I could have shortened that up by saying: "Crafting feels restrictive in level based theme park games because they're so shallow you don't have options - everything gets funneled through the same loop"
If buying from crafters is optional that ultimately means you don't need them,
I wonder if making the gear you can loot and crafted gear totally different could make a space for crafters that doesn't detract from the adventure->loot loop
Players loot the durable goods, crafters make the consumable goods.
A bit like finding a gun, but crafting the bullets. Looting a sword, crafting a temporary enchantment and the like.
That could skirt around the need for item durability, which honestly is never fun. But preserve that constant demand for crafted goods. It also makes crafted good a compliment to looted goods, rather than a replacement.
Again, I think SWG did a pretty good job of separating loot and crafted items, whilst still making both important.
Loot in the game did not come in the form of gear, but crafting components. So, your combat characters would go out, kick ass, and loot a bunch of valuable components. They would then sell those components to crafters, who would make awesome gear to sell back to the combat people.
It created a nice game loop that involved most types of players in the game.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
If buying from crafters is optional that ultimately means you don't need them,
I wonder if making the gear you can loot and crafted gear totally different could make a space for crafters that doesn't detract from the adventure->loot loop
Players loot the durable goods, crafters make the consumable goods.
A bit like finding a gun, but crafting the bullets. Looting a sword, crafting a temporary enchantment and the like.
That could skirt around the need for item durability, which honestly is never fun. But preserve that constant demand for crafted goods. It also makes crafted good a compliment to looted goods, rather than a replacement.
Again, I think SWG did a pretty good job of separating loot and crafted items, whilst still making both important.
Loot in the game did not come in the form of gear, but crafting components. So, your combat characters would go out, kick ass, and loot a bunch of valuable components. They would then sell those components to crafters, who would make awesome gear to sell back to the combat people.
It created a nice game loop that involved most types of players in the game.
I never played SWG,
But, does this system preclude finding gear? Because the big issue I think most players would have is only looting materials but no finished gear. That would kind of ruin the fun of finding things, especially if you are not a crafter as well because you have no direct use for anything you find.
Again, I think SWG did a pretty good job of separating loot and crafted items, whilst still making both important.
Loot in the game did not come in the form of gear, but crafting components. So, your combat characters would go out, kick ass, and loot a bunch of valuable components. They would then sell those components to crafters, who would make awesome gear to sell back to the combat people.
It created a nice game loop that involved most types of players in the game.
I never played SWG,
But, does this system preclude finding gear? Because the big issue I think most players would have is only looting materials but no finished gear. That would kind of ruin the fun of finding things, especially if you are not a crafter as well because you have no direct use for anything you find.
Some gear did drop as loot, but 99% of it was useless compared to crafted stuff. That last 1% was very valuable though!
But there were other types of loot that most people wanted. Top of the list were skill tapes - armor and clothing attachments that gave u stat boosts. Every player for every profession wanted these, making them some of the most valuable items in game. They only dropped from high level humanoid mobs.
So, in short, there was definitely a lot of stuff worth looting, even if it wasn't directly equipable. You just might have to sell off your loot before you can then buy something you genuinely want.
One of the big advantages in the game (imo) is the very fact that everything could be bought for credits. It just opened up choices for players, because you could make your credits however you wanted. Crafting, looting, grinding missions etc. You chose your way to play, and eventually you could afford the best stuff. If u were a casual, it might take you 10x as long as an endgame specialist, but it was possible! I really liked that about the game.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
There is an inherent conflict between the interests of crafters and consumers/adventurers.
I think there are some game mechanics that could help here. I feel like I could write a 10 page paper on how modern mechanics break things.
Eliminate vertical progression/levels/class specific gear and the ridiculous bloat (1) that comes with all those borked ideas.
By doing that you make weapons universally available because any sword can be effective in the hands of someone with the sword skill. This opens up the market for crafters no longer constrained by class specific/level specific gear and makes more product (easier to get) for adventurers.
By removing the huge gaps between weapons people can choose to avoid crafting or dealing with crafters and still be okay. A sword that does 5pts. of damage is good, a crafted that does 6pts is better, but not necessary.
Because weapons are now more widely available you can have the deteriorate which is good for crafters, and they can drop more often, which is good for those that don't want to deal with crafters.
This is one area that UO did correctly - because it was a simulation - I found myself using vendors on a whim, but could ignore them altogether.
Class specific/leveled gear is just a stupid treadmill that is bad across the game for everyone who hates treadmills.
NOTES: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1: You start with 100hp and a +1 sword and level up to 100,000hp and a +5,000 sword.
This a really tricky balance,
If buying from crafters is optional that ultimately means you don't need them,
I wonder if making the gear you can loot and crafted gear totally different could make a space for crafters that doesn't detract from the adventure->loot loop
Players loot the durable goods, crafters make the consumable goods.
A bit like finding a gun, but crafting the bullets. Looting a sword, crafting a temporary enchantment and the like.
That could skirt around the need for item durability, which honestly is never fun. But preserve that constant demand for crafted goods. It also makes crafted good a compliment to looted goods, rather than a replacement.
In UO player killers would typically run around with just the kind of crap you'd find on a MOB (so that stuff wasn't too nerfed), and yet crafting did well because a lot of people will buy stuff even with the most minor of upgrades.
Also, I see a great deal of potential in horizontal progression. That is, different gear sets work best in different environments.
Consider this:
Let say crossing a swamp has a % chance of poisoning you unless you're properly equipped. You could mitigate the poison in one of several ways:
Wear boots that protect you entirely, they have no armor value but you won't be poisoned. (this is a common items)
Get poisoned, but consume a craftable potion for the cure.
Get poisoned, but take less damage due to craftable amulet.
Wear best in class PvP gear, but risk/endure the poison.
Get poisoned and use either craftable scroll of poison immunity or poison cure.
Have sufficient healing where you can cure with bandages.
Have sufficient priest skills to heal/protect.
Use exploding craftable bombs to cleanse poisonous areas.
By creating several horizontal ways to address the problem there is support for crafting (PVP crowd will want potions), or avoiding markets iwth common poison protection boots - and so on - lots of strategic choices in there. For example, a PK may not follow you into the swamp because he has all PVP gear and your little boots protect you from the poison.
UO had MOST of that in 1998 and yet most MMORPGs don't approach that kind of depth. The ability to craft your own stuff, buy crafted items, or just find your own.
Spread that across fire mitigations, cold mitigations, undead mitigations, darkness, void... etc... and you've plenty of opportunities for rares, semi-rares, craftables and so forth.
One of the things I want is a huge world, where there can be a swamp such as you described, and it's huge and full of places and things worth finding. Lots of smallish ruins and haunts and mini-dungeons, and lots of rare-ish herbs and mosses and swamp critters with special drops. And the same for other terrain types. Such as an Enchanted Forest, mountain ranges, etc. Places where players can plan for excursions that they'll remember for a long time. As many times as they want. Or even live in the place, if they can handle its dangers.
In UO player killers would typically run around with just the kind of crap you'd find on a MOB (so that stuff wasn't too nerfed), and yet crafting did well because a lot of people will buy stuff even with the most minor of upgrades.
I agree PK's would go around with junk, but in UO found loot was way better than crafted items. Top gear like supremely vanquishing not craftable, loot in the world were a few teirs better than craftable.
The only game I played with a "good" economy was SWG, but it still had problems. I'm not sure what would make an economy good, but here are a few characteristics I personally think make a good economy.
1) Has to be engaging for both buyers and sellers
If only one side of the equation is serviced, the economy won't work well.
2) What gets crafted shouldn't be undermined by loot.
There is no point in crafting something if what can be looted is better.
3) No global auction house
This becomes a bit technical, but a global AH results in an "information-complete" market. A buyer can simply search ALL items, then they can just pick the cheapest and buy it. Such a system greatly benefits large corporations and hardcore players, whilst shitting on the casuals. So, in order to have an economy that is genuinely engaging for all, you can't have an information-complete market. If you want a real-world example, just look at what the internet and Amazon has done to the average high street.
4) What gets sold needs to be differentiated
In other words, crafters need a way to have their stuff stand out. If every weaponsmith can only craft identical swords, the economy gets boring.
5) Players need repeated reasons to engage with the economy
SWG achieved this via item degradation, so every month or two you'd need to replace your sword or armour. Full-loot games achieve this via getting looted and losing your stuff. But, however you achieve it, players need a reason to keep coming back to the economy.
Yeah you know what, I prefer a bad economy.
These points get increasingly worse and (5) is just no way, not ever.
There is an inherent conflict between the interests of crafters and consumers/adventurers.
To carve out space for crafter economic gameplay means to strip convenience from consumers/adventurers and force reliance on crafters, I don't really see a way around this.
I err on the side of adventurers and consumers, which tend to be the vast majority of players, and view game economies primarily as a means of exchange between adventurers rather than a structure to create a class of crafters.
This way everyone can participate in an adventurer driven loot based economy as both a producer and consumer of looted goods.
I agree with you on this, if crafted loot is better than lootable gear, then people will stop adventurings and ultimately the game will lose a majority of players that like loot.
I think hardcore crafters represent a very small playerbase in comparison to hard core loot adventuring types.
I think you can synergize both where they dont compete but rather work together. Just allow mechanics where crafters can improve upon loot found in the world. So the sword of awesomeness that is found can be upgraded further by crafters to god tier. The key is not letting crafters make god tier from scratch or from any plain item, otherwise it diminishes the accomplishment of finding good loot in the world.
The only game I played with a "good" economy was SWG, but it still had problems. I'm not sure what would make an economy good, but here are a few characteristics I personally think make a good economy.
1) Has to be engaging for both buyers and sellers
If only one side of the equation is serviced, the economy won't work well.
2) What gets crafted shouldn't be undermined by loot.
There is no point in crafting something if what can be looted is better.
3) No global auction house
This becomes a bit technical, but a global AH results in an "information-complete" market. A buyer can simply search ALL items, then they can just pick the cheapest and buy it. Such a system greatly benefits large corporations and hardcore players, whilst shitting on the casuals. So, in order to have an economy that is genuinely engaging for all, you can't have an information-complete market. If you want a real-world example, just look at what the internet and Amazon has done to the average high street.
4) What gets sold needs to be differentiated
In other words, crafters need a way to have their stuff stand out. If every weaponsmith can only craft identical swords, the economy gets boring.
5) Players need repeated reasons to engage with the economy
SWG achieved this via item degradation, so every month or two you'd need to replace your sword or armour. Full-loot games achieve this via getting looted and losing your stuff. But, however you achieve it, players need a reason to keep coming back to the economy.
Yeah you know what, I prefer a bad economy.
These points get increasingly worse and (5) is just no way, not ever.
There is an inherent conflict between the interests of crafters and consumers/adventurers.
To carve out space for crafter economic gameplay means to strip convenience from consumers/adventurers and force reliance on crafters, I don't really see a way around this.
I err on the side of adventurers and consumers, which tend to be the vast majority of players, and view game economies primarily as a means of exchange between adventurers rather than a structure to create a class of crafters.
This way everyone can participate in an adventurer driven loot based economy as both a producer and consumer of looted goods.
I agree with you on this, if crafted loot is better than lootable gear, then people will stop adventurings and ultimately the game will lose a majority of players that like loot.
I think hardcore crafters represent a very small playerbase in comparison to hard core loot adventuring types.
I think you can synergize both where they dont compete but rather work together. Just allow mechanics where crafters can improve upon loot found in the world. So the sword of awesomeness that is found can be upgraded further by crafters to god tier. The key is not letting crafters make god tier from scratch or from any plain item, otherwise it diminishes the accomplishment of finding good loot in the world.
Well, since crafters are going to charge a hefty price for top end stuff, there's an incentive to get them for free.
I hope MMORPGs start making more interesting games that are about a lot more than just gear. That has literal "end game" written all over it.
In UO player killers would typically run around with just the kind of crap you'd find on a MOB (so that stuff wasn't too nerfed), and yet crafting did well because a lot of people will buy stuff even with the most minor of upgrades.
I agree PK's would go around with junk, but in UO found loot was way better than crafted items. Top gear like supremely vanquishing not craftable, loot in the world were a few teirs better than craftable.
Vanquishing was so rare, and since you could be looted, I never saw anyone equip it.
I think if people are trying to find that experience they had when they first logged into UO, EQ, or whatever their first MMO was back in the day, they just arent going t oget that back.....Even if the game is almost identical, the playerbase has changed significantly, just like the times have.....Today most people want things as fast and as easy as possible...Most MMOs now are built around accomplishing things quickly.
I think if people are trying to find that experience they had when they first logged into UO, EQ, or whatever their first MMO was back in the day, they just arent going t oget that back.....Even if the game is almost identical, the playerbase has changed significantly, just like the times have.....Today most people want things as fast and as easy as possible...Most MMOs now are built around accomplishing things quickly.
While it is absolutely true that you can't go home and reexperience something like you first did.
I do think game design has a big impact on community and player behavior, whether intended or not,
I actually think this sort of ADHD-esque mad dash for more loot and bigger numbers is a sort of natural progression from the incremental numbers and loot treadmill of older MMOs, even if unintended.
How to change that I don't know, but I do think it has to be significantly different from the norm. I mean, there is a reason Deep Rock Galactic has such a nice and helpful community and most shooters are toxic cesspools.
I think if people are trying to find that experience they had when they first logged into UO, EQ, or whatever their first MMO was back in the day, they just arent going t oget that back.....Even if the game is almost identical, the playerbase has changed significantly, just like the times have.....Today most people want things as fast and as easy as possible...Most MMOs now are built around accomplishing things quickly.
While it is absolutely true that you can't go home and reexperience something like you first did.
I do think game design has a big impact on community and player behavior, whether intended or not,
I actually think this sort of ADHD-esque mad dash for more loot and bigger numbers is a sort of natural progression from the incremental numbers and loot treadmill of older MMOs, even if unintended.
How to change that I don't know, but I do think it has to be significantly different from the norm. I mean, there is a reason Deep Rock Galactic has such a nice and helpful community and most shooters are toxic cesspools.
Most shooters are toxic becuase there is a massive difference between a PVE co op shooter and a competitive shooter. I'm sure the communities in most PVE games are probably a lot better than any PVP game as there's a hell of a lot less concern about winning.
Most shooters are toxic becuase there is a massive difference between a PVE co op shooter and a competitive shooter. I'm sure the communities in most PVE games are probably a lot better than any PVP game as there's a hell of a lot less concern about winning.
Yeah that is my point, I think some design choices will inherently create socially undesirable behavior.
Highly competitive environments, especially if they are point based games where you can "feed" the other team, will always be toxic.
Just like games built around levels and loot will always lead to min-maxing and consuming content like a locust.
And the only way around that is to make something totally different.
I think if people are trying to find that experience they had when they first logged into UO, EQ, or whatever their first MMO was back in the day, they just arent going t oget that back.....Even if the game is almost identical, the playerbase has changed significantly, just like the times have.....Today most people want things as fast and as easy as possible...Most MMOs now are built around accomplishing things quickly.
Part of this is true.
Part of it is where is a modern game where when you drop something on the ground other people can see it?
Part of it where is a modern game with non-instanced housing?
Part of it where is a game where you can switch out a spawning chest with one you trapped?
UO did many things most modern games don't even attempt anymore.
In WOW can a person walk into town and do a suicide bombing and kill 20 people around the bank? Perhaps not desirable, but it was that sort of ability to do off the wall stuff that made the game great.
Compare with any modern game that is an experience built on rails.
Most shooters are toxic becuase there is a massive difference between a PVE co op shooter and a competitive shooter. I'm sure the communities in most PVE games are probably a lot better than any PVP game as there's a hell of a lot less concern about winning.
Yeah that is my point, I think some design choices will inherently create socially undesirable behavior.
Highly competitive environments, especially if they are point based games where you can "feed" the other team, will always be toxic.
Just like games built around levels and loot will always lead to min-maxing and consuming content like a locust.
And the only way around that is to make something totally different.
I agree, but that "totally different" part bothers me. You still want MOB fighting for loot, because that's a "prime directive." You just want to change that from level grinding to adventure.
I think if people are trying to find that experience they had when they first logged into UO, EQ, or whatever their first MMO was back in the day, they just arent going t oget that back.....Even if the game is almost identical, the playerbase has changed significantly, just like the times have.....Today most people want things as fast and as easy as possible...Most MMOs now are built around accomplishing things quickly.
Part of this is true.
Part of it is where is a modern game where when you drop something on the ground other people can see it?
Part of it where is a modern game with non-instanced housing?
Part of it where is a game where you can switch out a spawning chest with one you trapped?
UO did many things most modern games don't even attempt anymore.
In WOW can a person walk into town and do a suicide bombing and kill 20 people around the bank? Perhaps not desirable, but it was that sort of ability to do off the wall stuff that made the game great.
Compare with any modern game that is an experience built on rails.
Yes, making the game a world is very important, in my opinion. There are lots of things that can be done to simulate a "living and breathing" world feel.
Some of what UO did over-stepped that, though. Killing indiscriminately without real reprisal was one of them. And their constant failure to properly address that hurt the ideal. Every "Justice System" I've ever seen in MMORPGs gave the PKers a way out of any penalties, no matter what the victimized players did. For hardcore PvPers it was alright, but for all the others it just sucked as game design.
But I give a hearty "YES" on that worldly stuff you mentioned, and more. UO had so much; like writing your own books, decorating your house with trophies (part of that "items-on-the-ground" you mentioned), the BackPack system (also connected to "items-in-the-ground"), actually seeing an item float to the player that picks it up, building and setting up things like tables and chairs and plates and glasses, Player crafting and shops, and most of all, going where you want to go, for the reasons you want to go there.
The social aspect of UO, because of that "world design", was the best I know of. PvP and PvE were both intricate in that socialness.
And it can all be improved on in this modern world.
Most shooters are toxic becuase there is a massive difference between a PVE co op shooter and a competitive shooter. I'm sure the communities in most PVE games are probably a lot better than any PVP game as there's a hell of a lot less concern about winning.
Yeah that is my point, I think some design choices will inherently create socially undesirable behavior.
Highly competitive environments, especially if they are point based games where you can "feed" the other team, will always be toxic.
Just like games built around levels and loot will always lead to min-maxing and consuming content like a locust.
And the only way around that is to make something totally different.
I agree, but that "totally different" part bothers me. You still want MOB fighting for loot, because that's a "prime directive." You just want to change that from level grinding to adventure.
Totally different in that the focus has to change, to change the way people play games.
Like maybe loot isn't about constantly increasing power levels, but diversifying your options. Or adopting more horizontal forms of progression so you can't just race to max level because max level doesn't mean the same thing as it usually does and there is no point racing there anymore.
Otherwise if the core game is still number go up, you will end up with the same bumrush through content. Because after all higher numbers are better than lower numbers and the faster they go up the better.
Most shooters are toxic becuase there is a massive difference between a PVE co op shooter and a competitive shooter. I'm sure the communities in most PVE games are probably a lot better than any PVP game as there's a hell of a lot less concern about winning.
Yeah that is my point, I think some design choices will inherently create socially undesirable behavior.
Highly competitive environments, especially if they are point based games where you can "feed" the other team, will always be toxic.
Just like games built around levels and loot will always lead to min-maxing and consuming content like a locust.
And the only way around that is to make something totally different.
I agree, but that "totally different" part bothers me. You still want MOB fighting for loot, because that's a "prime directive." You just want to change that from level grinding to adventure.
Totally different in that the focus has to change, to change the way people play games.
Like maybe loot isn't about constantly increasing power levels, but diversifying your options. Or adopting more horizontal forms of progression so you can't just race to max level because max level doesn't mean the same thing as it usually does and there is no point racing there anymore.
Otherwise if the core game is still number go up, you will end up with the same bumrush through content. Because after all higher numbers are better than lower numbers and the faster they go up the better.
"Totally different in that the focus has to change, to change the way people play games."
Yes, exactly. The current systems just aren't entertaining anymore.
I really like the idea of new horizontal options for players to gain. I'd prefer to find them out in the adventures, as I'm sure you mean, too. These can be in a lot of forms, too.
Most shooters are toxic becuase there is a massive difference between a PVE co op shooter and a competitive shooter. I'm sure the communities in most PVE games are probably a lot better than any PVP game as there's a hell of a lot less concern about winning.
Yeah that is my point, I think some design choices will inherently create socially undesirable behavior.
Highly competitive environments, especially if they are point based games where you can "feed" the other team, will always be toxic.
Just like games built around levels and loot will always lead to min-maxing and consuming content like a locust.
And the only way around that is to make something totally different.
I agree, but that "totally different" part bothers me. You still want MOB fighting for loot, because that's a "prime directive." You just want to change that from level grinding to adventure.
Totally different in that the focus has to change, to change the way people play games.
Like maybe loot isn't about constantly increasing power levels, but diversifying your options. Or adopting more horizontal forms of progression so you can't just race to max level because max level doesn't mean the same thing as it usually does and there is no point racing there anymore.
Otherwise if the core game is still number go up, you will end up with the same bumrush through content. Because after all higher numbers are better than lower numbers and the faster they go up the better.
"Totally different in that the focus has to change, to change the way people play games."
Yes, exactly. The current systems just aren't entertaining anymore.
I really like the idea of new horizontal options for players to gain. I'd prefer to find them out in the adventures, as I'm sure you mean, too. These can be in a lot of forms, too.
Also, building a game around constant vertical power progression is a very costly way to make a game.
By its nature this form of progression basically nullifies all content that is lower than your current level, meaning the games content is constantly being phased out and new content has to be made to add more progression.
That is a lot of work to end up with 99% of the content made by developers to not really matter anymore to players.
You would have to shift to more evergreen content, something dynamic enough to remain replayable, that way progression actually adds more content to the game rather than subtracts.
Also, building a game around constant vertical power progression is a very costly way to make a game.
By its nature this form of progression basically nullifies all content that is lower than your current level, meaning the games content is constantly being phased out and new content has to be made to add more progression.
That is a lot of work to end up with 99% of the content made by developers to not really matter anymore to players.
You would have to shift to more evergreen content, something dynamic enough to remain replayable, that way progression actually adds more content to the game rather than subtracts.
It gets even worse when the mobs at the lower levels go "gray" and you get no benefit from fighting them whatsoever - and how immersion breaking it is when you can walk through a crowded dungeon and the monsters ignore you.
So immersion breaking, even in UO, when you could gain no more taming off bears. Why not make it so if I get all my gains off bears that I become a 'bear master' and my bears have 2x hp and 2x damage (instead of always going for dragons). Yet another example of how vertical progression breaks things.
Most shooters are toxic becuase there is a massive difference between a PVE co op shooter and a competitive shooter. I'm sure the communities in most PVE games are probably a lot better than any PVP game as there's a hell of a lot less concern about winning.
Yeah that is my point, I think some design choices will inherently create socially undesirable behavior.
Highly competitive environments, especially if they are point based games where you can "feed" the other team, will always be toxic.
Just like games built around levels and loot will always lead to min-maxing and consuming content like a locust.
And the only way around that is to make something totally different.
I agree, but that "totally different" part bothers me. You still want MOB fighting for loot, because that's a "prime directive." You just want to change that from level grinding to adventure.
Totally different in that the focus has to change, to change the way people play games.
Like maybe loot isn't about constantly increasing power levels, but diversifying your options. Or adopting more horizontal forms of progression so you can't just race to max level because max level doesn't mean the same thing as it usually does and there is no point racing there anymore.
Otherwise if the core game is still number go up, you will end up with the same bumrush through content. Because after all higher numbers are better than lower numbers and the faster they go up the better.
"Totally different in that the focus has to change, to change the way people play games."
Yes, exactly. The current systems just aren't entertaining anymore.
I really like the idea of new horizontal options for players to gain. I'd prefer to find them out in the adventures, as I'm sure you mean, too. These can be in a lot of forms, too.
Also, building a game around constant vertical power progression is a very costly way to make a game.
By its nature this form of progression basically nullifies all content that is lower than your current level, meaning the games content is constantly being phased out and new content has to be made to add more progression.
That is a lot of work to end up with 99% of the content made by developers to not really matter anymore to players.
You would have to shift to more evergreen content, something dynamic enough to remain replayable, that way progression actually adds more content to the game rather than subtracts.
Think how much easier it would be to create new content, too. Just in some cases, they could add a new Boss Mob to an existing dungeon, add some AI code on top of the existing Dungeon AI, and you've got new content that's much more than just the work put into it. Same for other key MOB centric areas in the game world.
Also, building a game around constant vertical power progression is a very costly way to make a game.
By its nature this form of progression basically nullifies all content that is lower than your current level, meaning the games content is constantly being phased out and new content has to be made to add more progression.
That is a lot of work to end up with 99% of the content made by developers to not really matter anymore to players.
You would have to shift to more evergreen content, something dynamic enough to remain replayable, that way progression actually adds more content to the game rather than subtracts.
It gets even worse when the mobs at the lower levels go "gray" and you get no benefit from fighting them whatsoever - and how immersion breaking it is when you can walk through a crowded dungeon and the monsters ignore you.
So immersion breaking, even in UO, when you could gain no more taming off bears. Why not make it so if I get all my gains off bears that I become a 'bear master' and my bears have 2x hp and 2x damage (instead of always going for dragons). Yet another example of how vertical progression breaks things.
I like the idea quite a bit. I'm thinking that I'd rather see something like a 30% resistance to physical damage plus a special attack doing extra damage, with a short timer on it. But that's all debatable, and I just like the idea of advancing "classes" in this way as just one means of "horizontal" advancement. This is just first impressions, there's a lot of ways to do something along this order.
Comments
But, does this system preclude finding gear?
Because the big issue I think most players would have is only looting materials but no finished gear.
That would kind of ruin the fun of finding things, especially if you are not a crafter as well because you have no direct use for anything you find.
And the same for other terrain types. Such as an Enchanted Forest, mountain ranges, etc.
Places where players can plan for excursions that they'll remember for a long time. As many times as they want. Or even live in the place, if they can handle its dangers.
Once upon a time....
I think hardcore crafters represent a very small playerbase in comparison to hard core loot adventuring types.
I think you can synergize both where they dont compete but rather work together. Just allow mechanics where crafters can improve upon loot found in the world. So the sword of awesomeness that is found can be upgraded further by crafters to god tier. The key is not letting crafters make god tier from scratch or from any plain item, otherwise it diminishes the accomplishment of finding good loot in the world.
I hope MMORPGs start making more interesting games that are about a lot more than just gear. That has literal "end game" written all over it.
Once upon a time....
I do think game design has a big impact on community and player behavior, whether intended or not,
I actually think this sort of ADHD-esque mad dash for more loot and bigger numbers is a sort of natural progression from the incremental numbers and loot treadmill of older MMOs, even if unintended.
How to change that I don't know, but I do think it has to be significantly different from the norm.
I mean, there is a reason Deep Rock Galactic has such a nice and helpful community and most shooters are toxic cesspools.
Highly competitive environments, especially if they are point based games where you can "feed" the other team, will always be toxic.
Just like games built around levels and loot will always lead to min-maxing and consuming content like a locust.
And the only way around that is to make something totally different.
Part of it is where is a modern game where when you drop something on the ground other people can see it?
Part of it where is a modern game with non-instanced housing?
Part of it where is a game where you can switch out a spawning chest with one you trapped?
UO did many things most modern games don't even attempt anymore.
In WOW can a person walk into town and do a suicide bombing and kill 20 people around the bank? Perhaps not desirable, but it was that sort of ability to do off the wall stuff that made the game great.
Compare with any modern game that is an experience built on rails.
Once upon a time....
Some of what UO did over-stepped that, though. Killing indiscriminately without real reprisal was one of them. And their constant failure to properly address that hurt the ideal.
Every "Justice System" I've ever seen in MMORPGs gave the PKers a way out of any penalties, no matter what the victimized players did. For hardcore PvPers it was alright, but for all the others it just sucked as game design.
But I give a hearty "YES" on that worldly stuff you mentioned, and more. UO had so much; like writing your own books, decorating your house with trophies (part of that "items-on-the-ground" you mentioned), the BackPack system (also connected to "items-in-the-ground"), actually seeing an item float to the player that picks it up, building and setting up things like tables and chairs and plates and glasses, Player crafting and shops, and most of all, going where you want to go, for the reasons you want to go there.
The social aspect of UO, because of that "world design", was the best I know of. PvP and PvE were both intricate in that socialness.
And it can all be improved on in this modern world.
Once upon a time....
Like maybe loot isn't about constantly increasing power levels, but diversifying your options.
Or adopting more horizontal forms of progression so you can't just race to max level because max level doesn't mean the same thing as it usually does and there is no point racing there anymore.
Otherwise if the core game is still number go up, you will end up with the same bumrush through content.
Because after all higher numbers are better than lower numbers and the faster they go up the better.
Yes, exactly. The current systems just aren't entertaining anymore.
I really like the idea of new horizontal options for players to gain. I'd prefer to find them out in the adventures, as I'm sure you mean, too. These can be in a lot of forms, too.
Once upon a time....
By its nature this form of progression basically nullifies all content that is lower than your current level, meaning the games content is constantly being phased out and new content has to be made to add more progression.
That is a lot of work to end up with 99% of the content made by developers to not really matter anymore to players.
You would have to shift to more evergreen content, something dynamic enough to remain replayable, that way progression actually adds more content to the game rather than subtracts.
So immersion breaking, even in UO, when you could gain no more taming off bears. Why not make it so if I get all my gains off bears that I become a 'bear master' and my bears have 2x hp and 2x damage (instead of always going for dragons).
Yet another example of how vertical progression breaks things.
Just in some cases, they could add a new Boss Mob to an existing dungeon, add some AI code on top of the existing Dungeon AI, and you've got new content that's much more than just the work put into it.
Same for other key MOB centric areas in the game world.
Once upon a time....
This is just first impressions, there's a lot of ways to do something along this order.
Once upon a time....
I'm playing Everquest and City of Heroes and sprinkle in a few others but they are all either 20 plus years old or EMU's.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/