GW2 has it as does ESO and even WOW with the increasing number of "world quests" with each expansion but to this day, no one still has done it better than Rift.
They still need to kick it up several notches and make their resolution affect the game world and its population in longer lasting more permanent ways as well 7as getting rid of the timers.
I have been kind of surprised that games have essentially gone backwards since Rift in this regard. Rift made me feel like the holy grail of a truely living dangerous world was within our grasp, so close I could almost taste it, and yet ten years on and there is still nothing even close.
Although I think Rift did it well Tabula Rasa did it much, much better with its sieges and active targetting of outposts etc. The huge spaceships flying in and dropping enemies in the zone was also so much more impressive then the glorified spawning of Rift. It all just felt much more dynamic and dangerous.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
One thing that Tabula Rosa's mobs lacked us they never fought each other and they didnt move in large groups together.
Rifts mobs had factions so fire rift would fight water rift etc...
Also Tabula Rasa didn't have mobs to being able to take over entire zones and move around in large groups.
From a coding perspective Rifts system was far more complex
Very true. But although Rifts system might have been more complex it felt much more structured and predicatble, unexciting even. I guess that goes for all of Rift though, mechanically solid but lacking any from of soul. Funny, since it was all about souls.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
I think as many things Rift did right - it probably did equally if not more so many things wrong, if they would have focused on making Rifts even more dynamic and more world impacting and not focused so much on trying to "out-WoW" WoW.
Dev teams often fail to recognize the best features of the game and really making those even better - instead they focus on the biggest weaknesses and try to bring them up to par.
IMO - cutting the weaknesses all togehter (if possible) and just making the best parts of the game and focusing on that making those great might be a much better approach.
Aye, most of their mechanics were lifted straight from WoW but what set them aside wasn’t what was focussed on in the long run. That and those criminally small zones. And although that was somewhat solved with the release of Storm Legion it was too little too late.
Now I am wondering how Rift is doing, is it still around even? Nobody ever talks about it and I can’t remember the last time an article was published mentioning it. Probably full maintenance mode with a healthy cash shop.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
I like games that balance it. Especially when it came to stealing mob kills/xp. If you hit it, you get some.
I thought ESO was pretty good when roaming and doing quests, especially hard world bosses... people would group up and help. You could also run pug or premade through dungeons.
I know level scaling is controversial here, but I like it in ESO, you can go anywhere and help out anyone (combined with the mega server, zones are populated). You never out level content you haven't done before.
GW2 has it as does ESO and even WOW with the increasing number of "world quests" with each expansion but to this day, no one still has done it better than Rift.
They still need to kick it up several notches and make their resolution affect the game world and its population in longer lasting more permanent ways as well 7as getting rid of the timers.
I have been kind of surprised that games have essentially gone backwards since Rift in this regard. Rift made me feel like the holy grail of a truely living dangerous world was within our grasp, so close I could almost taste it, and yet ten years on and there is still nothing even close.
Although I think Rift did it well Tabula Rasa did it much, much better with its sieges and active targetting of outposts etc. The huge spaceships flying in and dropping enemies in the zone was also so much more impressive then the glorified spawning of Rift. It all just felt much more dynamic and dangerous.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
One thing that Tabula Rosa's mobs lacked us they never fought each other and they didnt move in large groups together.
Rifts mobs had factions so fire rift would fight water rift etc...
Also Tabula Rasa didn't have mobs to being able to take over entire zones and move around in large groups.
From a coding perspective Rifts system was far more complex
Very true. But although Rifts system might have been more complex it felt much more structured and predicatble, unexciting even. I guess that goes for all of Rift though, mechanically solid but lacking any from of soul. Funny, since it was all about souls.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
I think as many things Rift did right - it probably did equally if not more so many things wrong, if they would have focused on making Rifts even more dynamic and more world impacting and not focused so much on trying to "out-WoW" WoW.
Dev teams often fail to recognize the best features of the game and really making those even better - instead they focus on the biggest weaknesses and try to bring them up to par.
IMO - cutting the weaknesses all togehter (if possible) and just making the best parts of the game and focusing on that making those great might be a much better approach.
I think they got player complaints. One I've mentioned before was that someone on a forum was complaining that the rifts were interrupting their "questing."
It was all I could do to not throw myself through the screen.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
For me, this issue is about two key things: confidence and trust.
Nobody starts a game and is immediately an expert. We all start as noobs and develop our skills and knowledge over time. As we improve, so does our confidence in ourselves. Confidence is a big part of our willingness to interact with others: if we are worried about our own performance or abilities, we begin to fear recriminations from others. Overcoming that fear is difficult, and considering this is a hobby, many people don't bother.
Likewise, trust in others is a huge part of multiplayer games, especially games designed around interdependence. We are investing our highly valued time where our enjoyment is highly dependent on other people who are outside of our control. Trust is not automatic, it is earned over time.
From these two things, we can start to design games in a way that helps build both confidence in ourselves, and trust in others.
We start with easy, solo content, some good tutorials etc to help us begin to understand the games systems and how to play. this then needs to build up, both in complexity and difficulty, and as we understand and overcome each new challenge, we build up confidence in ourselves.
On the trust side of things, it starts with simply seeing other people running about in the background, or seeing them chatting in the chat channels. When we start to see the same people running around, or talking politely, that repeated contact begins to build trust. Then you move onto "casual" grouping - public quests in WAR, rifts in RIFT etc. Low stress, low impact, low committment, but these types of events again help to build trust in others (this is the part that Ungood seems to be focused on, the playing alongside others bit). Then you can start stepping it up, with more focused grouping, harder challenges etc, culminating in the typical endgame raiding - high stress, high difficulty, and requiring high degrees of trust.
Underpinning trust is the tools the devs give us to communicate. Chat channels are the basic minimum, but then you have roleplaying tools like emotes, in-game voice chat, friends lists, as well as guilds.
It is for these reasons why I am against highly instanced / layered games. Instances separate you from the rest of the game world and reduce the probably of repeated contact with others. If you aren't bumping into the same people over time, you'll never build trust in one another. A strong community will never form, because you all remain basically strangers to one another.
This is why games like Destiny, The Division etc are always best played with existing friends. The games do nothing to foster friendships and trust between players so you are perpetually grouping with total strangers, reducing the need for civility and also making it completely random in terms of player capability. You might group with some awesome players, or some complete dicks. The lack of interdependency reduces the need to communicate and coordinate, so there is even less reason to socialise and form bonds.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
The problem with grouping is fundamentally one of player density. Guild Wars 2 often suffered from events not working because of this. If you need several players in order to complete an event and no one else is around, you can't do the event. If you have three times as many players as you need, the event becomes trivial.
The problem of communication within a group is a very different one. When you have a little bit of group content that players loop a zillion times, nearly everyone has seen it many times before and knows what to do. There's no need for player communication there. In order to make communication an essential part of the game, you need for players to not know ahead of time exactly what is going to happen and need to figure out how to adjust together as they go.
GW2 has it as does ESO and even WOW with the increasing number of "world quests" with each expansion but to this day, no one still has done it better than Rift.
They still need to kick it up several notches and make their resolution affect the game world and its population in longer lasting more permanent ways as well as getting rid of the timers.
I have been kind of surprised that games have essentially gone backwards since Rift in this regard. Rift made me feel like the holy grail of a truely living dangerous world was within our grasp, so close I could almost taste it, and yet ten years on and there is still nothing even close.
Although I think Rift did it well Tabula Rasa did it much, much better with its sieges and active targetting of outposts etc. The huge spaceships flying in and dropping enemies in the zone was also so much more impressive then the glorified spawning of Rift. It all just felt much more dynamic and dangerous.
GW2 has it as does ESO and even WOW with the increasing number of "world
quests" with each expansion but to this day, no one still has done it
better than Rift.
The early MMOs came from D&D....You played a role in a group...a role playing game......You had certain skills but were not awesome at everything.....You needed other people to survive in D&D......Once you take away the classes and the need to play together, then you have a co-op game, not a role playing game....If that works better for people so be it, but it is no longer role playing, its just playing.
No, you didn't need other players to survive in D&D. A DM with one player would simply devise adventures and encounters around that sole character's abilities. Even in group play, players aren't joined at the hip. There will be cause for them to split up, even if it's just the thief not wanting Sir Clanksalot close when he's sneaking about.
Once you take away the classes and need to play together you have what inspired D&D to begin with, fantasy novels that had plenty of examples of lone wolf characters that had no trouble adventuring on their own.
That you need others to role-play is a self-imposed personal limitation. One must simply act in character to be role-playing. It doesn't make a smidge of difference if those around you know what role-playing is or that you're doing it, or that anyone else is around to observe it at all.
To role-play, role-players must simply have a character in mind and conduct themselves accordingly. They need not jump through additional hoops insisted on by others, even those held by their fellow role-players.
GW2 has it as does ESO and even WOW with the increasing number of "world quests" with each expansion but to this day, no one still has done it better than Rift.
Rifts were alright, in limited scope. Planar invasions were often annoying in that entire regions could be made unusable for normal play for fair amounts of time, which was not particularly helpful if that is what you needed the region for.
Having persistent change from them could also be troublesome, especially in lower level areas with characters just starting out, possibly making even basic play problematic.
With their constrained area of affect in GW2 and ESO both world events and regular play can coexist with the former not being a bother to those focused on the latter.
Actually, Guild Wars 2 also had some public quests, but alas, none of which that were truly soloable. However, you have to question at some point why do people play MMOs. If they are truly anti social and simply dont like to group, then wouldn't it make sense to just play single player games? Far as I can remember, MMOs have always focused more on group content in regards to acquiring better gear, not that a player couldn't solo in the game, but just didn't have access to the best loot.
Single player games can be comparatively static compared to MMORPGs, so it could be for more frequent new content. Interaction with other players isn't limited to group play, trade for example. Soloists that still enjoy social interaction can get that through either chat, or guilds strictly for that purpose which I have seen occasionally.
One can often get by with less than ideal gear when one isn't grouping for challenging endgame content, making that largely a non-issue for soloists.
GW2 has it as does ESO and even WOW with the increasing number of "world quests" with each expansion but to this day, no one still has done it better than Rift.
They still need to kick it up several notches and make their resolution affect the game world and its population in longer lasting more permanent ways as well 7as getting rid of the timers.
I have been kind of surprised that games have essentially gone backwards since Rift in this regard. Rift made me feel like the holy grail of a truely living dangerous world was within our grasp, so close I could almost taste it, and yet ten years on and there is still nothing even close.
Although I think Rift did it well Tabula Rasa did it much, much better with its sieges and active targetting of outposts etc. The huge spaceships flying in and dropping enemies in the zone was also so much more impressive then the glorified spawning of Rift. It all just felt much more dynamic and dangerous.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
One thing that Tabula Rosa's mobs lacked us they never fought each other and they didnt move in large groups together.
Rifts mobs had factions so fire rift would fight water rift etc...
Also Tabula Rasa didn't have mobs to being able to take over entire zones and move around in large groups.
From a coding perspective Rifts system was far more complex
Very true. But although Rifts system might have been more complex it felt much more structured and predicatble, unexciting even. I guess that goes for all of Rift though, mechanically solid but lacking any from of soul. Funny, since it was all about souls.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
I think as many things Rift did right - it probably did equally if not more so many things wrong, if they would have focused on making Rifts even more dynamic and more world impacting and not focused so much on trying to "out-WoW" WoW.
Dev teams often fail to recognize the best features of the game and really making those even better - instead they focus on the biggest weaknesses and try to bring them up to par.
IMO - cutting the weaknesses all togehter (if possible) and just making the best parts of the game and focusing on that making those great might be a much better approach.
Aye, most of their mechanics were lifted straight from WoW but what set them aside wasn’t what was focussed on in the long run. That and those criminally small zones. And although that was somewhat solved with the release of Storm Legion it was too little too late.
Now I am wondering how Rift is doing, is it still around even? Nobody ever talks about it and I can’t remember the last time an article was published mentioning it. Probably full maintenance mode with a healthy cash shop.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Rift is still around and not doing well. Trion is gone, with Gamigo instead now owning their games. The quality of service has further declined accordingly, with nothing new on the horizon for the game so far as I know.
I think they got player complaints. One I've mentioned before was that someone on a forum was complaining that the rifts were interrupting their "questing."
It was all I could do to not throw myself through the screen.
Yup. I remember those too.
They missed the whole point of what Trion was trying to do with emergent game play. My complaint was that the zone invasions didn't go far enough and didn't destroy structures. They should have and there should have been a community reconstruction phase to bring it back to normal.
But some obviously just want the same old formula copied from their favorite cookie-cutter MMO and considered those zone invasions a bother.
Rifts were alright, in limited scope. Planar invasions were often annoying in that entire regions could be made unusable for normal play for fair amounts of time, which was not particularly helpful if that is what you needed the region for.
Having persistent change from them could also be troublesome, especially in lower level areas with characters just starting out, possibly making even basic play problematic.
With their constrained area of affect in GW2 and ESO both world events and regular play can coexist with the former not being a bother to those focused on the latter.
You want unobtrusive events with pretend gravitas to not interfere with the MMO formula gameplay you're comfortable with.
I would rather see MMOs take the next step and involve everyone in common goals as the core game play not as a trivial side show.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
GW2 has it as does ESO and even WOW with the increasing number of "world
quests" with each expansion but to this day, no one still has done it
better than Rift.
And Rift stole it from Warhammer....
You think the WAR PQs were in the same league as Rift's zone invasions? Not even close.
Also if you're going to quote me, learn to quote.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
GW2 has it as does ESO and even WOW with the increasing number of "world quests" with each expansion but to this day, no one still has done it better than Rift.
Rifts were alright, in limited scope. Planar invasions were often annoying in that entire regions could be made unusable for normal play for fair amounts of time, which was not particularly helpful if that is what you needed the region for.
Having persistent change from them could also be troublesome, especially in lower level areas with characters just starting out, possibly making even basic play problematic.
With their constrained area of affect in GW2 and ESO both world events and regular play can coexist with the former not being a bother to those focused on the latter.
I think I found the bloke who melted down the holy grail
GW2 has it as does ESO and even WOW with the increasing number of "world
quests" with each expansion but to this day, no one still has done it
better than Rift.
And Rift stole it from Warhammer....
You think the WAR PQs were in the same league as Rift's zone invasions? Not even close.
Also if you're going to quote me, learn to quote.
Uhmmm I copied and pasted it, so if that isnt accurate enough i dont know what to say.....You dont have to be a jerk about it
You want unobtrusive events with pretend gravitas to not interfere with the MMO formula gameplay you're comfortable with.
I would rather see MMOs take the next step and involve everyone in common goals as the core game play not as a trivial side show.
Yep, we already have loads of the former. I'd rather see someone try one of the latter, ignore those that complain (there will always be those that complain for something every time anyway) and see how it goes.
But it has to be done carefully and masterfully. Otherwise you will just get a nasty balancing point: that of the best rewards. The world will just change strictly based on the rewards of these events.
I think that is pretty well inevitable and yes it does need to be managed.
A lot of players these days pay a lot of lip service to great communities and how they needed each other to progress in those rose colored olden days, but when push comes to shove they want their individual accomplishments and acknowledgement above all. They may be willing to extend that to their small inner circle but it pretty well stops there because what they really want is to compete against each other and see their names at the top of the scoreboard... scoreboards, yuck. The worst thing ever imported from FPS games into MMOs.
Many here look down on what they call zergfests and their idea of good PvP is 12 v. 12 in an instance with tiered loot and XP pinatas at the end.
But that can be managed. If it takes getting the best xp/hour or best loot from active participation in community goals, I'm OK with that. Yeah it would be better if there was participation just because you know, you are that rare gamer who actually does want to play as a community it wouldn't need to be heavily incentivized with rewards but I've come to the conclusion that those are indeed rare gamers.
I love good RvR as my favorite thing to do in MMOs. I can lose hours playing in large coordinated groups going back and forth trying to control forts and bridges or whatever and not give the tiniest shit about whether I gained levels or loot or used my gaming time most efficiently. If the game play and unexpected detours engaged me and were fun, I'm happy with just having done it and having been there.
Yes I know, I'm weird like that.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
I'm actually torn on this topic (great one, Ungood!).
Scot makes a great point about the origins coming from D&D, a "group game" played in person. I got into MMORPGs seeking something akin to this experience. It has yet to materialize.
The problems are many fold. 1) "Face to face vs. Internet screens." We act very differently between these 2 ways of communicating. Backstabbing your real life friend across the table is very different from backstabbing some anonymous name on a monitor.
2) "Who you know." The first time playing D&D, you may know one other person. For me, one friend introduced me to the game, then one other joined us, and that person played with a bigger group (from 5 to 7 others) and I eventually joined that group. This doesn't happen easily in MMORPGs. You may meet a player out in the world and adventure together for a session or two. But, this takes an effort to say something to a total stranger. You don't know anything about them. You may want to say a joke and they could (especially today) take it totally wrong and even report you. I met my D&D friend through Debate/speech class and choir. Very small chance for this connection in MMORPGs.
3) "Forced Grouping" I enjoyed grouping in EQ 1. But I also hated it. Depending on others is not good if you have goals and pathways in mind when you log on. But most of the time, a group stared clicking and levels flew by. One person would leave and another would usually hop in. I recall the groups I was in moving from spawn point to spawn point as we gained levels. I could "waste" many hours doing this, even whole weekends
4) "Solo Activities" There should be solo activities, though. I "shouldn't" need another player to work on my crafting or fishing. Maybe if I was going someplace way above my current level I may need help, but not generally
I have no answers, as I am conflicted. I agree with Scot that MMOs should be all about grouping and playing with others, not solo affairs that are done better in single player games. But there needs to be activities available if a player has limited time or player specific goals in mind for their session. But it should be organic, not "forced." It should be set up in a way that players seek out and want to ask others for help or just hanging out together, kind of like the old multiplayer console games with everyone sitting on the same couch together.
What to do...
It was actually Theocritus who made the connection to table top here, but I have done so in the past. I have no magic bullet myself, it is a conundrum. You can have both zerg grouping and proper (yes proper ) grouping in the same game as long as you follow the rule that the rewards are concordant with the difficulty of the activity and time invested, I hope I am not offending anyone when I point out how simple it is to turn up to a zerg. But that does not solve the issue, a number of MMOs have both and it was hardly ideal, I played in WH online, Rifts and GW2, though not Tabula Rasa.
When it comes to PvP versus PvP, you can keep both types of player happy by keeping them in separate zones. Solo versus grouping is far harder, I am not sure they can live together, MMO history has shown that the solo cuckoo slowly pushes grouping out of the nest.
Thanks for that correction! Sorry Theocritus!
- 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
Once you take away the classes and need to play together you have what inspired D&D to begin with, fantasy novels that had plenty of examples of lone wolf characters that had no trouble adventuring on their own.
True, but many stories involved groups, too. The Fellowship of the Ring had a whole cast of characters, though it did revolve mainly around Frodo. The Avengers or The Justice League certainly had singular super heroes, but they banded together sometimes.
My favorite books involved multiple "main characters" to make a more interesting story. Yes, "lone wolf" stories also appeal to me, but I enjoy the interaction between different characters over the story line better. Just my opinion, of course
- 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
If it takes getting the best xp/hour or best loot from active participation in community goals, I'm OK with that. Yeah it would be better if there was participation just because you know, you are that rare gamer who actually does want to play as a community it wouldn't need to be heavily incentivized with rewards but I've come to the conclusion that those are indeed rare gamers.
This hit home for me.
I doubt this is how you meant it, but it's a huge reason why I despise "get everyone and their dog easy access to games."
I always cringe when I see players talk about "rewards" as you mentioned. Isn't having fun the best reward? Why do they feel they need to be incentivized in order to play a game?
- 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
If it takes getting the best xp/hour or best loot from active participation in community goals, I'm OK with that. Yeah it would be better if there was participation just because you know, you are that rare gamer who actually does want to play as a community it wouldn't need to be heavily incentivized with rewards but I've come to the conclusion that those are indeed rare gamers.
This hit home for me.
I doubt this is how you meant it, but it's a huge reason why I despise "get everyone and their dog easy access to games."
I always cringe when I see players talk about "rewards" as you mentioned. Isn't having fun the best reward? Why do they feel they need to be incentivized in order to play a game?
I am actually puzzled when people say "having fun" is best, depends largely on how one defines that phrase.
I play games primary for progression, so "rewards" are a large part of what I find as fun. I generally avoid activities which do not provide opportunities to maximize my progression or are unrewarding in my eyes.
I've done a lot of activities in MMORPGS over the years which definitely were not very enjoyable, i.e. two plus years of mining in EVE, but were very rewarding, I made most of my small fortune in EVE during that time, increasing my ISK pool from 15B earned the previous 8 years to 80B in just two.
In fact, when CCP changed the game play in ways which increased my risk while reducing my yields (aka rewards) I walked away for good, cancelling my six annual subs because "the fun" was gone.
If people want to have "fun," I'd tell them to go find a see-saw on a playground, MMORPGs are serious business and we're working here.
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
You need to find a good guild or else you will be doomed to play 'alongside' others in any MMORPGs these days. May be I am just an old hag pottering around on my lawn but damn the community in most MMORPGS these days make you want to up and quit immediately.
That was the only reason I enjoyed classic WoW when it launched because I found many kindred souls. Newer games you really need to go on a treasure hunt the likes of El Dorado to find a good guild and people.
Why do they feel they need to be incentivized in order to play a game?
I've done a lot of activities in MMORPGS over the years which definitely were not very enjoyable, i.e. two plus years of mining in EVE, but were very rewarding, I made most of my small fortune in EVE during that time, increasing my ISK pool from 15B earned the previous 8 years to 80B in just two.
Different tastes. Both are valid, but I too am in Al's camp, and would never do anything in a game which ain't "very enjoyable, i.e. two plus years of mining in EVE".
I play for fun, if it ain't fun I switch to something else. Others play for rewards, and "work" within the game for it. Even if I will never understand that mindset, I have no issues acknowledging it's something present in games too.
Option is king, if you want to grind for years, go for it
(I did some mining in EVE back in the days, it was so boring... but I wasn't cut for EVE anyway)
GW2 has it as does ESO and even WOW with the increasing number of "world
quests" with each expansion but to this day, no one still has done it
better than Rift.
And Rift stole it from Warhammer....
You think the WAR PQs were in the same league as Rift's zone invasions? Not even close.
Also if you're going to quote me, learn to quote.
Uhmmm I copied and pasted it, so if that isnt accurate enough i dont know what to say.....You dont have to be a jerk about it
You didn't attribute the quote to the originator, best practice requires to include their name, preferably with an @ in front of it so they are notified. You should also put double quotes, (i.e. "text") around their prose to distinguish it from your comments.
The site's Quote feature takes care of this automatically but you have to do it yourself when copy / paste quoting.
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
GW2 has dungeons that require grouping (or did when I played it) no different than any other mmorpg. Only the open world content allowed you to play along instead of with. But even that seems very similar to me to other mmorpg's open world content but with a slight twist.
I don't like grouping in mmorpgs, but I don't want an mmorpg to cater to me. I think they should be focused on groups. A big part of my fun comes from the rpg system's complexity and coming up with a build that can try to solo group content.
What I absolutely don't like is forced grouping for all content. I think Wizardry online was all group dungeons. Was the first FF mmo a group only game for all content (or at least started that way)?
If it takes getting the best xp/hour or best loot from active participation in community goals, I'm OK with that. Yeah it would be better if there was participation just because you know, you are that rare gamer who actually does want to play as a community it wouldn't need to be heavily incentivized with rewards but I've come to the conclusion that those are indeed rare gamers.
This hit home for me.
I doubt this is how you meant it, but it's a huge reason why I despise "get everyone and their dog easy access to games."
I always cringe when I see players talk about "rewards" as you mentioned. Isn't having fun the best reward? Why do they feel they need to be incentivized in order to play a game?
I am actually puzzled when people say "having fun" is best, depends largely on how one defines that phrase.
I play games primary for progression, so "rewards" are a large part of what I find as fun. I generally avoid activities which do not provide opportunities to maximize my progression or are unrewarding in my eyes.
I've done a lot of activities in MMORPGS over the years which definitely were not very enjoyable, i.e. two plus years of mining in EVE, but were very rewarding, I made most of my small fortune in EVE during that time, increasing my ISK pool from 15B earned the previous 8 years to 80B in just two.
In fact, when CCP changed the game play in ways which increased my risk while reducing my yields (aka rewards) I walked away for good, cancelling my six annual subs because "the fun" was gone.
If people want to have "fun," I'd tell them to go find a see-saw on a playground, MMORPGs are serious business and we're working here.
Cheers
Some good points, but quite different from what I was trying to get at
I meant "incentivizing" as in "grouping needs to be incentivized." Or "some activity" needs more than just the usual rewards.
The problem with "fun" is that 100% fun all the time is not sustainable. It will become boring and tedious after awhile. You need highs and lows to realize that something is fun or not.
I do pretty much agree with what you said, though
- 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
Comments
Now I am wondering how Rift is doing, is it still around even? Nobody ever talks about it and I can’t remember the last time an article was published mentioning it. Probably full maintenance mode with a healthy cash shop.
/Cheers,
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
I like games that balance it. Especially when it came to stealing mob kills/xp. If you hit it, you get some.
I thought ESO was pretty good when roaming and doing quests, especially hard world bosses... people would group up and help. You could also run pug or premade through dungeons.
I know level scaling is controversial here, but I like it in ESO, you can go anywhere and help out anyone (combined with the mega server, zones are populated). You never out level content you haven't done before.
It was all I could do to not throw myself through the screen.
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
The problem of communication within a group is a very different one. When you have a little bit of group content that players loop a zillion times, nearly everyone has seen it many times before and knows what to do. There's no need for player communication there. In order to make communication an essential part of the game, you need for players to not know ahead of time exactly what is going to happen and need to figure out how to adjust together as they go.
No, you didn't need other players to survive in D&D. A DM with one player would simply devise adventures and encounters around that sole character's abilities. Even in group play, players aren't joined at the hip. There will be cause for them to split up, even if it's just the thief not wanting Sir Clanksalot close when he's sneaking about.
Once you take away the classes and need to play together you have what inspired D&D to begin with, fantasy novels that had plenty of examples of lone wolf characters that had no trouble adventuring on their own.
That you need others to role-play is a self-imposed personal limitation. One must simply act in character to be role-playing. It doesn't make a smidge of difference if those around you know what role-playing is or that you're doing it, or that anyone else is around to observe it at all.
To role-play, role-players must simply have a character in mind and conduct themselves accordingly. They need not jump through additional hoops insisted on by others, even those held by their fellow role-players.
With their constrained area of affect in GW2 and ESO both world events and regular play can coexist with the former not being a bother to those focused on the latter.
One can often get by with less than ideal gear when one isn't grouping for challenging endgame content, making that largely a non-issue for soloists.
There are reasons it appeals.
They missed the whole point of what Trion was trying to do with emergent game play. My complaint was that the zone invasions didn't go far enough and didn't destroy structures. They should have and there should have been a community reconstruction phase to bring it back to normal.
But some obviously just want the same old formula copied from their favorite cookie-cutter MMO and considered those zone invasions a bother.
Some still do:
You want unobtrusive events with pretend gravitas to not interfere with the MMO formula gameplay you're comfortable with.
I would rather see MMOs take the next step and involve everyone in common goals as the core game play not as a trivial side show.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Also if you're going to quote me, learn to quote.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Uhmmm I copied and pasted it, so if that isnt accurate enough i dont know what to say.....You dont have to be a jerk about it
A lot of players these days pay a lot of lip service to great communities and how they needed each other to progress in those rose colored olden days, but when push comes to shove they want their individual accomplishments and acknowledgement above all. They may be willing to extend that to their small inner circle but it pretty well stops there because what they really want is to compete against each other and see their names at the top of the scoreboard... scoreboards, yuck. The worst thing ever imported from FPS games into MMOs.
Many here look down on what they call zergfests and their idea of good PvP is 12 v. 12 in an instance with tiered loot and XP pinatas at the end.
But that can be managed. If it takes getting the best xp/hour or best loot from active participation in community goals, I'm OK with that. Yeah it would be better if there was participation just because you know, you are that rare gamer who actually does want to play as a community it wouldn't need to be heavily incentivized with rewards but I've come to the conclusion that those are indeed rare gamers.
I love good RvR as my favorite thing to do in MMOs. I can lose hours playing in large coordinated groups going back and forth trying to control forts and bridges or whatever and not give the tiniest shit about whether I gained levels or loot or used my gaming time most efficiently. If the game play and unexpected detours engaged me and were fun, I'm happy with just having done it and having been there.
Yes I know, I'm weird like that.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
- 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
My favorite books involved multiple "main characters" to make a more interesting story. Yes, "lone wolf" stories also appeal to me, but I enjoy the interaction between different characters over the story line better. Just my opinion, of course
- 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 doubt this is how you meant it, but it's a huge reason why I despise "get everyone and their dog easy access to games."
I always cringe when I see players talk about "rewards" as you mentioned. Isn't having fun the best reward? Why do they feel they need to be incentivized in order to play a game?
- 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 play games primary for progression, so "rewards" are a large part of what I find as fun. I generally avoid activities which do not provide opportunities to maximize my progression or are unrewarding in my eyes.
I've done a lot of activities in MMORPGS over the years which definitely were not very enjoyable, i.e. two plus years of mining in EVE, but were very rewarding, I made most of my small fortune in EVE during that time, increasing my ISK pool from 15B earned the previous 8 years to 80B in just two.
In fact, when CCP changed the game play in ways which increased my risk while reducing my yields (aka rewards) I walked away for good, cancelling my six annual subs because "the fun" was gone.
If people want to have "fun," I'd tell them to go find a see-saw on a playground, MMORPGs are serious business and we're working here.
Cheers
"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
That was the only reason I enjoyed classic WoW when it launched because I found many kindred souls. Newer games you really need to go on a treasure hunt the likes of El Dorado to find a good guild and people.
The site's Quote feature takes care of this automatically but you have to do it yourself when copy / paste quoting.
"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
I don't like grouping in mmorpgs, but I don't want an mmorpg to cater to me. I think they should be focused on groups. A big part of my fun comes from the rpg system's complexity and coming up with a build that can try to solo group content.
What I absolutely don't like is forced grouping for all content. I think Wizardry online was all group dungeons. Was the first FF mmo a group only game for all content (or at least started that way)?
I meant "incentivizing" as in "grouping needs to be incentivized." Or "some activity" needs more than just the usual rewards.
The problem with "fun" is that 100% fun all the time is not sustainable. It will become boring and tedious after awhile. You need highs and lows to realize that something is fun or not.
I do pretty much agree with what you said, though
- 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