Essentially the situation I see it is this. The MMO Genre of 2018 = WoW.
With the exception of EVE, Runescape, Planetside 2 and a bunch of little indie titles barely worth mentioning in terms of their market share, every single MMO out there is a hub based quest grinder with a geargrind based on dungeons and arena PvP as it's "endgame". AKA, they are all WoW clones. So like 90% of the MMO market is WoW and WoW Clones.
Interest in WoW clones is dying, and hence, the entire genre is dying. Is there absolutely no space for WoW clones anymore? No. I think there will always be space for 1-5 well done WoW clones from now until the end of time pretty much.
But I think the concept of an MMO is much broader, and could have much broader appeal. This is defining the MMO as any persistent world that allows hundreds or thousands of players to be on the same server at the same time, experiencing the same world, without separating them all into instances.
The possibilities of what you can do within those limitations are endless, and I think there are hundreds or perhaps even thousands of potentially successful models for that type of experience that are nothing even remotely similar to the current generation of WoW clones.
Now the actual MMO population as of now is split between two types of people. People who love WoW clones and people who tolerate what the market currently has because they love the idea of a massive persistent world so much. The former is pretty happy with what is out there for the most part unless they are fad chasers (People who hop from game to game because they just love new titles so much and always believe the grass is greener somewhere else but leave the moment a new title comes along). The latter are super unsatisfied and looking for MMOs that offer them a very different experience for one reason or another. Within the actual MMO population I would say the latter are the minority.
But as far as who developers should be targeting there is a third group. Those who like the idea of a massively multiplayer game, or would be drawn to the right one, but are not currently interested in MMOs because games outside the MMO industry meet their needs better than anything currently inside that industry does.
I'd say that group is larger than the entire current MMO population combine.
There is massive development opportunity in making MMOs that follow other models or in making other genres more massive. I think we currently have all the WoW clones we need and should let them cannibalize each other until some clear leaders emerge. Not much opportunity in making new ones as they clearly are not going to appeal to anyone currently outside the MMO population.
Basically, what @eldurian ; is saying is to minimize the discrepancy seen in stat gaps.
I think that is a great idea.
Cryomatrix
Right. I'll give a great example of this.
In Lord of The Rings Online I made a hobbit character. I really wanted to immerse myself in the character so I did every single quest in the Shire. Completely explored the zone, if they had zone based achievements at the time I would have like 100% Shire completion.
By the time I left the zone I was one shotting everything and gaining no XP from anything I did.
It felt more like a punishment that a reward and totally broke immersion. I can only imagine what it would have been like if I had max leveled a character then decided to go back and do the Shire quests.
I think progression is more important in a PVE centric game than a PVP one, but even in a PVE one I want to feel like hero instead of a god.
Soo... you realize you can just turn off XP in LOTRO
I haven't played LOTRO since the Mirkwood expansion and haven't put any considerable playtime since pre-Moria despite having a lifetime subscription.
I don't know or care what you can do in LOTRO in 2018. In 2007-2008 WoW clones still had the ability to be semi-engaging to me. They don't anymore.
The masses are aleady playing battle royales for 100% fair, skill based gameplay. They won't flock to MMOs. Period.
So why is it that FPS games seem to be getting progressively more massive? When I was young and first doing FPS games we played Golden-Eye on splitscreen.
When I got older I was doing 16 man Halo matches online.
Now the most popular only FPS takes 100 players, dumps them on a map, and shrinks the size of the play area until they are all dead.
Perhaps people actually enjoy the "massive" aspect of MMOs, and dislike all the baggage that's been attached to that term.
I think you may be conflating things here. I would love to have a WWII MMOFPS with no progression. That has nothing to do with my enjoyment of an MMORPG.
The reason that WWII MMOFPS hasn't been realized has little to do with previous preferences for smaller PvP; it's technical limitations with having that many players using hit scan or projectile attacks in the same game space.
If they had the tech, we likely would've had many MMOFPSs, because there's a huge consumer base for widescale war action, not because MMORPGs are a flawed product that should die in their current form.
Isn't what you are asking for right here, and has been since 2001?
Seems to be undergoing some new development and is available on Steam early access (weird) and regarding progression it says,
"FAIR GAME PLAY FOR ALL
Just like in real life, the outcome of each engagement will be determined by strategy, tactics, teamwork, and your weapon handling skills! In WWII Online there are no special power ups or item buys giving someone a special advantage against other players."
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
The masses are aleady playing battle royales for 100% fair, skill based gameplay. They won't flock to MMOs. Period.
So why is it that FPS games seem to be getting progressively more massive? When I was young and first doing FPS games we played Golden-Eye on splitscreen.
When I got older I was doing 16 man Halo matches online.
Now the most popular only FPS takes 100 players, dumps them on a map, and shrinks the size of the play area until they are all dead.
Perhaps people actually enjoy the "massive" aspect of MMOs, and dislike all the baggage that's been attached to that term.
I think you may be conflating things here. I would love to have a WWII MMOFPS with no progression. That has nothing to do with my enjoyment of an MMORPG.
The reason that WWII MMOFPS hasn't been realized has little to do with previous preferences for smaller PvP; it's technical limitations with having that many players using hit scan or projectile attacks in the same game space.
If they had the tech, we likely would've had many MMOFPSs, because there's a huge consumer base for widescale war action, not because MMORPGs are a flawed product that should die in their current form.
Isn't what you are asking for right here, and has been since 2001?
Seems to be undergoing some new development and is available on Steam early access (weird) and regarding progression it says,
"FAIR GAME PLAY FOR ALL
Just like in real life, the outcome of each engagement will be determined by strategy, tactics, teamwork, and your weapon handling skills! In WWII Online there are no special power ups or item buys giving someone a special advantage against other players."
So what am I missing, your game is right here.
It never caught on, going mostly unknown. As of 2018, it's attempting to crowdfund continued development.
There's definitely a consumer base who enjoys large scale warfare action:
You'll notice 5 large scale warfare shooter franchises (i.e. Gears of War, Battlefield, etc.) in the top 3 categories of best selling franchises of all time. There's a market there who loves being right in the thick of huge battles. If we have been able to do it since 2001, and it will work, why haven't we seen more of it? Why have the ones we have seen ranged anywhere from modest success (Planetside franchise) to almost completely unknown?
My guess is the gunplay is nowhere near good enough in these titles to compare to games like Call of Duty of Battlefield. And if the devs behind Battlefield thought they could create something that large at the level of detail they'd like with physics, animations, and gunplay, I don't see any reason we wouldn't have seen the attempt by now. You'll notice they're inching that way, but haven't been able to create anything yet beyond 64.
With the original Planetside I'd say one of the issues was really bad balancing. They had a bunch of faction specific weapons and some were much better than others.
I remember the primary reason I stopped playing though is because it all felt meaningless. There were no real economic type roles, nothing you really did with the conquered territory, and the fight didn't feel at all personal. It really was just like a prolonged FPS match with more players on a larger map.
You need to hold territory long enough to care about it, and use it for something, for it really to feel meaningful. PVEers and crafters really lend that sense of it being a real world. Actually holding your bases long enough to build bases and become invested in them lends a sense of meaning.
It needs to be a true virtual world for the PVP to really matter. But there are ways to get people invested in a virtual world other than massive stat disparity.
I've had this idea, though not in such a clear and well-stated form.
In Guild Wars one, one spends only days to weeks to get a character to max level and gear. Then the game actually begins. Everyone is level 20. Everyone has fully enchanted gear. Now it's up to skill. No more treadmill. People play the same character for years.
This forum is broken. It is time to move to proboards, because they're broken.
It needs to be a true virtual world for the PVP to really matter. But there are ways to get people invested in a virtual world other than massive stat disparity.
Yeah, it's me again!
Dude, if you only could be objective on the matter, you'd understand that PvE is much closer to a real virtual world ( & i'm not talking about the Wow era quest grinder here... I'm talking old school) than PvP will ever be. The rules in a PvE game are their to mimic the laws and order that goes with human civilization. Its a myth that man ever let psychos run free in society, periode.
The world isn't full of murdering p.o.s.. It would be the end of civilized society just as it kills any game that has it in short notice. History is there to prove it. ( with MAYBE an exception to the rule or two that are scraping by.)
The only option that makes sense is consensual PvP in war zone that are totally optional imo.
MMOs after WoW have a shitty pvp system as well as WoW also has a shitty pvp system, which is Red x Blue team faction based. Players nowadays have no idea how good a open world pvp/pk/clan war system as seen in Lineage is, which works perfectly. They only know forced faction-based MMOs with no consequence for pvp.
With the original Planetside I'd say one of the issues was really bad balancing. They had a bunch of faction specific weapons and some were much better than others.
I remember the primary reason I stopped playing though is because it all felt meaningless. There were no real economic type roles, nothing you really did with the conquered territory, and the fight didn't feel at all personal. It really was just like a prolonged FPS match with more players on a larger map.
You need to hold territory long enough to care about it, and use it for something, for it really to feel meaningful. PVEers and crafters really lend that sense of it being a real world. Actually holding your bases long enough to build bases and become invested in them lends a sense of meaning.
It needs to be a true virtual world for the PVP to really matter. But there are ways to get people invested in a virtual world other than massive stat disparity.
I would enjoy a massive scale MMOFPS that felt and looked good to play. I tried PlanetSide, but as you mentioned, balance issues turned me off. And that's the Crux of it: relying on player skill immediately makes balancing the horizontal progression wacky. I remember playing Day of Defeat and how popular the German rifleman was. Why? On paper, he shouldn't have been. He was the only class other than the sniper to be stuck with a bolt action rifle. Even the Allied rifleman had the Garand, a semi-auto. But Allied rifleman threw down the Garand to pick up the K98.
That's because, when standing still, the gun had pinpoint accuracy. It was also a one shot kill weapon. I and many other became so good at stopping and twitch aiming that we could actually take out encamped MGs and snipers expecting us. Pop out around the corner, aim and fire the instant the reticle narrows to show you've stopped moving, duck back behind the wall.
Point being, on paper that rifle shouldn't have been so popular. But player skill made it one of, if not the, most powerful weapons in the game.
@Demogorgon - If you could stand back and be objective you would know I've never advocated that any MMO should be fully PvP focused, or that people should be able to kill anyone, anywhere, without consequences.
In my personal notes for my ideal game I actually outline a system in which the majority of the map is either fully disabled for non-consensual PvP or you have to take certain conscious actions that open you up to certain forums of PvP. And unlike historically happens in these games the completely 100% unrestricted areas would be a minority of the map that nobody has great reason to go to unless they're looking to PvP over the local resources of those areas.
Of course, obviously by that statement I DO believe in Open World no-restrictions PvP but I believe in it as type of content highly competitive players can seek out where they are thrown into an area populated with other highly competitive players in order to sate their appetite for destruction against other opponents looking to do the same.
I do not believe in giving them tools to go outside the small area of the map set aside for that, and gank people who are absolutely not looking for that kind of experience. Which is where I believe EVE went wrong. Suicide ganking, can flipping, corp wars, all primarily tools used by griefers to bring unwanted PvP to carebears. I have other ideas in mind as to how to make gameplay in my safe areas be more engaging within a sandbox world.
I would enjoy a massive scale MMOFPS that felt and looked good to play. I tried PlanetSide, but as you mentioned, balance issues turned me off. And that's the Crux of it: relying on player skill immediately makes balancing the horizontal progression wacky. I remember playing Day of Defeat and how popular the German rifleman was. Why? On paper, he shouldn't have been. He was the only class other than the sniper to be stuck with a bolt action rifle. Even the Allied rifleman had the Garand, a semi-auto. But Allied rifleman threw down the Garand to pick up the K98.
That's because, when standing still, the gun had pinpoint accuracy. It was also a one shot kill weapon. I and many other became so good at stopping and twitch aiming that we could actually take out encamped MGs and snipers expecting us. Pop out around the corner, aim and fire the instant the reticle narrows to show you've stopped moving, duck back behind the wall.
Point being, on paper that rifle shouldn't have been so popular. But player skill made it one of, if not the, most powerful weapons in the game.
The issue with Planetside balancing was the faction specific weapons. When you create factions specifically to fight each other and then say "This one gets these weapons but not these ones, and this one gets these weapons but not these ones, and this one can play these classes but not these ones, and this one can play these classes but not these ones" then you get major issues. If all the faction weapons were available to everyone then it would have been fine.
It's not like the triple barreled shotgun was a bad weapon that was never useful in any circumstance. It simply was not as useful in as many circumstances as that chaingun. Especially with you being able to have botha chaingun and missile, if those were your two main weapons then you had a very versatile character good at a lot of stuff.
If I had access to both I would make the chaingun build my main build and then maybe have a build for buildings with a lot of tight spaces that used the jackhammer (that shotgun). But because the TR had constant access to the chaingun and I never had access unless I played TR, it was very imbalancing.
The NEW breed of gamer might like to pvp in rpg's but they are not playing very good rpg's so i can see why they need pvp. We never cared even one iota about pvp for 15 years of mmorpg gaming.All of a sudden Blizzard comes along around the same time Smedley decides to go cash shop and a whole epidemic of bad gaming arose.
Gaming back then was friendships and just hanging out with friends and having fun within the game you liked.NOW my god it is about esport and rankings and bragging and Raids and end game look at me me me me .
"compete"says who,why does a platform hat evolved from a single player game have to evolve into pvp?The idea was to SHARE in the experience to work with people not against them.
I compete in fps's a design that has NO other reason to be there other than to pvp.FPS's offer nothing ,sure some have tried to incorporate rpg elements but it just makes the platform worse and detracts from what a fps is all about.IMO it would be like trying to turn LOL or Dota into a mmorpg platform,it does NOT work.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
That's actually not entirely true though I appreciate the sentiment.
Basically I state anything between 0-500% is fine with me and I consider anything greater to be excessive.
0% is obviously something that needs additional systems. For instance shifting progression over to housing and territorial control, allowing the player to hunt down additional skills that can be swapped out for older ones and open up new potential builds that are not definitively stronger. I do believe in it's ability to work but I also believe that to a certain degree telling many on these boards that an MMO can work with 0 vertical character progression is like telling someone who's only seen muskets that a gun can work without a ramrod. They'll have to see it to understand.
500% would just need to be scaled appropriately and not require much further change to work though. I really don't think most people really care that much HOW high the numbers go up as long as they can say "Hah! I'm higher level than you!!!"
Yeah, that sounds about right.
Personally do I think 200% would be better if you have a PvP game while up to 500% would work if you have a PvE focused game.
Anyways, I agree with you.
Thinking in % is not right. Because it is a complex interest.
Yeah, but I didn't mean an exact number and I don't think El did either, it is just a big round number to show what we mean in an easy way.
Todays powergap tend to be around 100 times as powerful as when you start out and that is rather insane and just split up the community for no appearant reason while greying out old zones really fast and making PvP really boring.
Becomming twice as powerful as you play is still progression, as fun and without the huge disadvantages you get from a "normal" powergap. No need for mentoring, downleveling or other crap there.
The whole PvP discussion is a bit off topic but let's jump on the bandwagon (do you say it like that in English?).
The reason why the real world isn't a big gankfest like most open PvP games become is that 1. You only have 1 life 2. The consequences may be really hard 3. Leveling in RL is pretty horizontal
Still there are places where it is really dangerous and many people die every day.
But at gaming we want to have fun and no RL simulation.
Personally I still would like to have the possibility to kill someone if he is really annoying. (Kill stealing, briefing, swearing...)
So how can we keep PvP without losing too much fun and prevent ganking?
I know there is no ultimate receipt but maybe: - one char only server. - people can denounce others. If enough people (cannot be in same guild, amount of denounces has to be balanced) denounce someone he is flagged for perma death when entering a lawful area. - killing someone in certain lawful areas automatically counts as a bunch of denounces - PvP without consequences still possible through guild wars and duels/arenas.
I know there need to be a lot of tweaks, but the core idea is that people can PvP but it should be for a reason. And if someone kills lots of people (even in lawless areas) he has to be aware that he is wanted for murder at the lawful areas. Perma death gives the consequence that you think twice about entering a lawful area if you killed/annoyed too much people and they denounced you. In lawful areas you are pretty save as normal player as people think twice if they should kill you without a reason. But still it may happen if you annoyed them too much. Also being an asshole to everyone all the time may lead to becoming an outlaw even if you haven't killed someone. Maybe it shouldn't be so easy to join/leave a guild several times in a short timeframebto prevent denounce exploiting.
As said needs a lot of tweaks, but I hope you get the direction. Together with horizontal progression (no oneshotting lowbies) this might please many people and allow both play styles.
Back at topic: I don't understand why it isn't enough for people to become ~1% stronger per level. I think its boring if I have problems with an enemy, then I go kill 5 mobs - ding levelup - enemy is no problem anymore.
Its much more interesting if you become stronger slowly and finally after much training you are able to defeat him in a hard fight and after some time he becomes more and more easy to defeat.
But maybe that's what we are today. Inpatient and want everything now. No satisfaction to earn something after hard work. The feeling when you finally made it after many tries.
You can see this at ffxiv primates/raids where many leave after the first wipe and then a few tries later you make it (while the leaver still searches for another group for sure)
I would enjoy a massive scale MMOFPS that felt and looked good to play. I tried PlanetSide, but as you mentioned, balance issues turned me off. And that's the Crux of it: relying on player skill immediately makes balancing the horizontal progression wacky. I remember playing Day of Defeat and how popular the German rifleman was. Why? On paper, he shouldn't have been. He was the only class other than the sniper to be stuck with a bolt action rifle. Even the Allied rifleman had the Garand, a semi-auto. But Allied rifleman threw down the Garand to pick up the K98.
That's because, when standing still, the gun had pinpoint accuracy. It was also a one shot kill weapon. I and many other became so good at stopping and twitch aiming that we could actually take out encamped MGs and snipers expecting us. Pop out around the corner, aim and fire the instant the reticle narrows to show you've stopped moving, duck back behind the wall.
Point being, on paper that rifle shouldn't have been so popular. But player skill made it one of, if not the, most powerful weapons in the game.
The issue with Planetside balancing was the faction specific weapons. When you create factions specifically to fight each other and then say "This one gets these weapons but not these ones, and this one gets these weapons but not these ones, and this one can play these classes but not these ones, and this one can play these classes but not these ones" then you get major issues. If all the faction weapons were available to everyone then it would have been fine.
It's not like the triple barreled shotgun was a bad weapon that was never useful in any circumstance. It simply was not as useful in as many circumstances as that chaingun. Especially with you being able to have botha chaingun and missile, if those were your two main weapons then you had a very versatile character good at a lot of stuff.
If I had access to both I would make the chaingun build my main build and then maybe have a build for buildings with a lot of tight spaces that used the jackhammer (that shotgun). But because the TR had constant access to the chaingun and I never had access unless I played TR, it was very imbalancing.
That's the thing: when you're talking FPS, for instance, map layout can have just as much an impact on balance as the weapons themselves. Trying to balance that on a massive scale is a nightmare.
Balancing actually becomes harder the more player skill factors in.
It needs to be a true virtual world for the PVP to really matter. But there are ways to get people invested in a virtual world other than massive stat disparity.
Yeah, it's me again!
Dude, if you only could be objective on the matter, you'd understand that PvE is much closer to a real virtual world ( & i'm not talking about the Wow era quest grinder here... I'm talking old school) than PvP will ever be. The rules in a PvE game are their to mimic the laws and order that goes with human civilization. Its a myth that man ever let psychos run free in society, periode.
The world isn't full of murdering p.o.s.. It would be the end of civilized society just as it kills any game that has it in short notice. History is there to prove it. ( with MAYBE an exception to the rule or two that are scraping by.)
The only option that makes sense is consensual PvP in war zone that are totally optional imo.
MMOs after WoW have a shitty pvp system as well as WoW also has a shitty pvp system, which is Red x Blue team faction based. Players nowadays have no idea how good a open world pvp/pk/clan war system as seen in Lineage is, which works perfectly. They only know forced faction-based MMOs with no consequence for pvp.
I'm pretty sure (and would bet good money on it) that people who adamantly don't like pvp (especially because of some of the horrible players it attracts) will never like pvp. And this comes from someone who was a huge fan of lineage 2. Well, up to Chronicle 3/4 I think it went downhill starting at C5. But that's me.
To insinuate that people would love it if they only experienced "how good an open world pvp/pk/clan war system as seen in Lineage" is best case ridiculous and worst case it's arrogant.
Post edited by Sovrath on
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
If you had horizontal progression you would need truly fun and engaging content. In vertical progression people will do things not fun for progression and achievement. You tend to have to make content scale with challenges vs. scale to your numbers. You also lose monitization of selling progression. A lot harder to accomplish
You also have tradition of players AND developers to overcome. People don't like changing their ways. Players resist without truly trying to understand and developers rather design features that negate or minimize vertical progression than just remove the problem.
I would enjoy a massive scale MMOFPS that felt and looked good to play. I tried PlanetSide, but as you mentioned, balance issues turned me off. And that's the Crux of it: relying on player skill immediately makes balancing the horizontal progression wacky. I remember playing Day of Defeat and how popular the German rifleman was. Why? On paper, he shouldn't have been. He was the only class other than the sniper to be stuck with a bolt action rifle. Even the Allied rifleman had the Garand, a semi-auto. But Allied rifleman threw down the Garand to pick up the K98.
That's because, when standing still, the gun had pinpoint accuracy. It was also a one shot kill weapon. I and many other became so good at stopping and twitch aiming that we could actually take out encamped MGs and snipers expecting us. Pop out around the corner, aim and fire the instant the reticle narrows to show you've stopped moving, duck back behind the wall.
Point being, on paper that rifle shouldn't have been so popular. But player skill made it one of, if not the, most powerful weapons in the game.
The issue with Planetside balancing was the faction specific weapons. When you create factions specifically to fight each other and then say "This one gets these weapons but not these ones, and this one gets these weapons but not these ones, and this one can play these classes but not these ones, and this one can play these classes but not these ones" then you get major issues. If all the faction weapons were available to everyone then it would have been fine.
It's not like the triple barreled shotgun was a bad weapon that was never useful in any circumstance. It simply was not as useful in as many circumstances as that chaingun. Especially with you being able to have botha chaingun and missile, if those were your two main weapons then you had a very versatile character good at a lot of stuff.
If I had access to both I would make the chaingun build my main build and then maybe have a build for buildings with a lot of tight spaces that used the jackhammer (that shotgun). But because the TR had constant access to the chaingun and I never had access unless I played TR, it was very imbalancing.
Yet still it sounds as if the problem could have also been resolved by toning down the chaingun.
In Fallout 4 the mini gun is no where nearly as useful as the combat shotgun in close quarters as it has a 2 or 3 second "spin up" delay which against a deathclaw who had knockback makes it almost useless.
It also fires low damage rounds, and becomes extremely inaccurate at range. Also one need high strength to carry it, training to fight well with it and it has a large encumbersnce penalty.
So its use is very situational, which is how all weapons should probably be designed.
Like in MadFenchies gun example, sounds like the devs mistake was in creating an over powered weapons then as in your example gave it to one side, but at least players in other factions could get one somehow.
I'd rather see the weapon nerfed than shared with all.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
@Kyleran - So when balancing a game such as EVE you can use my rule of balance, which is one of the easiest to balance around.
"Everything is balanced as long as it has has a purpose it can fulfill better than anything else."
In the example of Planetside. The Jackhammer is not an unbalanced or trash gun based on stats alone. The chaingun is not as useless as you describe at short range but the Jackhammer is a triple barreled shotgun. It tears crap up used accurately in confined spaces. So in close ranges the Jackhammer has a bit of an advantage.
And if you nerfed the chaingun as you suggested then the TR would have a huge disadvantage in close range rights because special weapons are generally the most powerful weapon available to a faction. Closerange fights are required to take bases AKA the most important thing to do in the game.
The issue is this:
Chaingun: 90% effective close range. 100% effective medium range. 20% effective long range.
Jackhammer: 100% effective closerange. 20% effective medium range. 0% effective long range.
Balanced by my rule, but because it's a faction specific weapon there is an additional rule that has to be added:
"All faction specific weapons must be useful in the same number of equally important circumstances as the faction specific weapons of another faction."
That rule is almost impossible to balance around, which is why I think we have seen gameplay with non-identical factions die off over time.
@Eldurian I have looked at your stuff & it makes it even clearer that you just don't get it. You obviously can't step outside your PvP fantasy. Majority of zones just doesn't cut it. Resources in the PvP zone is a big NO and not being a second rate citizen in your game if you don't PvP is laughable, etc.
That said... I'm sorry to have disrupted your little quest for approval. I'll leave it at that.
/goodbye
Understand that while there are many who think like you, you represent an extremist position in the PvE vs PvP debate.
Most PvP centric games cater to another extreme. "I want to kill anyone, anywhere, any time for any reason without any major consequences and if the game doesn't let me then it is a carebear game."
Many people fall somewhere in-between the two extremes of getting butthurt if they have to engage in trade with PvPers for resources found in PvP areas, and getting butthurt if the game provides enjoyable content in PvP free areas that nobody feels forced to leave.
Also understand that while many games cater to either extreme, few meet the probable majority of gamers who fall somewhere in-between.
I'm pretty sure (and would bet good money on it) that people who adamantly don't like pvp (especially because of some of the horrible players it attracts) will never like pvp. And this comes from someone who was a huge fan of lineage 2. Well, up to Chronicle 3/4 I think it went downhill starting at C5. But that's me.
To insinuate that people would love it if they only experienced "how good an open world pvp/pk/clan war system as seen in Lineage" is best case ridiculous and worst case it's arrogant.
Agreed.
To me, L2 was horrible, something I never want to experience again, but that's mostly because of the infinite grinding.
And go figure, one of my best world PvP experience comes from Anarchy Online with the Notum Wars.
And if I really want to PvP nowadays, it's GW2/ESO for MMOs or better, Overwatch or Fortnite Battle Royale. Games where you don't have to grind for ages to be competitive.
So bringing this back to the original premise of the thread, you are saying you hate PvP because of stat-imbalance.
So bringing this back to the original premise of the thread, you are saying you hate PvP because of stat-imbalance.
I dunno about him but I for one like it less because of it. Far too many fights are decided before they start because a too large powergap and auoto-win or auto-lose due to that is boring in my book.
And it is one of the largest reason why most MMOs today instance their PvP.
I don't hate PvP but I certainly would enjoy it more with a far lower powergap. I also think that is why people who like PvP often play other genres instead of MMOs but that is just my opinion.
What isn't an opinion is that most PvP focused MMOs sells ratherr terrible compared to PvE ones. It is the powergap.
What isn't an opinion is that most PvP focused MMOs sells ratherr terrible compared to PvE ones. It is the powergap.
I fully agree. Outside MMOs PvP games are the most popular online multiplayer games. The reason they aren't also the most popular inside MMOs is directly because of stat imbalance.
If you had horizontal progression you would need truly fun and engaging content. In vertical progression people will do things not fun for progression and achievement. You tend to have to make content scale with challenges vs. scale to your numbers. You also lose monitization of selling progression. A lot harder to accomplish
You also have tradition of players AND developers to overcome. People don't like changing their ways. Players resist without truly trying to understand and developers rather design features that negate or minimize vertical progression than just remove the problem.
Fun is easy. Also MMO and achievements do not work together. And horizontal do not mean lack of goals. EVE, Dark Souls, GW, there are many games with horizontal progression elements. And selling of progression is the worst kind of P2W.
I am not saying you are wrong. Just that fun is not as easy as putting out 10000 generic quest hurdles. P2W or pay for advantages is profitable.
Comments
With the exception of EVE, Runescape, Planetside 2 and a bunch of little indie titles barely worth mentioning in terms of their market share, every single MMO out there is a hub based quest grinder with a geargrind based on dungeons and arena PvP as it's "endgame". AKA, they are all WoW clones. So like 90% of the MMO market is WoW and WoW Clones.
Interest in WoW clones is dying, and hence, the entire genre is dying. Is there absolutely no space for WoW clones anymore? No. I think there will always be space for 1-5 well done WoW clones from now until the end of time pretty much.
But I think the concept of an MMO is much broader, and could have much broader appeal. This is defining the MMO as any persistent world that allows hundreds or thousands of players to be on the same server at the same time, experiencing the same world, without separating them all into instances.
The possibilities of what you can do within those limitations are endless, and I think there are hundreds or perhaps even thousands of potentially successful models for that type of experience that are nothing even remotely similar to the current generation of WoW clones.
Now the actual MMO population as of now is split between two types of people. People who love WoW clones and people who tolerate what the market currently has because they love the idea of a massive persistent world so much. The former is pretty happy with what is out there for the most part unless they are fad chasers (People who hop from game to game because they just love new titles so much and always believe the grass is greener somewhere else but leave the moment a new title comes along). The latter are super unsatisfied and looking for MMOs that offer them a very different experience for one reason or another. Within the actual MMO population I would say the latter are the minority.
But as far as who developers should be targeting there is a third group. Those who like the idea of a massively multiplayer game, or would be drawn to the right one, but are not currently interested in MMOs because games outside the MMO industry meet their needs better than anything currently inside that industry does.
I'd say that group is larger than the entire current MMO population combine.
There is massive development opportunity in making MMOs that follow other models or in making other genres more massive. I think we currently have all the WoW clones we need and should let them cannibalize each other until some clear leaders emerge. Not much opportunity in making new ones as they clearly are not going to appeal to anyone currently outside the MMO population.
I don't know or care what you can do in LOTRO in 2018. In 2007-2008 WoW clones still had the ability to be semi-engaging to me. They don't anymore.
https://www.wwiionline.com
World War II Online is a massively multiplayer online first-person shooter (MMOFPS) video game. It was released on June 6, 2001.
Seems to be undergoing some new development and is available on Steam early access (weird) and regarding progression it says,
"FAIR GAME PLAY FOR ALL
Just like in real life, the outcome of each engagement will be determined by strategy, tactics, teamwork, and your weapon handling skills! In WWII Online there are no special power ups or item buys giving someone a special advantage against other players."So what am I missing, your game is right here.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
There's definitely a consumer base who enjoys large scale warfare action:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_game_franchises
You'll notice 5 large scale warfare shooter franchises (i.e. Gears of War, Battlefield, etc.) in the top 3 categories of best selling franchises of all time. There's a market there who loves being right in the thick of huge battles. If we have been able to do it since 2001, and it will work, why haven't we seen more of it? Why have the ones we have seen ranged anywhere from modest success (Planetside franchise) to almost completely unknown?
My guess is the gunplay is nowhere near good enough in these titles to compare to games like Call of Duty of Battlefield. And if the devs behind Battlefield thought they could create something that large at the level of detail they'd like with physics, animations, and gunplay, I don't see any reason we wouldn't have seen the attempt by now. You'll notice they're inching that way, but haven't been able to create anything yet beyond 64.
I remember the primary reason I stopped playing though is because it all felt meaningless. There were no real economic type roles, nothing you really did with the conquered territory, and the fight didn't feel at all personal. It really was just like a prolonged FPS match with more players on a larger map.
You need to hold territory long enough to care about it, and use it for something, for it really to feel meaningful. PVEers and crafters really lend that sense of it being a real world. Actually holding your bases long enough to build bases and become invested in them lends a sense of meaning.
It needs to be a true virtual world for the PVP to really matter. But there are ways to get people invested in a virtual world other than massive stat disparity.
In Guild Wars one, one spends only days to weeks to get a character to max level and gear. Then the game actually begins.
That's because, when standing still, the gun had pinpoint accuracy. It was also a one shot kill weapon. I and many other became so good at stopping and twitch aiming that we could actually take out encamped MGs and snipers expecting us. Pop out around the corner, aim and fire the instant the reticle narrows to show you've stopped moving, duck back behind the wall.
Point being, on paper that rifle shouldn't have been so popular. But player skill made it one of, if not the, most powerful weapons in the game.
In my personal notes for my ideal game I actually outline a system in which the majority of the map is either fully disabled for non-consensual PvP or you have to take certain conscious actions that open you up to certain forums of PvP. And unlike historically happens in these games the completely 100% unrestricted areas would be a minority of the map that nobody has great reason to go to unless they're looking to PvP over the local resources of those areas.
Open World PvP, Risk vs. Reward, and the Culture System
Of course, obviously by that statement I DO believe in Open World no-restrictions PvP but I believe in it as type of content highly competitive players can seek out where they are thrown into an area populated with other highly competitive players in order to sate their appetite for destruction against other opponents looking to do the same.
I do not believe in giving them tools to go outside the small area of the map set aside for that, and gank people who are absolutely not looking for that kind of experience. Which is where I believe EVE went wrong. Suicide ganking, can flipping, corp wars, all primarily tools used by griefers to bring unwanted PvP to carebears. I have other ideas in mind as to how to make gameplay in my safe areas be more engaging within a sandbox world.
Why Play an Open World PvP Sandbox for Crafting and PvE?
It's not like the triple barreled shotgun was a bad weapon that was never useful in any circumstance. It simply was not as useful in as many circumstances as that chaingun. Especially with you being able to have botha chaingun and missile, if those were your two main weapons then you had a very versatile character good at a lot of stuff.
If I had access to both I would make the chaingun build my main build and then maybe have a build for buildings with a lot of tight spaces that used the jackhammer (that shotgun). But because the TR had constant access to the chaingun and I never had access unless I played TR, it was very imbalancing.
We never cared even one iota about pvp for 15 years of mmorpg gaming.All of a sudden Blizzard comes along around the same time Smedley decides to go cash shop and a whole epidemic of bad gaming arose.
Gaming back then was friendships and just hanging out with friends and having fun within the game you liked.NOW my god it is about esport and rankings and bragging and Raids and end game look at me me me me .
"compete"says who,why does a platform hat evolved from a single player game have to evolve into pvp?The idea was to SHARE in the experience to work with people not against them.
I compete in fps's a design that has NO other reason to be there other than to pvp.FPS's offer nothing ,sure some have tried to incorporate rpg elements but it just makes the platform worse and detracts from what a fps is all about.IMO it would be like trying to turn LOL or Dota into a mmorpg platform,it does NOT work.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Todays powergap tend to be around 100 times as powerful as when you start out and that is rather insane and just split up the community for no appearant reason while greying out old zones really fast and making PvP really boring.
Becomming twice as powerful as you play is still progression, as fun and without the huge disadvantages you get from a "normal" powergap. No need for mentoring, downleveling or other crap there.
The reason why the real world isn't a big gankfest like most open PvP games become is that
1. You only have 1 life
2. The consequences may be really hard
3. Leveling in RL is pretty horizontal
Still there are places where it is really dangerous and many people die every day.
But at gaming we want to have fun and no RL simulation.
Personally I still would like to have the possibility to kill someone if he is really annoying. (Kill stealing, briefing, swearing...)
So how can we keep PvP without losing too much fun and prevent ganking?
I know there is no ultimate receipt but maybe:
- one char only server.
- people can denounce others. If enough people (cannot be in same guild, amount of denounces has to be balanced) denounce someone he is flagged for perma death when entering a lawful area.
- killing someone in certain lawful areas automatically counts as a bunch of denounces
- PvP without consequences still possible through guild wars and duels/arenas.
I know there need to be a lot of tweaks, but the core idea is that people can PvP but it should be for a reason. And if someone kills lots of people (even in lawless areas) he has to be aware that he is wanted for murder at the lawful areas.
Perma death gives the consequence that you think twice about entering a lawful area if you killed/annoyed too much people and they denounced you.
In lawful areas you are pretty save as normal player as people think twice if they should kill you without a reason. But still it may happen if you annoyed them too much.
Also being an asshole to everyone all the time may lead to becoming an outlaw even if you haven't killed someone.
Maybe it shouldn't be so easy to join/leave a guild several times in a short timeframebto prevent denounce exploiting.
As said needs a lot of tweaks, but I hope you get the direction.
Together with horizontal progression (no oneshotting lowbies) this might please many people and allow both play styles.
Back at topic:
I don't understand why it isn't enough for people to become ~1% stronger per level.
I think its boring if I have problems with an enemy, then I go kill 5 mobs - ding levelup - enemy is no problem anymore.
Its much more interesting if you become stronger slowly and finally after much training you are able to defeat him in a hard fight and after some time he becomes more and more easy to defeat.
But maybe that's what we are today. Inpatient and want everything now. No satisfaction to earn something after hard work. The feeling when you finally made it after many tries.
You can see this at ffxiv primates/raids where many leave after the first wipe and then a few tries later you make it (while the leaver still searches for another group for sure)
1997 Meridian 59 'til 2019 ESO
Waiting for Camelot Unchained & Pantheon
Balancing actually becomes harder the more player skill factors in.
To insinuate that people would love it if they only experienced "how good an open world pvp/pk/clan war system as seen in Lineage" is best case ridiculous and worst case it's arrogant.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
You also have tradition of players AND developers to overcome. People don't like changing their ways. Players resist without truly trying to understand and developers rather design features that negate or minimize vertical progression than just remove the problem.
In Fallout 4 the mini gun is no where nearly as useful as the combat shotgun in close quarters as it has a 2 or 3 second "spin up" delay which against a deathclaw who had knockback makes it almost useless.
It also fires low damage rounds, and becomes extremely inaccurate at range. Also one need high strength to carry it, training to fight well with it and it has a large encumbersnce penalty.
So its use is very situational, which is how all weapons should probably be designed.
Like in MadFenchies gun example, sounds like the devs mistake was in creating an over powered weapons then as in your example gave it to one side, but at least players in other factions could get one somehow.
I'd rather see the weapon nerfed than shared with all.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
"Everything is balanced as long as it has has a purpose it can fulfill better than anything else."
In the example of Planetside. The Jackhammer is not an unbalanced or trash gun based on stats alone. The chaingun is not as useless as you describe at short range but the Jackhammer is a triple barreled shotgun. It tears crap up used accurately in confined spaces. So in close ranges the Jackhammer has a bit of an advantage.
And if you nerfed the chaingun as you suggested then the TR would have a huge disadvantage in close range rights because special weapons are generally the most powerful weapon available to a faction. Closerange fights are required to take bases AKA the most important thing to do in the game.
The issue is this:
Chaingun:
90% effective close range.
100% effective medium range.
20% effective long range.
Jackhammer:
100% effective closerange.
20% effective medium range.
0% effective long range.
Balanced by my rule, but because it's a faction specific weapon there is an additional rule that has to be added:
"All faction specific weapons must be useful in the same number of equally important circumstances as the faction specific weapons of another faction."
That rule is almost impossible to balance around, which is why I think we have seen gameplay with non-identical factions die off over time.
Most PvP centric games cater to another extreme. "I want to kill anyone, anywhere, any time for any reason without any major consequences and if the game doesn't let me then it is a carebear game."
Many people fall somewhere in-between the two extremes of getting butthurt if they have to engage in trade with PvPers for resources found in PvP areas, and getting butthurt if the game provides enjoyable content in PvP free areas that nobody feels forced to leave.
Also understand that while many games cater to either extreme, few meet the probable majority of gamers who fall somewhere in-between.
And it is one of the largest reason why most MMOs today instance their PvP.
I don't hate PvP but I certainly would enjoy it more with a far lower powergap. I also think that is why people who like PvP often play other genres instead of MMOs but that is just my opinion.
What isn't an opinion is that most PvP focused MMOs sells ratherr terrible compared to PvE ones. It is the powergap.