mostly in FPS's some sandbox survival like H1 and Dayz and if refined to the T the mmo could be one of the greatest genre ever again and take the industry and make us fall in love all over again.
I predict the next big thing when it comes to an MMORPG will be a single instanced, small planet sized world. A game where millions play together in the same instance.
What im talking about is 20-30 years down the line. I believe its absolutely critical that games like WoW and other themeparks go down. I want to be 60 years old and still be playing mmo's. I care about the future. Stop giving Blizzard money. I SAY STOP IT.
I predict the next big thing when it comes to an MMORPG will be a single instanced, small planet sized world. A game where millions play together in the same instance.
I had a game designed like that. The risk is population drops or lack of population would make the game unworkable.
The solution I came to was make large portal connected portions of the world. The portions were bubble shielded and outside of the shield was instant death. It went with the lore.
Like that you could always close a portion if the population needed consolidation.
My ideas are based on realism yes. My idea is that im restless as it is and want to conquer the world, thats why i work so hard so why not open up something where i don't escape but embrace the challenges of the real world and to feel like a winner. Thats why i love hardcore games like Everquest. Its the best community of like minded people who like the challenges and adult atmosphere the game gives.
Certainly it's not impossible to capture a large audience with a new game, but it's becoming increasingly difficult to do so. Another trend setting game like Minecraft is just beyond rare, it will happen I'm sure but again - it's like winning lotto just miniscule chance of making one of those games. PvP comes in 2 flavors - balanced (which is fighting games, mobas, team arena, card games, rts, etc...) And unbalanced - due to disparity in numbers, gear, levels etc... which us MMO pvp. I agree with you there 100%. This is why I always chuckle at "balanced open world PvP" - it can't exist, it's an oxymoron
If you want skill based PvP, don't play MMOs
I think you actually can make something in between skill based and stat based. When a great player with bad stats can barely beat a lousy player with great stats you have something that would be acceptable as a MMO but still would offer fun combat.
You certainly need a small powergap for that, unlike most MMOs where you start as peasants and turn into demigods but I think it still would be fun and we are talking mainly PvP here, PvE is a very different kind of beast.
You can't have a perfectly balanced open PvP world, it just wouldn't be a MMO that way but you can have something that still offers fun combat.
I think that this exact question might be the problem with games. Maybe the focus should be on creating a strong game with no expectation of retention. Create a game that expands over time, through more frequent paid expansions, and that provides a ramp more along the lines of Destiny or The Division. By focusing on retention you're goal is to maximize time investment. This isn't done through content creation, though, it's done through increasing XP required for advancement. In the end, the locusts just end up grinding 3 or 4 different sets of mobs and everyone else is bored out of their tree. I think it used to be about creating a game that people will play exclusively. I don't think that's realistic now and developers who do this will ultimately fail to be successful.
A strong player focused game.
he current MMORPG sell grind gameplay. People doing boring stuff to just advance with it being the only point. It is why this genre is largely niche and abandoned in the west.
What are you defining as a player-focused game though? You mention that the themepark trend is the problem, but I'd wholeheartedly disagree with you on that. The implementation of that themepark may be problematic, but I don't think the themepark itself is the problem. I'm not even convinced that vertical progression is the problem. Again, the implementation might be a problem, but I don't think that the progression itself is a problem. There is plenty of evidence to support this, from Diablo to Destiny. Also, horizontal progression presents similar problems to vertical progression anyway.
Oooh a sandbox vs themepark discussion. You realize vertical progression is not aesthetically pleasing? Who wants to stare at numbers. You realize Virtual Reality will kill themeparks altogether? And realistically its not practical. I mean you can have stuff like armor integrity and "hitpoints" but horizontal can open up a whole can of possibilites like status effects like "dazed" "concussions" "internal bleeding" with no RNG only a tracking system. That is the future of mmo's and games. Sandbox Horizontal the future.
What I'm saying is that horizontal suffers from the same issues. There are still ideal builds with horizontal progression and there is no evidence that shows horizontal provides any sort of added variety. It might give the appearance of choice, but in the end you might as well be min/maxing. If you don't believe me then build a character with a build that is considered undesirable and try to group with people.
With regards to sandbox games, the data just doesn't support you. People can say as much as they want "Ohhhh, Minecraft is the perfect example, blah blah.", but in reality it's people creating themeparks within Minecraft that make it so popular. Sandboxes are most effective when they are tempered with themepark elements. Why? Well the mass market just isn't that interested in sandboxes. They'd much rather have something provided for them.
With regards to VR, I don't think VR is killing anything for at least a decade. As long as we're speculating futures, I'd go ahead and say that AR Pronhub will ultimately kill all gaming, entirely.
Im saying instead of increasing your hitpoints where you could take 1000 sword slashes you could do what EQNext was going to do which is make armor protect the body in various ways so when you get hit your health doesn't go down but the armor resource does. And it fluctuates and regenerates so the only guesswork done by the player is im getting hit multiple times and the armor isn't covering me at that time. You see, it's all aesthetics. They reality is you don't have skin like steel, you have steel covering you yes but i believe EQNext would have been one of the very few horizontal sandboxes out there if it was to ever be released.
I don't disagree with you, but what I'm saying is it's more concentrated on the implementation of such features. You can get the same affect from a robust vertical progression model, right? I mean you can call it what you want, but if sword slashes are what the gauge is, then everyone stacks into skills to take more slashes and perform more slashes. This is the main problem with the majority of vertical models right now as well. It's shallow game design and the removal of the idea of support.
That being said, realism isn't a requirement for me. I know there are people who love hunger mechanics in a game. That's not for me at all. However, I wouldn't mind a more interesting progression system, I'm just saying that horizontal can be designed just as poorly as vertical.
I think that this exact question might be the problem with games. Maybe the focus should be on creating a strong game with no expectation of retention. Create a game that expands over time, through more frequent paid expansions, and that provides a ramp more along the lines of Destiny or The Division. By focusing on retention you're goal is to maximize time investment. This isn't done through content creation, though, it's done through increasing XP required for advancement. In the end, the locusts just end up grinding 3 or 4 different sets of mobs and everyone else is bored out of their tree. I think it used to be about creating a game that people will play exclusively. I don't think that's realistic now and developers who do this will ultimately fail to be successful.
A strong player focused game.
he current MMORPG sell grind gameplay. People doing boring stuff to just advance with it being the only point. It is why this genre is largely niche and abandoned in the west.
What are you defining as a player-focused game though? You mention that the themepark trend is the problem, but I'd wholeheartedly disagree with you on that. The implementation of that themepark may be problematic, but I don't think the themepark itself is the problem. I'm not even convinced that vertical progression is the problem. Again, the implementation might be a problem, but I don't think that the progression itself is a problem. There is plenty of evidence to support this, from Diablo to Destiny. Also, horizontal progression presents similar problems to vertical progression anyway.
I disagree. The solutions to vast vertical progression all emulate horizontal or more accurately shallow vertical progression. Fast leveling, deleveling, side kicking, level scaling and etc all are just emulating "horizontal" progression.
You also turn you're content and world into fuel for progression which is burned through fast or slow depending on the strength of the grind.
I do agree about implementation of themepark. Themepark should compliment the players activities and sandbox.
Lol, sure, I would agree with you there. I think that both Destiny and The Division did this sort of thing very well and I think this was evidenced by the response of players. Like despite developers saying things like "this is not an MMO" players continue to refer to them in this same light and I think that's in part because this is what players envision an MMO being, to some extent.
I think that the measure of content has primarily been measured on the sheer amount of content, or how long to complete, but I think that for games which focus on "end-game" grinds, the focus should be on putting people there as quickly as possible, while still maintaining the integrity of your lore. This actually lends itself very well to sandbox gameplay but, similar to how themepark is a tired idea, I think that developers seem to want to over-complicate sandbox too. I mean it's quite simple, MMOs are being put to shame by games that aren't even MMOs for one singular reason. I am playing this game because I want to play with my friends now (or sometime soon). Please don't make me buy a game so I can play with my friends 4 months from now. That's what games like Destiny and The Division capture very well. It's like they understand the reason for people picking up a multiplayer game better than what the MMO developers do.
Consistently produce what they say they will. Every MMO promises so much and just ends up failing on delivery. Don't over promise. Don't under promise. Just tell the truth about what you are making. Don't make it pay to win and it will succeed. Find the middle ground. I doubt it will happen for a new game. But who knows. Maybe a developer will make a smart decision with marketing / executing a game for once in a long time.
People are still playin counter strike, using the same guns, and running around the exact same maps. In my opinion, the main drawback of mmo is a complete waste of resources. You are led from one area to another, never to reuse areas. Nwe content must constantly be created to keep people entertained. Meanwhile thousands of people play the same exact fps maps on an endless cycle.
If something is fun, repetition isn't a problem. This is where that dreaded word "grind" comes into play. If content isn't fun and must be repeated it becomes a grind. Once someone figures out how to cater to a large group of people consistently withough wasted resources, mmo will take off again. The current method of creating mmo is coming to an end. Companies simply can't afford to make a huge world with premium graphics and churn out completely new areas constantly...
When I read this I automatically think of Planetside 1. Yes we played the same maps, again and again. My Favorite was the snow cover map (Ceryshen?) that I played so rarely. PS1 was great content. The highest I got was level 20 (or 22 out of 25?). But that was a MMOFPS, for a MMORPG that revolves around progression and higher levels being greater than lower levels. I can see maps being reused if content scaled and was instanced I suppose.
What I am working on is tracking zone usage. If a zone is out of use, then spawn a dungeon (castle, keep, or fort). Guard it with Elite Max level mobs while it grows to completion. The dungeon won't spawn into the world complete, it will have to animate as being built or constructed. Once complete (1 - 3 weeks?) it would be ready for use. As an instanced scaled content dungeon or raid. After some time it will be conquered and despawn.
Or imaging a mid level map (levels 30-50) and an opposite faction player buys and puts down a faction base (similar to a faction fort, with NPCs and defenses). Now opposite factions can try open world PvP a kin to PS1 base capture.
Konfess your cyns and some maybe forgiven Boy: Why can't I talk to Him? Mom: We don't talk to Priests. As if it could exist, without being payed for. F2P means you get what you paid for. Pay nothing, get nothing. Even telemarketers wouldn't think that. It costs money to play. Therefore P2W.
I always believed action adventure would work better as a themepark than RPG. Action Adventure has the elements of RPG without the need to grind or end game.
Questing to level made developers "lazy." Need 100 hours of content. Let's make 20 hour main quest line with 80 hours of kill and collect quest. Player do boring task for progression rewards not because it's fun. The holy grail is the end game where the real grind... I mean game begins. 95% of content is basically unused in few months.
I'm not fond of the themepark vs sandbox argument. There are a few games, Elder Scrolls Online most notably, that do both. Using that as a template, I think any game can use strong elements of both types of gameplay, making the hard chargers and the explorers both very happy.
The world is going to the dogs, which is just how I planned it!
I'm not fond of the themepark vs sandbox argument. There are a few games, Elder Scrolls Online most notably, that do both. Using that as a template, I think any game can use strong elements of both types of gameplay, making the hard chargers and the explorers both very happy.
In what way is ESO sandbox. I don't think the genre will last long term in the west unless sandbox is harnessed. Having themeparks inside of Sandboxes will be the way of salvation lol.
I'm not fond of the themepark vs sandbox argument. There are a few games, Elder Scrolls Online most notably, that do both. Using that as a template, I think any game can use strong elements of both types of gameplay, making the hard chargers and the explorers both very happy.
In what way is ESO sandbox. I don't think the genre will last long term in the west unless sandbox is harnessed. Having themeparks inside of Sandboxes will be the way of salvation lol.
Go in any direction and you will run into side quest givers. Plus you can find all kinds of cool stuff just by going off the beaten path. I thought that was the definition of a sandbox, you can go anywhere you want to without being forced to follow a specific path. I have no doubt you could level cap without doing any of the main quest line, although that is the most efficient way to do so.
The world is going to the dogs, which is just how I planned it!
I'm not fond of the themepark vs sandbox argument. There are a few games, Elder Scrolls Online most notably, that do both. Using that as a template, I think any game can use strong elements of both types of gameplay, making the hard chargers and the explorers both very happy.
In what way is ESO sandbox. I don't think the genre will last long term in the west unless sandbox is harnessed. Having themeparks inside of Sandboxes will be the way of salvation lol.
Go in any direction and you will run into side quest givers. Plus you can find all kinds of cool stuff just by going off the beaten path. I thought that was the definition of a sandbox, you can go anywhere you want to without being forced to follow a specific path. I have no doubt you could level cap without doing any of the main quest line, although that is the most efficient way to do so.
I would not actually
I would consider the definition of a sandbox that contains the word 'quest giver' to be a sign that the author is missing the point. Not that quest givers cant be in sandboxes I am not saying that at all. I am suggesting however that it illustrates a 'boxed'' view.
as an exercise to students that I would never have I would say 'create a game design without using any existing features commonly known (aka no quests, no classes, no levels, hell no violence! no XP, no swords) and see what you come up with. Do that about 10 times THEN take the known items and start to mix them in.
Why? because that exercise doing it 10 time I hope would activate the brain to think outside of the box.
anyway...everyone has different definitions of sandbox and my definition and my expectations are not the same however I will say one definition that I think is a requirement is that one should be able to advance in the game as much as a quester without doing any quests
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I predict the next big thing when it comes to an MMORPG will be a single instanced, small planet sized world. A game where millions play together in the same instance.
I had a game designed like that. The risk is population drops or lack of population would make the game unworkable.
The solution I came to was make large portal connected portions of the world. The portions were bubble shielded and outside of the shield was instant death. It went with the lore.
Like that you could always close a portion if the population needed consolidation.
I think about a game like GTA V. Imagine if it was a copy of our world and everyone played in the same instance. Certain places (famous places) would be flooded with people. Other places you would be all alone. Rob a bank or go big game hunting, go Marlin fishing and play the real estate market. The possibilities could be endless.
I was thinking in the future a game would implement a permadeath feature, but instead of having of having a character life you could control many different characters at the same time. Inspired from the Dragon Age and Baldurs Gate series and from boxing in EQ i came up with an mmo which you travel, recruit people into your own party and in midfight you can switch control of people in your party and control them. Mainly an EQ boxing inspiration only the AI would take over your uncontrolled party members. Go into a tavern, hirepeople. Rename them. Switch and play tactical like your life depends on it because If all 4 of you die or you are left with one you don't like the game is over. No rezzing allowed.
Aside from your main heroes you have squires to help you travel and various aides like wagon boys to haul your loot or injured party members. You could have up to 12 people in your party but could only fight with 4 in a fight.
Catch: you could literally solo the game!
I want open world full loot pvp, sandbox, horizontal progression, permadeath, emergent AI. It could be named "Parties of Azeroth" or "Parties of Norrath" or whichever.
How about Warlords of Norrath or Warlords of Azeroth. Coming to a PC near you...
I was thinking in the future a game would implement a permadeath feature, but instead of having of having a character life you could control many different characters at the same time. Inspired from the Dragon Age and Baldurs Gate series and from boxing in EQ i came up with an mmo which you travel, recruit people into your own party and in midfight you can switch control of people in your party and control them. Mainly an EQ boxing inspiration only the AI would take over your uncontrolled party members. Go into a tavern, hirepeople. Rename them. Switch and play tactical like your life depends on it because If all 4 of you die or you are left with one you don't like the game is over. No rezzing allowed.
Aside from your main heroes you have squires to help you travel and various aides like wagon boys to haul your loot or injured party members. You could have up to 12 people in your party but could only fight with 4 in a fight.
Catch: you could literally solo the game!
I want open world full loot pvp, sandbox, horizontal progression, permadeath, emergent AI. It could be named "Parties of Azeroth" or "Parties of Norrath" or whichever.
How about Warlords of Norrath or Warlords of Azeroth. Coming to a PC near you...
I gave you an "Awesome" for the idea, but in an MMI I'd prefer a downsized thing, sort of.
-I love the idea of hirelings. All sorts, a player should build a homestead, build that to a castle. And a player should be allowed to play any of his hirelings. Limits to the numbers of Hirelings should be an economic thing, and make economic and wealth in-game mean a lot more.
-I'd rather keep "Hirelings" to a limited skill achievement.
-An account should have something like 5 character slots, and a player should be able to log in them all if he/she wants to, and switch between any of them at any time, or to their perma-world "Hirelings" if they are in range of an online "Character".
-Pretty much as you said on AI control. I liked UO's Tamer AI control, issuing commands that worked pretty well. Advancing that a little bit would be really cool, in my opinion.
Perma-death is a separate issue. I would like to see a much more limited version, where a character can die only against certain top end MOBs. Like Deamon Lords and Ancient Dragons. AND only inside the den of said MOB. Risk Vs. Reward in a big way, in PvE. Laggy? Don't be stooopid!
Edit to add ('cus I fergot): Hirelings should perma-die. There should be a cost to increasing their skills, and that's part of the hurt to losing them. And by "should", I don't mean all MMO's should be made this way. I mean IF a game is made this way, then "should" applies in this design. There's certainly other options for a design like this.
Comments
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
The solution I came to was make large portal connected portions of the world. The portions were bubble shielded and outside of the shield was instant death. It went with the lore.
Like that you could always close a portion if the population needed consolidation.
You certainly need a small powergap for that, unlike most MMOs where you start as peasants and turn into demigods but I think it still would be fun and we are talking mainly PvP here, PvE is a very different kind of beast.
You can't have a perfectly balanced open PvP world, it just wouldn't be a MMO that way but you can have something that still offers fun combat.
I don't disagree with you, but what I'm saying is it's more concentrated on the implementation of such features. You can get the same affect from a robust vertical progression model, right? I mean you can call it what you want, but if sword slashes are what the gauge is, then everyone stacks into skills to take more slashes and perform more slashes. This is the main problem with the majority of vertical models right now as well. It's shallow game design and the removal of the idea of support.
That being said, realism isn't a requirement for me. I know there are people who love hunger mechanics in a game. That's not for me at all. However, I wouldn't mind a more interesting progression system, I'm just saying that horizontal can be designed just as poorly as vertical.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Lol, sure, I would agree with you there. I think that both Destiny and The Division did this sort of thing very well and I think this was evidenced by the response of players. Like despite developers saying things like "this is not an MMO" players continue to refer to them in this same light and I think that's in part because this is what players envision an MMO being, to some extent.
I think that the measure of content has primarily been measured on the sheer amount of content, or how long to complete, but I think that for games which focus on "end-game" grinds, the focus should be on putting people there as quickly as possible, while still maintaining the integrity of your lore. This actually lends itself very well to sandbox gameplay but, similar to how themepark is a tired idea, I think that developers seem to want to over-complicate sandbox too. I mean it's quite simple, MMOs are being put to shame by games that aren't even MMOs for one singular reason. I am playing this game because I want to play with my friends now (or sometime soon). Please don't make me buy a game so I can play with my friends 4 months from now. That's what games like Destiny and The Division capture very well. It's like they understand the reason for people picking up a multiplayer game better than what the MMO developers do.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
What I am working on is tracking zone usage. If a zone is out of use, then spawn a dungeon (castle, keep, or fort). Guard it with Elite Max level mobs while it grows to completion. The dungeon won't spawn into the world complete, it will have to animate as being built or constructed. Once complete (1 - 3 weeks?) it would be ready for use. As an instanced scaled content dungeon or raid. After some time it will be conquered and despawn.
Or imaging a mid level map (levels 30-50) and an opposite faction player buys and puts down a faction base (similar to a faction fort, with NPCs and defenses). Now opposite factions can try open world PvP a kin to PS1 base capture.
But @g0m0rrah, what exactly did you have in mind?
Boy: Why can't I talk to Him?
Mom: We don't talk to Priests.
As if it could exist, without being payed for.
F2P means you get what you paid for. Pay nothing, get nothing.
Even telemarketers wouldn't think that.
It costs money to play. Therefore P2W.
Questing to level made developers "lazy." Need 100 hours of content. Let's make 20 hour main quest line with 80 hours of kill and collect quest. Player do boring task for progression rewards not because it's fun. The holy grail is the end game where the real grind... I mean game begins. 95% of content is basically unused in few months.
The world is going to the dogs, which is just how I planned it!
The world is going to the dogs, which is just how I planned it!
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
I would consider the definition of a sandbox that contains the word 'quest giver' to be a sign that the author is missing the point. Not that quest givers cant be in sandboxes I am not saying that at all. I am suggesting however that it illustrates a 'boxed'' view.
as an exercise to students that I would never have I would say 'create a game design without using any existing features commonly known (aka no quests, no classes, no levels, hell no violence! no XP, no swords) and see what you come up with. Do that about 10 times THEN take the known items and start to mix them in.
Why? because that exercise doing it 10 time I hope would activate the brain to think outside of the box.
anyway...everyone has different definitions of sandbox and my definition and my expectations are not the same however I will say one definition that I think is a requirement is that one should be able to advance in the game as much as a quester without doing any quests
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
I was thinking in the future a game would implement a permadeath feature, but instead of having of having a character life you could control many different characters at the same time. Inspired from the Dragon Age and Baldurs Gate series and from boxing in EQ i came up with an mmo which you travel, recruit people into your own party and in midfight you can switch control of people in your party and control them. Mainly an EQ boxing inspiration only the AI would take over your uncontrolled party members. Go into a tavern, hirepeople. Rename them. Switch and play tactical like your life depends on it because If all 4 of you die or you are left with one you don't like the game is over. No rezzing allowed.
Aside from your main heroes you have squires to help you travel and various aides like wagon boys to haul your loot or injured party members. You could have up to 12 people in your party but could only fight with 4 in a fight.
Catch: you could literally solo the game!
I want open world full loot pvp, sandbox, horizontal progression, permadeath, emergent AI. It could be named "Parties of Azeroth" or "Parties of Norrath" or whichever.
How about Warlords of Norrath or Warlords of Azeroth. Coming to a PC near you...
-I love the idea of hirelings. All sorts, a player should build a homestead, build that to a castle. And a player should be allowed to play any of his hirelings. Limits to the numbers of Hirelings should be an economic thing, and make economic and wealth in-game mean a lot more.
-I'd rather keep "Hirelings" to a limited skill achievement.
-An account should have something like 5 character slots, and a player should be able to log in them all if he/she wants to, and switch between any of them at any time, or to their perma-world "Hirelings" if they are in range of an online "Character".
-Pretty much as you said on AI control. I liked UO's Tamer AI control, issuing commands that worked pretty well. Advancing that a little bit would be really cool, in my opinion.
Perma-death is a separate issue. I would like to see a much more limited version, where a character can die only against certain top end MOBs. Like Deamon Lords and Ancient Dragons.
AND only inside the den of said MOB. Risk Vs. Reward in a big way, in PvE.
Laggy? Don't be stooopid!
Edit to add ('cus I fergot): Hirelings should perma-die. There should be a cost to increasing their skills, and that's part of the hurt to losing them.
And by "should", I don't mean all MMO's should be made this way. I mean IF a game is made this way, then "should" applies in this design. There's certainly other options for a design like this.
Once upon a time....