I've always thought that developers made content that required groups, but really gave no incentive for the casual players to actually group, especially for PUGs. It really wouldn't be difficult to give a personal XP bonus (+10%) to an individual in a group with 3 people they've never grouped with before AND that individual give the group some smaller bonus (+5%). Using this scheme, a group composed of 6 strangers would have a bonus of +40%. (Changing these bonus numbers to +5/+1 would still provide bonuses of +11% for each person, if the developer wants a harder game). That gives some incentive to forming a group.
Lineage 2 used to give xp bonuses just for being in a group.
EQ1 also added bonuses to being in a group. All that did was encourage people to group with the same people (friends or guildies) or create alts. I don't know if EQ1 specifically removed this bonus, but it didn't really accomplish what it was intended to do, i.e., create groups.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
OP, you mention some of the big problems with Vertical Progression, but then discount Horizontal Progression because players want that feeling of power gain. But a player would get more powerful with Horizontal Progression simply by having more options. More options are MORE FUN.
I'll never understand players who want these ungodly power gains. It's fake as can be. They think they're elite or something? Everyone else gets it too, the player's character is not elite. They are TYPICAL! Worse, the content moves up with you, and Goblins become super Goblins, and then become Demi-God-Goblins, and then full on God-Goblins. Old content becomes useless and boring, and most of the game world is useless or unavailable. It's all so cheap!
However, I believe that a little Vertical Progression is more desirable. About 20% Vertical and 80% Horizontal. With LOTS OF NEW ABILITIES in the Horizontal side of Progression.
As a description of what I mean by these terms (in very simplistic words)... Vertical Progression = A new skill, special attack, or spell that does more damage. Horizontal Progression = A new skill, special attack, or spell that does something specific, but doesn't add more power outside of that specific thing.
Same for defensive skills.
We could all have much better games that are much more fun, and much more entertaining, for a much longer time, if players would just get over this false sense of Power through Level Grinds.
I agree in principle and I am a massive proponent of horizontal progression.
That said, the gaining of new skills is vertical progression if you always have access to those new skills. A guy that can do single target and aoe damage is more powerful than the guy that can only do single target, even if the skills seem balanced.
So, you need to make those new skills become part of a decision making process. If you are going to mix a bit of vertical and horizontal progression, I'd do it as follows:
1) Vertical Progression for tutorial.
Limit your toolbar to 20 skills (or whatever, its an arbitrary number). New players starts with 5 skills, progresses up to 20. This is vertical progression, but can be treated as an extended tutorial. Try to keep this intro to the game relatively quick, maybe max 10 hours gameplay until you hit max power levels.
2) Horizontal Progression after tutorial
Once a player hits 20 skills, they've effectively hit maximum power. They can continue to progress, but horizontally via new options / customisations / specialisations. If they learn a new skill, they can only use it by removing an existing skill from their toolbar, thus maintaining power levels.
This gives players a nice on-ramp to learning the game without being immediately overwhelmed by too many skills, but the majority of the game remains horizontal. You need to be careful with player education and PR, because you don't want players feeling duped when it switches from vertical to horizontal, but I believe this is possible.
I also think it's impossible to keep everything 100% balanced (in terms of power) so even in a horizontal system, there will still be a minor imbalance between players. But, I think as long as you keep that variation to 20% or less, you're probably safe.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
I've always thought that developers made content that required groups, but really gave no incentive for the casual players to actually group, especially for PUGs. It really wouldn't be difficult to give a personal XP bonus (+10%) to an individual in a group with 3 people they've never grouped with before AND that individual give the group some smaller bonus (+5%). Using this scheme, a group composed of 6 strangers would have a bonus of +40%. (Changing these bonus numbers to +5/+1 would still provide bonuses of +11% for each person, if the developer wants a harder game). That gives some incentive to forming a group.
Lineage 2 used to give xp bonuses just for being in a group.
So did EQ1.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
OP, you mention some of the big problems with Vertical Progression, but then discount Horizontal Progression because players want that feeling of power gain. But a player would get more powerful with Horizontal Progression simply by having more options. More options are MORE FUN.
I'll never understand players who want these ungodly power gains. It's fake as can be. They think they're elite or something? Everyone else gets it too, the player's character is not elite. They are TYPICAL! Worse, the content moves up with you, and Goblins become super Goblins, and then become Demi-God-Goblins, and then full on God-Goblins. Old content becomes useless and boring, and most of the game world is useless or unavailable. It's all so cheap!
However, I believe that a little Vertical Progression is more desirable. About 20% Vertical and 80% Horizontal. With LOTS OF NEW ABILITIES in the Horizontal side of Progression.
As a description of what I mean by these terms (in very simplistic words)... Vertical Progression = A new skill, special attack, or spell that does more damage. Horizontal Progression = A new skill, special attack, or spell that does something specific, but doesn't add more power outside of that specific thing.
Same for defensive skills.
We could all have much better games that are much more fun, and much more entertaining, for a much longer time, if players would just get over this false sense of Power through Level Grinds.
I agree in principle and I am a massive proponent of horizontal progression.
That said, the gaining of new skills is vertical progression if you always have access to those new skills. A guy that can do single target and aoe damage is more powerful than the guy that can only do single target, even if the skills seem balanced.
So, you need to make those new skills become part of a decision making process. If you are going to mix a bit of vertical and horizontal progression, I'd do it as follows:
1) Vertical Progression for tutorial.
Limit your toolbar to 20 skills (or whatever, its an arbitrary number). New players starts with 5 skills, progresses up to 20. This is vertical progression, but can be treated as an extended tutorial. Try to keep this intro to the game relatively quick, maybe max 10 hours gameplay until you hit max power levels.
2) Horizontal Progression after tutorial
Once a player hits 20 skills, they've effectively hit maximum power. They can continue to progress, but horizontally via new options / customisations / specialisations. If they learn a new skill, they can only use it by removing an existing skill from their toolbar, thus maintaining power levels.
This gives players a nice on-ramp to learning the game without being immediately overwhelmed by too many skills, but the majority of the game remains horizontal. You need to be careful with player education and PR, because you don't want players feeling duped when it switches from vertical to horizontal, but I believe this is possible.
I also think it's impossible to keep everything 100% balanced (in terms of power) so even in a horizontal system, there will still be a minor imbalance between players. But, I think as long as you keep that variation to 20% or less, you're probably safe.
That's good, but if you combine the 5 skills to 20 skills (again, arbitrary numbers) along with the Horizontal Progression, right from the start, then you don't have to worry about players feeling duped because of a sudden change from one to the other.
I'd prefer that there is no limit to the Horizontal gains where you have to drop an old Skill to add a new Skill. The game can be designed around that. Just have Horizontal gains fit into a Skill, and thus be limited to use by the Character having said skill, or be completely new and outside of other Skills.
As an example, A Mage Skill is required to be able to use an ability to cast a spell farther, completely useless to a Fighter, and a Mage without said spell has to gain it to use that ability with it. But an ability (thinking top end here) to "Meld Into Stone" allows the Character to do that, cast spells or shoot arrows or whatever, from inside a stone wall while taking half damage from certain attacks that affect stone, or the Character's mind. For a limited time, maybe based on the Character's Will Power. That's just an "off the cuff" idea, so there may be flaws.
Edit to add: I think discovering (or earning) a lot of new Progression; Skills, Natural Defenses (Dragon Skin Armor Bonus from washing in Dragon blood, for example), new spells, new special attacks for weapons, enhancements to normal abilities, farther jumping, faster running, etc.), new abilities like water breathing for a few minutes to longer, the ideas are really endless...I think that would be exciting game play. Discover it, earn it, and be rare or even unique with some of it.
I disagree. the Trinityless hyped died a while ago. Guild Wars 2 hyped that all the way up, and its shows in the way group content is forced to be designed as a trade off of the lack of Trinity.
The issue with groups isnt the Trinity itself. The issue is that Developers make large scale group instances into only hardcore gameplay instead of keeping the casual dungeon difficulty for large group content.
Looking at WoW here since most people here played it and can relate.
They have the more Casual group content called Dungeons which is exclusively 5 man instances (1 Tank, 1 Healer, 3 DPS)
then they have more hardcore group content which is schedule based unlike the Dungeons, so they have to be organized runs since you are locked to the instance until the weekly reset. (10 man or larger. 1 or more tanks, 1 or more healers, rest DPS)
Here the thing.
Why cant the casual dungeons be 10 man or larger without being changed to a hardercore diffulity with all the stuff that comes with Raids.
I rather we get 10 man Casual Dungeons with same difficulties of a normal Dungeon, but the standard group size increased to add more DPS per Tank/Healer ratio.
thats the main solution.
The problem has always been that there are way more DPS per Tank and Healer in these games which leads to large wait times to get into a 5 man instance.
But if the standard party size was no longer 5 players but 10 players, or even 15 players or something, we can increase the number of DPS per group without increasing the number of Tanks and Healers, since those are roles that specific players tend to play.
Also another thing I learned from my experience with Vanilla Rift back in the day was how they handled the Support role in group dungeons. The Support role was another DPS, but was a DPS that could heal and DPS. They also help take a lot of the burden off the healers to over perform. This open the doors for many different Healer play styles, which really made healing for me to be fun to play.
I want to make it clear, I am not saying to get rid of the hardcore group content. But what I am saying is that large group PvE instances shouldnt be the dictator of what is or isnt non-casual gameplay.
OP, you mention some of the big problems with Vertical Progression, but then discount Horizontal Progression because players want that feeling of power gain. But a player would get more powerful with Horizontal Progression simply by having more options. More options are MORE FUN.
I'll never understand players who want these ungodly power gains. It's fake as can be. They think they're elite or something? Everyone else gets it too, the player's character is not elite. They are TYPICAL! Worse, the content moves up with you, and Goblins become super Goblins, and then become Demi-God-Goblins, and then full on God-Goblins. Old content becomes useless and boring, and most of the game world is useless or unavailable. It's all so cheap!
However, I believe that a little Vertical Progression is more desirable. About 20% Vertical and 80% Horizontal. With LOTS OF NEW ABILITIES in the Horizontal side of Progression.
As a description of what I mean by these terms (in very simplistic words)... Vertical Progression = A new skill, special attack, or spell that does more damage. Horizontal Progression = A new skill, special attack, or spell that does something specific, but doesn't add more power outside of that specific thing.
Same for defensive skills.
We could all have much better games that are much more fun, and much more entertaining, for a much longer time, if players would just get over this false sense of Power through Level Grinds.
I still dont get how people think they need to level up. Doing 100 damage to a 1000hp mob or doing 1000 damage to a 10000hp mob.
Is it the bigger numbers that makes people happy? Is it that you can show off how much you played? Why do people need to grow stronger when the truth is, that you arent getting really stronger as the enemies grow the same while you just make older content obsolete.
I play all types of MMOs depending on my mood, I like choices I guess. Lately I've been I've been into dungeon roulette in FFXIV. After I get sick of that I'll go find a solo play MMO. Not sure what all the fuss is. No longer do I see the need to stick to a formula as long as everyone is enjoying what they are doing.
Why cant the casual dungeons be 10 man or larger without being changed to a hardercore diffulity with all the stuff that comes with Raids.
I rather we get 10 man Casual Dungeons with same difficulties of a normal Dungeon, but the standard group size increased to add more DPS per Tank/Healer ratio.
thats the main solution.
The problem has always been that there are way more DPS per Tank and Healer in these games which leads to large wait times to get into a 5 man instance.
But if the standard party size was no longer 5 players but 10 players, or even 15 players or something, we can increase the number of DPS per group without increasing the number of Tanks and Healers, since those are roles that specific players tend to play.
Also another thing I learned from my experience with Vanilla Rift back in the day was how they handled the Support role in group dungeons. The Support role was another DPS, but was a DPS that could heal and DPS. They also help take a lot of the burden off the healers to over perform. This open the doors for many different Healer play styles, which really made healing for me to be fun to play.
I like some of your ideas here, and have seen them implemented elsewhere, especially LotRO. There are a number of things I think they did well to improve grouping.
The first is going beyond the trinity, and having lots of support classes. As you said in your post, support classes can change the nature of combat, away from a "brute force" approach of tank'n'spank and into something more nuanced. Buffs and debuffs can really help reduce the pressure on tanks and healers, CC can do the same, off-healers too.
If you design the content well, then you can also open up many more possible group setups. In LotRO I did loads of 6-man dungeons without either a tank or a healer. By stacking support classes, you can avoid the need for a tank, or a healer, as long as you accept that it will likely take longer than usual. But, if you use shit mechanics like enrage timers, you remove those possibilities from the players and force them down a specific route.
I also liked LotRO's group size: 6
Assuming you do, indeed, need a tank and a healer in every group, that means 33% of the group players need to play essential roles.
Compare that to something like SW:TOR and it's 4 man groups, all of a sudden 50% of the group players need to play essential roles. That's not a good ratio.
Your idea for easier group content is also a good one, and one that I can't understand why it isn't done much already. Some of my favourite group experiences were in SWG running terminal missions in groups of 20. The content was pretty easy and you could come and go as you pleased, but it was defs worth grouping up in order to gain access to higher paying missions. So, lots of us did, and due to the easy content we had plenty of time to be social, as well as having a good introduction to teamwork. Again, LotRO did this a little bit with their skirmish system, you could do them in a raid group and the content was pretty easy compared to the proper raids.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
If an idea of 'groups' being deemed necessary for a modern multiplayer game, I think I have another and more interesting idea.
In a multiplayer game, at the very least, I would want to avoid gimmicks, and instead try achieve immersion into the game world, but without having gimmicks undermine the existing gameplay that obviously rely on the player being pleasently entertained by the game world as such.
Another aspect, I've very much familiar with in a game like Arma multiplayer games, is 'player initiative', but relying on game mechanics that actually offer this cerebral experience that tasks the player to make extensive use of his/her situational awareness, and also having that relying on the game world as such but not gimmicks and shallow game mechanics.
I grouped pretty much everyday for 15 years,so the theory it is tough to group is misinformation.
Part of the real problem is and i have mentioned it MANY years ago and that is the majority of players within mmorpg's do not belong in a mmorpg.
I should also mention that NO it does not have to be a group in a "dungeon" that is just lazy design by the developer,it can be right outside in the open.It also does not nor it should be about loot.The role you play and the experience you get should be towards becoming more skilled at your role.
Loot in reality is usually done in a really lame way,you could be a 6th and sitting in some corner and still get loot,so you are rewarded for doing NOTHING.Then you have flawed designs like that within EQ where players would sit on a loot drop and yell to sell it.
So my point is that it is the players playing mmorpg's all wrong and for the most part designers are NOT making mmorpg's,they are making single player connect the dots games.
Yes i know there are some,maybe many very shy people who will struggle to get in groups,i witnessed many of them over the years.That problem can EASILY be addressed,NOT the way Blizzard or other games does it but similar.You shouldn't be auto warping to a group,you should have to actually navigate your way to the location the group wants to setup shop.
The biggest issue i have seen aside from the players themselves is that developers do NOT do enough testing or put enough thought into the class designs to ensure ALL classes are enjoyed within a group.
It is for this reason that mmorpg's are not dead,there is still a ton of room to improve them,problem is there are a ton of really bad developers who rather spend 6 months making a Diablo than a real mmorpg.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I disagree. the Trinityless hyped died a while ago. Guild Wars 2 hyped that all the way up, and its shows in the way group content is forced to be designed as a trade off of the lack of Trinity.
The issue with groups isnt the Trinity itself. The issue is that Developers make large scale group instances into only hardcore gameplay instead of keeping the casual dungeon difficulty for large group content.
Looking at WoW here since most people here played it and can relate.
They have the more Casual group content called Dungeons which is exclusively 5 man instances (1 Tank, 1 Healer, 3 DPS)
then they have more hardcore group content which is schedule based unlike the Dungeons, so they have to be organized runs since you are locked to the instance until the weekly reset. (10 man or larger. 1 or more tanks, 1 or more healers, rest DPS)
Here the thing.
Why cant the casual dungeons be 10 man or larger without being changed to a hardercore diffulity with all the stuff that comes with Raids.
I rather we get 10 man Casual Dungeons with same difficulties of a normal Dungeon, but the standard group size increased to add more DPS per Tank/Healer ratio.
thats the main solution.
The problem has always been that there are way more DPS per Tank and Healer in these games which leads to large wait times to get into a 5 man instance.
But if the standard party size was no longer 5 players but 10 players, or even 15 players or something, we can increase the number of DPS per group without increasing the number of Tanks and Healers, since those are roles that specific players tend to play.
Also another thing I learned from my experience with Vanilla Rift back in the day was how they handled the Support role in group dungeons. The Support role was another DPS, but was a DPS that could heal and DPS. They also help take a lot of the burden off the healers to over perform. This open the doors for many different Healer play styles, which really made healing for me to be fun to play.
I want to make it clear, I am not saying to get rid of the hardcore group content. But what I am saying is that large group PvE instances shouldnt be the dictator of what is or isnt non-casual gameplay.
As GW2 has shown us.. it's because Players are Assholes.
The Devs make fun open world content for groups of players, like DE's, World Bosses, and Guild Events, and a group of pool shitters sit cry and complain that it is too easy, till the Dev's make it harder, the fuck everyone else over.
So.. yah.. that is why we can't have nice things.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
I grouped pretty much everyday for 15 years,so the theory it is tough to group is misinformation.
Part of the real problem is and i have mentioned it MANY years ago and that is the majority of players within mmorpg's do not belong in a mmorpg.
I should also mention that NO it does not have to be a group in a "dungeon" that is just lazy design by the developer,it can be right outside in the open.It also does not nor it should be about loot.The role you play and the experience you get should be towards becoming more skilled at your role.
Loot in reality is usually done in a really lame way,you could be a 6th and sitting in some corner and still get loot,so you are rewarded for doing NOTHING.Then you have flawed designs like that within EQ where players would sit on a loot drop and yell to sell it.
So my point is that it is the players playing mmorpg's all wrong and for the most part designers are NOT making mmorpg's,they are making single player connect the dots games.
Yes i know there are some,maybe many very shy people who will struggle to get in groups,i witnessed many of them over the years.That problem can EASILY be addressed,NOT the way Blizzard or other games does it but similar.You shouldn't be auto warping to a group,you should have to actually navigate your way to the location the group wants to setup shop.
The biggest issue i have seen aside from the players themselves is that developers do NOT do enough testing or put enough thought into the class designs to ensure ALL classes are enjoyed within a group.
It is for this reason that mmorpg's are not dead,there is still a ton of room to improve them,problem is there are a ton of really bad developers who rather spend 6 months making a Diablo than a real mmorpg.
You and others make grouping sound like there's no problem with it. Some of you are making points to make grouping easier. But why is it, then, that most gamers have gone to soloing?
There is a problem. It's both sometimes difficulty putting together a group, and a lot of complaints about other players. And that's not even mentioning the "elitism" in group formation.
You all have moved to "strawman" territory, I believe.
I grouped pretty much everyday for 15 years,so the theory it is tough to group is misinformation.
Part of the real problem is and i have mentioned it MANY years ago and that is the majority of players within mmorpg's do not belong in a mmorpg.
I should also mention that NO it does not have to be a group in a "dungeon" that is just lazy design by the developer,it can be right outside in the open.It also does not nor it should be about loot.The role you play and the experience you get should be towards becoming more skilled at your role.
Loot in reality is usually done in a really lame way,you could be a 6th and sitting in some corner and still get loot,so you are rewarded for doing NOTHING.Then you have flawed designs like that within EQ where players would sit on a loot drop and yell to sell it.
So my point is that it is the players playing mmorpg's all wrong and for the most part designers are NOT making mmorpg's,they are making single player connect the dots games.
Yes i know there are some,maybe many very shy people who will struggle to get in groups,i witnessed many of them over the years.That problem can EASILY be addressed,NOT the way Blizzard or other games does it but similar.You shouldn't be auto warping to a group,you should have to actually navigate your way to the location the group wants to setup shop.
The biggest issue i have seen aside from the players themselves is that developers do NOT do enough testing or put enough thought into the class designs to ensure ALL classes are enjoyed within a group.
It is for this reason that mmorpg's are not dead,there is still a ton of room to improve them,problem is there are a ton of really bad developers who rather spend 6 months making a Diablo than a real mmorpg.
You and others make grouping sound like there's no problem with it. Some of you are making points to make grouping easier. But why is it, then, that most gamers have gone to soloing?
There is a problem. It's both sometimes difficulty putting together a group, and a lot of complaints about other players. And that's not even mentioning the "elitism" in group formation.
You all have moved to "strawman" territory, I believe.
I don't think so. There isn't an MMO running today that I cannot find a group. The trouble I have is that grouping is no longer any fun for me.
Players that have flooded the MMO market came from very different gaming backgrounds and most of those games I don't like, nor play. So we have silent groups, dickwad groups, speedrun groups, and more elite groups than we ever did before. These group types existed way back when, though not in such abundance, and the fun groups have disappeared altogether for me.
I blame combat today as the main factor for this. It's tough to "chat" when you're constantly clicking as fast as you can. On top of that, there is no more "downtime" in which to chat while recovering. Players can also do everything now, so specializations are out of the picture.
But, this is what the "new breed" desires, so I'm out of luck
- 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 grouped pretty much everyday for 15 years,so the theory it is tough to group is misinformation.
Part of the real problem is and i have mentioned it MANY years ago and that is the majority of players within mmorpg's do not belong in a mmorpg.
I should also mention that NO it does not have to be a group in a "dungeon" that is just lazy design by the developer,it can be right outside in the open.It also does not nor it should be about loot.The role you play and the experience you get should be towards becoming more skilled at your role.
Loot in reality is usually done in a really lame way,you could be a 6th and sitting in some corner and still get loot,so you are rewarded for doing NOTHING.Then you have flawed designs like that within EQ where players would sit on a loot drop and yell to sell it.
So my point is that it is the players playing mmorpg's all wrong and for the most part designers are NOT making mmorpg's,they are making single player connect the dots games.
Yes i know there are some,maybe many very shy people who will struggle to get in groups,i witnessed many of them over the years.That problem can EASILY be addressed,NOT the way Blizzard or other games does it but similar.You shouldn't be auto warping to a group,you should have to actually navigate your way to the location the group wants to setup shop.
The biggest issue i have seen aside from the players themselves is that developers do NOT do enough testing or put enough thought into the class designs to ensure ALL classes are enjoyed within a group.
It is for this reason that mmorpg's are not dead,there is still a ton of room to improve them,problem is there are a ton of really bad developers who rather spend 6 months making a Diablo than a real mmorpg.
You and others make grouping sound like there's no problem with it. Some of you are making points to make grouping easier. But why is it, then, that most gamers have gone to soloing?
There is a problem. It's both sometimes difficulty putting together a group, and a lot of complaints about other players. And that's not even mentioning the "elitism" in group formation.
You all have moved to "strawman" territory, I believe.
I don't think so. There isn't an MMO running today that I cannot find a group. The trouble I have is that grouping is no longer any fun for me.
Players that have flooded the MMO market came from very different gaming backgrounds and most of those games I don't like, nor play. So we have silent groups, dickwad groups, speedrun groups, and more elite groups than we ever did before. These group types existed way back when, though not in such abundance, and the fun groups have disappeared altogether for me.
I blame combat today as the main factor for this. It's tough to "chat" when you're constantly clicking as fast as you can. On top of that, there is no more "downtime" in which to chat while recovering. Players can also do everything now, so specializations are out of the picture.
But, this is what the "new breed" desires, so I'm out of luck
That situation isn't a direct negative as far as other players go. It's a non-thing, neutral, empty. And THAT's the problem there, you usually don't know the others in the group and there's no feelings towards them. No friendships being formed, no social glue developing.
That's a recipe for bad things to happen. That's why the jerks come out of the woodwork.
It’s a fascinating dilemma in virtual worlds. On the one
hand, systems of interdependence mirror our real world and can help bring life
to the virtual one. But we often crave an independence we can’t achieve in real
life, so somehow these virtual worlds are to cater to that as well. We want the
fantasy of a fellowship wandering on their perilous quest through middle-earth.
But we don’t want our talents, items, and skills as some fantastical elven
archer (probably named Legollass) hamstrung by weaker party members. If Tolkien’s
characters were gamers, they’d kick Merry and Pippen out of the party for being
under-geared or under-leveled with shouts of learn2play the moment they were
captured by the Uruk-hai. Flaws and weaknesses can add depth and relatability
to characters in stories, but having to live with similar problems in our video
game characters can be far less appealing.
Well not all people are the same so it is not right to blame people who want to group but cannot for whatever reason.So in a sense developers did fail gamer's from an easier accessible route to grouping without ruining the immersion of a game. Auto grouping is not right,games that do that should not be making grouping games or role playing games.
What i did and to sometimes get an important group was to go to the actual site and wait and if need be ask.If i can do it anyone can but yes i know not everyone is able to openly talk to strangers,it is not easy for everyone.However ,ALL games have lot's of good people and what would happen for me is the group asked me to join.I mean players are not stupid,if they see you sitting alone by a special quest they know the WHY you are there,so yeah good people will invite you in.
Then of course the flip side,not so good people,once they get what they wanted out of the group,they leave,often making some BS excuse.When i group i stay until each person achieves their goal,within reason,i mean if it goes on to 6/7/8 hours i need a break but would still promise to help afterwards.
Overall it is the developers that are not designing their games properly around grouping AND soloing AND while keeping immersion and plausible realism.
Since 2003 i got to play the one game i WANTED to play,i did seek it out,it did not seek me out.Sadly the past 16 years i spent hoping for an even better game,better systems,more immersion but all the last 16 years have brought is a pile of low budget devs pretending to make games.
There lies the problem,there are not enough HQ studios capable of making the game i want,the market is full of early access crowd funding games,loads of crap.So there is maybe 10 or so quality studios but inside their main goal is profits,so making a HQ AAA mmorpg is too big a risk for them to warrant the time and spending.
Long winded point....we are going to keep getting games from passionate developers but always low budget ones that will not improve on what we already played over 15 years ago.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
It’s a fascinating dilemma in virtual worlds. On the one
hand, systems of interdependence mirror our real world and can help bring life
to the virtual one. But we often crave an independence we can’t achieve in real
life, so somehow these virtual worlds are to cater to that as well. We want the
fantasy of a fellowship wandering on their perilous quest through middle-earth.
But we don’t want our talents, items, and skills as some fantastical elven
archer (probably named Legollass) hamstrung by weaker party members. If Tolkien’s
characters were gamers, they’d kick Merry and Pippen out of the party for being
under-geared or under-leveled with shouts of learn2play the moment they were
captured by the Uruk-hai. Flaws and weaknesses can add depth and relatability
to characters in stories, but having to live with similar problems in our video
game characters can be far less appealing.
When I played UO, the only game that I played where Guilds worked (because of low Power Gaps, comparatively) we never worried about Players with Characters that were low skilled, or mistakes in choices, etc. The point was that if someone needed help, you helped. That's the way it was played. Thoughts of someone not "doing their part", things like that, didn't happen. We did have issues with loot splitting, and that sort of thing. You always have that, it's perfectly natural. Had that playing P+P D&D too, lol. But people who know each other, and plan to stay together, they work it out. Those who don't cooperate end up gone, one way or another.
Well not all people are the same so it is not right to blame people who want to group but cannot for whatever reason.So in a sense developers did fail gamer's from an easier accessible route to grouping without ruining the immersion of a game. Auto grouping is not right,games that do that should not be making grouping games or role playing games.
What i did and to sometimes get an important group was to go to the actual site and wait and if need be ask.If i can do it anyone can but yes i know not everyone is able to openly talk to strangers,it is not easy for everyone.However ,ALL games have lot's of good people and what would happen for me is the group asked me to join.I mean players are not stupid,if they see you sitting alone by a special quest they know the WHY you are there,so yeah good people will invite you in.
Then of course the flip side,not so good people,once they get what they wanted out of the group,they leave,often making some BS excuse.When i group i stay until each person achieves their goal,within reason,i mean if it goes on to 6/7/8 hours i need a break but would still promise to help afterwards.
Overall it is the developers that are not designing their games properly around grouping AND soloing AND while keeping immersion and plausible realism.
Since 2003 i got to play the one game i WANTED to play,i did seek it out,it did not seek me out.Sadly the past 16 years i spent hoping for an even better game,better systems,more immersion but all the last 16 years have brought is a pile of low budget devs pretending to make games.
There lies the problem,there are not enough HQ studios capable of making the game i want,the market is full of early access crowd funding games,loads of crap.So there is maybe 10 or so quality studios but inside their main goal is profits,so making a HQ AAA mmorpg is too big a risk for them to warrant the time and spending.
Long winded point....we are going to keep getting games from passionate developers but always low budget ones that will not improve on what we already played over 15 years ago.
I think it is possible to have a great game from low budgets. But that depends on what a player expects as "good." As far as a Sandbox, I can see a game that I'd like, even if waiting for new expanded features was part of it. I can get excited about the basics, as long as they are good and well done, and not repetitive. I can wait for the extra, as long as it's coming in small chunks. I'm almost waiting for "simple, but expansive" at this point.
The biggest problem I see is Developers trying to make something people don't want, for the most part. Such as wide open PvP and ganking. Or games with mixed themes. Or a bunch of content locked behind a Cash Shop. Or Walls of any sort. Or heavily Zoned worlds (where you don't have land between, you take a ride).
[...] The point was that if someone needed help, you helped. That's the way it was played. [...]
Too bad I missed out on UO.
To what extent was that a product of the game (design, systems, etc) and to what extent was that the mindset or culture the gamers brought to the game, I wonder?
I know that with P&P, the group I play with has a bigger impact on my enjoyment of the game than the underlying rule set. To some extent, this also holds true with online gaming. However, MMOs are almost as though you were trying to play D&D with a group of friends in the middle of the mall with random people jumping in at will. I wouldn't envy the DM trying to incorporate every random character into a cohesively enjoyable game, so I guess I can't be too critical of how MMO systems handle it either.
Combat grouping generally sucks. If they made places you couldn't go without grouping. I mean whole zones that are just dangerous solo you'd probably have more grouping.
MMORPG hasn't gotten around to strategic combat. It's either blast to death, magnetic tank or dancing in danger zones. One reason why I believe in limited grouping is better in MMORPG for combat. It's also a chore and time waster to form.
[...] The point was that if someone needed help, you helped. That's the way it was played. [...]
Too bad I missed out on UO.
To what extent was that a product of the game (design, systems, etc) and to what extent was that the mindset or culture the gamers brought to the game, I wonder?
I know that with P&P, the group I play with has a bigger impact on my enjoyment of the game than the underlying rule set. To some extent, this also holds true with online gaming. However, MMOs are almost as though you were trying to play D&D with a group of friends in the middle of the mall with random people jumping in at will. I wouldn't envy the DM trying to incorporate every random character into a cohesively enjoyable game, so I guess I can't be too critical of how MMO systems handle it either.
Both, in a natural way. I'll try to describe it.
- First of all, there were no Instances, nor "End Game" content that's designed a specific way like WoW clones. There were what you could think of as "End Game" Bosses in groups of top end MOB spawns.
- Respawns. The more you killed and the faster, the more respawn picked up.
- MOBs would chase you until you lost them (range, hiding skill). Then they'd return. Mostly they were killed by Players. Trains were common and a tactic, just as any MMORPG.
Now I'll give you an example.
Dungeon Hythloth:
1- Large room where Gargoyles spawned. Tough but not for maxed out 2-3 Characters. 2- Wide hallway leading out a fair distance to a set of rooms around a corner where more Gargoyles spawned. Not in range of the first room (for targeting). 3- Passage overhead on an upper level with a bridge across the Hallway in 2. 4- Stairs leading up to that bridge area from Hallway, next to the bridge. 5- This stairs and bridge area played together with the 2 levels as one battle area.
Now, down the halls each way from that upper bridge area were more Spawn points. These were with Daemons, which were very tough. It took several players to kill a Daemon. Groups of them were nasty for groups to beat.
Both Gargoyles and Daemons could cast spells as well as hit hard, so running wasn't always an escape.
And it was easy to accidentally draw a Daemon or 2 into the Bridge area, and they'd follow players down the steps, so things could get really dicey sometimes.
Besides players healing each other in times of need, and jumping in to draw a MOB off of someone in trouble and on the run, I designed a system of "escapes" for my guild mates. I had a Mage, and would "Mark" several places around so that I could open up Gates for my friends to run through when they got in trouble. One Mark was on the Bridge above, and then I had some on each side of the Bridge in the wide Hall below.
I could see when my friends were in trouble with a Daemon on the Bridge, from below in the Hallway, open a Gate to that safer place below, where we had control of the Gargoyle spawn. They'd run through the Gate, pop in below, and the Daemon wouldn't follow him through the Gate. (UO removed MOBs following players through Gates because players were casting Gates from the Dungeons to the Banks where lots of players were AFK, and then getting killed by the MOB.)
My guildmates said that this tactic was a lot of fun. Harrowing escapes and all that sort of thing. It was kind of wild, stay on your toes, game play. And it was all natural feeling.
There were a lot of strategies players came up with. many, I'm sure, the Devs thought of.
- If on the run and fearing a Spell from the MOB, you could cast invisibility on yourself and then hide to get rid of them. This was tricky, because when the Invis spell wore off you "revealed." So you had to Hide again before the MOB spotted you.
- You could run around a corner and Hide to get rid of the MOB target. (You couldn't Hide while a MOB has sight on you.)
- The standard game of tag to draw targeting off of a friend.
- You could Teleport (within view) and then use Hide Skill right away and usually it worked before the MOB saw you again (making the Hide skill not work).
- Players could make Scrolls for Magic Spells, and sell them. These were usable at a much lower Magery Skill level. There were also Invis Potions players could make and sell. In a low Power Gap game such as UO, all this stuff worked without a Level component to it (except for Magery Skill). There was a "Reveal" Spell, and some MOBs had this capability.
Wide open fun, without the typical MMORPG Levels to interfere.
Some great ideas here, the problem is that so few have been seen in MMOs, or if they have the concept is only seen in one place. Gamers go by what they experience and developers go by what they see being done. Getting anything new gameplay wise of the ground is incredibly uphill. Many relatively simple ideas like a level buddy system which aids grouping never became universal, that's why I don't have much hope for more elaborate schemes. That said it would only take one game using such ideas to be a run away success and then everyone would be making them.
I still dont get how people think they need to level up. Doing 100 damage to a 1000hp mob or doing 1000 damage to a 10000hp mob.
Is it the bigger numbers that makes people happy? Is it that you can show off how much you played? Why do people need to grow stronger when the truth is, that you arent getting really stronger as the enemies grow the same while you just make older content obsolete.
I've always thought that this is a cheap way of fulfilling your "hero's journey", in that your character starts off in low-level areas where mobs are challenging, goes adventuring through the world, and returns changed (able to easily defeat those mobs).
Unfortunately, such steep vertical progression (as it exists in these games today) ignores the many interesting ways in which a character can change and develop. Instead of timidly curious, innocent Bilbo leaving the Shire and returning as a far more confident, somewhat solemn, and very loot-laden hobbit, we get Bilbo leaving the Shire and returning as Gandalf.
I must say, I also don't like the way some games/devs frame horizontal progression these days. Vertical progression is about acquiring new items with new stats, so horizontal progression becomes acquiring new items with the same stats. Unsurprisingly, people aren't as interested. But, as others have pointed out, there is so much more that can be done in terms of character progression that goes beyond the look of your armor or sword.
I've often wondered about changing game assets as a way to show progression. Say your character first enters the Wilds, and sees wolves that all look the same, but as your skill in hunting/tracking increases the wolves are loaded with different features allowing you to differentiate the alpha from others in the pack, or even different sub-species. Apply this idea to every element of the game, and you can imagine how your characters view of the world changes over time. Grouping, in this context, would mean bringing people along who might notice things you'd completely miss.
Comments
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
I'd prefer that there is no limit to the Horizontal gains where you have to drop an old Skill to add a new Skill.
The game can be designed around that. Just have Horizontal gains fit into a Skill, and thus be limited to use by the Character having said skill, or be completely new and outside of other Skills.
As an example,
A Mage Skill is required to be able to use an ability to cast a spell farther, completely useless to a Fighter, and a Mage without said spell has to gain it to use that ability with it.
But an ability (thinking top end here) to "Meld Into Stone" allows the Character to do that, cast spells or shoot arrows or whatever, from inside a stone wall while taking half damage from certain attacks that affect stone, or the Character's mind. For a limited time, maybe based on the Character's Will Power.
That's just an "off the cuff" idea, so there may be flaws.
Edit to add:
I think discovering (or earning) a lot of new Progression; Skills, Natural Defenses (Dragon Skin Armor Bonus from washing in Dragon blood, for example), new spells, new special attacks for weapons, enhancements to normal abilities, farther jumping, faster running, etc.), new abilities like water breathing for a few minutes to longer, the ideas are really endless...I think that would be exciting game play.
Discover it, earn it, and be rare or even unique with some of it.
Once upon a time....
The issue with groups isnt the Trinity itself. The issue is that Developers make large scale group instances into only hardcore gameplay instead of keeping the casual dungeon difficulty for large group content.
Looking at WoW here since most people here played it and can relate.
They have the more Casual group content called Dungeons which is exclusively 5 man instances (1 Tank, 1 Healer, 3 DPS)
then they have more hardcore group content which is schedule based unlike the Dungeons, so they have to be organized runs since you are locked to the instance until the weekly reset. (10 man or larger. 1 or more tanks, 1 or more healers, rest DPS)
Here the thing.
Why cant the casual dungeons be 10 man or larger without being changed to a hardercore diffulity with all the stuff that comes with Raids.
I rather we get 10 man Casual Dungeons with same difficulties of a normal Dungeon, but the standard group size increased to add more DPS per Tank/Healer ratio.
thats the main solution.
The problem has always been that there are way more DPS per Tank and Healer in these games which leads to large wait times to get into a 5 man instance.
But if the standard party size was no longer 5 players but 10 players, or even 15 players or something, we can increase the number of DPS per group without increasing the number of Tanks and Healers, since those are roles that specific players tend to play.
Also another thing I learned from my experience with Vanilla Rift back in the day was how they handled the Support role in group dungeons. The Support role was another DPS, but was a DPS that could heal and DPS. They also help take a lot of the burden off the healers to over perform. This open the doors for many different Healer play styles, which really made healing for me to be fun to play.
I want to make it clear, I am not saying to get rid of the hardcore group content. But what I am saying is that large group PvE instances shouldnt be the dictator of what is or isnt non-casual gameplay.
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
Doing 100 damage to a 1000hp mob or doing 1000 damage to a 10000hp mob.
Is it the bigger numbers that makes people happy? Is it that you can show off how much you played? Why do people need to grow stronger when the truth is, that you arent getting really stronger as the enemies grow the same while you just make older content obsolete.
1997 Meridian 59 'til 2019 ESO
Waiting for Camelot Unchained & Pantheon
In a multiplayer game, at the very least, I would want to avoid gimmicks, and instead try achieve immersion into the game world, but without having gimmicks undermine the existing gameplay that obviously rely on the player being pleasently entertained by the game world as such.
Another aspect, I've very much familiar with in a game like Arma multiplayer games, is 'player initiative', but relying on game mechanics that actually offer this cerebral experience that tasks the player to make extensive use of his/her situational awareness, and also having that relying on the game world as such but not gimmicks and shallow game mechanics.
Part of the real problem is and i have mentioned it MANY years ago and that is the majority of players within mmorpg's do not belong in a mmorpg.
I should also mention that NO it does not have to be a group in a "dungeon" that is just lazy design by the developer,it can be right outside in the open.It also does not nor it should be about loot.The role you play and the experience you get should be towards becoming more skilled at your role.
Loot in reality is usually done in a really lame way,you could be a 6th and sitting in some corner and still get loot,so you are rewarded for doing NOTHING.Then you have flawed designs like that within EQ where players would sit on a loot drop and yell to sell it.
So my point is that it is the players playing mmorpg's all wrong and for the most part designers are NOT making mmorpg's,they are making single player connect the dots games.
Yes i know there are some,maybe many very shy people who will struggle to get in groups,i witnessed many of them over the years.That problem can EASILY be addressed,NOT the way Blizzard or other games does it but similar.You shouldn't be auto warping to a group,you should have to actually navigate your way to the location the group wants to setup shop.
The biggest issue i have seen aside from the players themselves is that developers do NOT do enough testing or put enough thought into the class designs to ensure ALL classes are enjoyed within a group.
It is for this reason that mmorpg's are not dead,there is still a ton of room to improve them,problem is there are a ton of really bad developers who rather spend 6 months making a Diablo than a real mmorpg.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
The Devs make fun open world content for groups of players, like DE's, World Bosses, and Guild Events, and a group of pool shitters sit cry and complain that it is too easy, till the Dev's make it harder, the fuck everyone else over.
So.. yah.. that is why we can't have nice things.
But why is it, then, that most gamers have gone to soloing?
There is a problem. It's both sometimes difficulty putting together a group, and a lot of complaints about other players.
And that's not even mentioning the "elitism" in group formation.
You all have moved to "strawman" territory, I believe.
Once upon a time....
Players that have flooded the MMO market came from very different gaming backgrounds and most of those games I don't like, nor play. So we have silent groups, dickwad groups, speedrun groups, and more elite groups than we ever did before. These group types existed way back when, though not in such abundance, and the fun groups have disappeared altogether for me.
I blame combat today as the main factor for this. It's tough to "chat" when you're constantly clicking as fast as you can. On top of that, there is no more "downtime" in which to chat while recovering. Players can also do everything now, so specializations are out of the picture.
But, this is what the "new breed" desires, so I'm out of luck
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
And THAT's the problem there, you usually don't know the others in the group and there's no feelings towards them. No friendships being formed, no social glue developing.
That's a recipe for bad things to happen. That's why the jerks come out of the woodwork.
Once upon a time....
It’s a fascinating dilemma in virtual worlds. On the one hand, systems of interdependence mirror our real world and can help bring life to the virtual one. But we often crave an independence we can’t achieve in real life, so somehow these virtual worlds are to cater to that as well. We want the fantasy of a fellowship wandering on their perilous quest through middle-earth. But we don’t want our talents, items, and skills as some fantastical elven archer (probably named Legollass) hamstrung by weaker party members. If Tolkien’s characters were gamers, they’d kick Merry and Pippen out of the party for being under-geared or under-leveled with shouts of learn2play the moment they were captured by the Uruk-hai. Flaws and weaknesses can add depth and relatability to characters in stories, but having to live with similar problems in our video game characters can be far less appealing.
Auto grouping is not right,games that do that should not be making grouping games or role playing games.
What i did and to sometimes get an important group was to go to the actual site and wait and if need be ask.If i can do it anyone can but yes i know not everyone is able to openly talk to strangers,it is not easy for everyone.However ,ALL games have lot's of good people and what would happen for me is the group asked me to join.I mean players are not stupid,if they see you sitting alone by a special quest they know the WHY you are there,so yeah good people will invite you in.
Then of course the flip side,not so good people,once they get what they wanted out of the group,they leave,often making some BS excuse.When i group i stay until each person achieves their goal,within reason,i mean if it goes on to 6/7/8 hours i need a break but would still promise to help afterwards.
Overall it is the developers that are not designing their games properly around grouping AND soloing AND while keeping immersion and plausible realism.
Since 2003 i got to play the one game i WANTED to play,i did seek it out,it did not seek me out.Sadly the past 16 years i spent hoping for an even better game,better systems,more immersion but all the last 16 years have brought is a pile of low budget devs pretending to make games.
There lies the problem,there are not enough HQ studios capable of making the game i want,the market is full of early access crowd funding games,loads of crap.So there is maybe 10 or so quality studios but inside their main goal is profits,so making a HQ AAA mmorpg is too big a risk for them to warrant the time and spending.
Long winded point....we are going to keep getting games from passionate developers but always low budget ones that will not improve on what we already played over 15 years ago.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Thoughts of someone not "doing their part", things like that, didn't happen.
We did have issues with loot splitting, and that sort of thing. You always have that, it's perfectly natural. Had that playing P+P D&D too, lol. But people who know each other, and plan to stay together, they work it out. Those who don't cooperate end up gone, one way or another.
Once upon a time....
I think it is possible to have a great game from low budgets. But that depends on what a player expects as "good."
As far as a Sandbox, I can see a game that I'd like, even if waiting for new expanded features was part of it.
I can get excited about the basics, as long as they are good and well done, and not repetitive. I can wait for the extra, as long as it's coming in small chunks.
I'm almost waiting for "simple, but expansive" at this point.
The biggest problem I see is Developers trying to make something people don't want, for the most part.
Such as wide open PvP and ganking.
Or games with mixed themes.
Or a bunch of content locked behind a Cash Shop.
Or Walls of any sort.
Or heavily Zoned worlds (where you don't have land between, you take a ride).
Once upon a time....
MMORPG hasn't gotten around to strategic combat. It's either blast to death, magnetic tank or dancing in danger zones. One reason why I believe in limited grouping is better in MMORPG for combat. It's also a chore and time waster to form.
I'll try to describe it.
- First of all, there were no Instances, nor "End Game" content that's designed a specific way like WoW clones. There were what you could think of as "End Game" Bosses in groups of top end MOB spawns.
- Respawns. The more you killed and the faster, the more respawn picked up.
- MOBs would chase you until you lost them (range, hiding skill). Then they'd return. Mostly they were killed by Players. Trains were common and a tactic, just as any MMORPG.
Now I'll give you an example.
Dungeon Hythloth:
1- Large room where Gargoyles spawned. Tough but not for maxed out 2-3 Characters.
2- Wide hallway leading out a fair distance to a set of rooms around a corner where more Gargoyles spawned. Not in range of the first room (for targeting).
3- Passage overhead on an upper level with a bridge across the Hallway in 2.
4- Stairs leading up to that bridge area from Hallway, next to the bridge.
5- This stairs and bridge area played together with the 2 levels as one battle area.
Now, down the halls each way from that upper bridge area were more Spawn points. These were with Daemons, which were very tough. It took several players to kill a Daemon. Groups of them were nasty for groups to beat.
Both Gargoyles and Daemons could cast spells as well as hit hard, so running wasn't always an escape.
And it was easy to accidentally draw a Daemon or 2 into the Bridge area, and they'd follow players down the steps, so things could get really dicey sometimes.
Besides players healing each other in times of need, and jumping in to draw a MOB off of someone in trouble and on the run, I designed a system of "escapes" for my guild mates.
I had a Mage, and would "Mark" several places around so that I could open up Gates for my friends to run through when they got in trouble.
One Mark was on the Bridge above, and then I had some on each side of the Bridge in the wide Hall below.
I could see when my friends were in trouble with a Daemon on the Bridge, from below in the Hallway, open a Gate to that safer place below, where we had control of the Gargoyle spawn. They'd run through the Gate, pop in below, and the Daemon wouldn't follow him through the Gate. (UO removed MOBs following players through Gates because players were casting Gates from the Dungeons to the Banks where lots of players were AFK, and then getting killed by the MOB.)
My guildmates said that this tactic was a lot of fun. Harrowing escapes and all that sort of thing. It was kind of wild, stay on your toes, game play.
And it was all natural feeling.
There were a lot of strategies players came up with. many, I'm sure, the Devs thought of.
- If on the run and fearing a Spell from the MOB, you could cast invisibility on yourself and then hide to get rid of them. This was tricky, because when the Invis spell wore off you "revealed." So you had to Hide again before the MOB spotted you.
- You could run around a corner and Hide to get rid of the MOB target. (You couldn't Hide while a MOB has sight on you.)
- The standard game of tag to draw targeting off of a friend.
- You could Teleport (within view) and then use Hide Skill right away and usually it worked before the MOB saw you again (making the Hide skill not work).
- Players could make Scrolls for Magic Spells, and sell them. These were usable at a much lower Magery Skill level. There were also Invis Potions players could make and sell.
In a low Power Gap game such as UO, all this stuff worked without a Level component to it (except for Magery Skill). There was a "Reveal" Spell, and some MOBs had this capability.
Wide open fun, without the typical MMORPG Levels to interfere.
Once upon a time....