Dekoth, that simply hasn't been my experience. I get the bulk of my experience from grinding and it's not because I don't know where to look for quests. My journal is always full and I try to work on them constantly.
Simple matter for me is that a quest with 12% experience comes along maybe every four levels or so (if that), with most of the quests being worth much less. The biggest reward I've seen was 70% experience at level 18 for the Sepulcher of Jhanda quest, which really isn't supposed to be completed until 20 or higher (and subsequently designed to be much less percentage gain normally).
I was merely stating that WoW was described here as being quest-oriented experience gain instead of primarily kill-oriented experience gain, and how that was a far cry from what I know EQ2 to be. I haven't played WoW past level 18 (that was in beta), so I can't tell you what is beyond that--but I can tell you that up to that point, the majority of my experience came from completing quests.
Originally posted by aeric67 The problem is that with the impending paradigm shift MMOGs are about to experience, any future predictions of the success of proposed MMOGs are measured on metrics that are about to expire. Since there are so many MMOGs on the market in that old paradigm, only the most wild forecasted profits are going to get funding from anyone.How successful did corporations think EQ1 was going to be before it was released? Not very... at least no where near as successful as it eventually became. I'd imagine that if things didn't happen just right for Verant, they very likely could have suffered the same fate as Wish or Mythica.I bet something is going to surprise us in the next year or so...
Exactly. These games are made to make money. Wish died because running it would have been cost prohibitive. But as for astounding paradigm shifts, I don't think we will see any. Any inovation (which there will be) will be in little baby steps. Ultimately in order to be successful as a game you have to have in no order:
1) a large enough fan/subscriber base 2) financing to develop, maintain and grow that base 3) the technology demanded by said fans 4) balancing long term playability with short term playability 5) content that is immersive, compelling and complex 6) fun game play 7) dedicated devs, programmers, admins, et cetera 8) LUCK
I must confess I am a casual player (though my wife would beg to differ, ) I have played or tried UO, EQ, EQ2, AC, AC2, CoH, Horizons and DAOC since UO first came out way back when. I have never topped out a class...Perhaps my tolerance for grind is too low? But allowing one to get there too fast forces folks to have to start over, or forces the company to create ever more top end content or forces the player to leave. It has never been a problem with me. My problem is that I enjoy the low to mid level game and some games forget about new players and low level characters once the high level power gamers start crying for more content.
Originally posted by Regal_TR Every company keeps trying to fix whats not Broken, breaking the leveling treadmill isn't the problem with mmorpgs, its their lifeline. Making the leveling treadmill fun is what needs to be fixed, not some way around it with speed leveling than having a bunch of high levels with NOTHING to do..So many games have gone to crap because of this imo..Shadowbane could of been great with longer leveling..
The only possibly diverging opinion I would bring is, alternates should have a HUGE XP bonus for each toon you already bring to that level IMO. Alternates are not a solution to keep a MMORPG alive, peoples dont enjoy playing alternates, thereby, if for any reason a player play 1(bored, dont like first toon, whatever), it should be a LOT faster up to the point the first toon was. Alternates could receive, freely, a portion of what the original toon earn as well to make sure they are on par when they reach the same level, dont want them to level fast and be in troubles then because they are ghetto.
And for HUGE changes, only the very desesperates(like Verant was, eh they where still buyed out despite the success) or the very richs(Microsoft could) would dare take such risks.
- "Solo is, will always be, the main market. A MMORPG that succeed with little or no solo appeal is doing great considering they are ignoring the main player base.''
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
Originally posted by anthrorob Exactly. These games are made to make money. Wish died because running it would have been cost prohibitive. But as for astounding paradigm shifts, I don't think we will see any. Any inovation (which there will be) will be in little baby steps. Ultimately in order to be successful as a game you have to have in no order:<SNIP>
Put yourself in a place in time.... Back before UO was announced. Let's see, I think some sequel of Quake was the big game of the moment--especially the online play. Not sure if the original Unreal was even out then, but I bet you, like me, were playing some FPS game (if you were playing PCs at all, that is)...
Anyway, try to remember your attitude about games back then... If you were like me, you were probably getting weary of the numerous Quake and Doom clones that were everywhere back then. You may have thought at one point that, this was it. This is what PC gaming is all about and it probably will never change.
Then UO was announced. Sure others had dabbled in multiplayer games (MUDs and whatnot). They were certainly not unheard of, but for some reason it really blew me away. Then EQ was announced. Wow! 3D version of UO! But it couldn't have shared fewer similarities! The gameplay was completely different. It was revolutionary and a paradigm shift in the way I played games.
So how can we sit here today and say that nothing can revolutionize anymore? We've said that so many times in the past. Not just you and me, but numerous people in history. Lots of famous quotes about lack of vision that we can dredge up... Someone that posts here actually quotes a famous one in his sig (the one about Ken Olson).
Anyway, I maintain good hope that some dev will pull through and deliver something breathtaking that will change the way we play and the way we think about online games. Cheers!
I don't mean to suggest there won't be innovation. I am just skeptical of any MMO's claim of revolutionizing a given game aspect. When we talk about paradigmatic shifts, we are talking more than simply new GUI's, graphics or crafting systems...or at least I am. When I am talking paradigmatic shifts in the approach, I envision a sweeping change that radically changes.
I look forward to the games coming out this year, but besides of interesting changes, I doubt there will be a truly REVOLUTIONARY game.
I heard in an interview with some dev.. somewhere.. That something like 110 MMOs actually succeed, which compaired to 1100 single player games succeeding..
So, even tho 910 failed MMOs seems like a lot, its not. Probably only becuz there isnt so much of a market for MMORPGs becuz of the cost to makemaintain them. But if you DO succeed, n I mean like REALLY succeed, then its like winning a 5+ year lottery.
THATS why so many fail. Everybody tries to jump on the "buy our game and pay monthly subscription to make us rich bastards" bandwagon. But it doesnt work like that.
Comments
Dekoth, that simply hasn't been my experience. I get the bulk of my experience from grinding and it's not because I don't know where to look for quests. My journal is always full and I try to work on them constantly.
Simple matter for me is that a quest with 12% experience comes along maybe every four levels or so (if that), with most of the quests being worth much less. The biggest reward I've seen was 70% experience at level 18 for the Sepulcher of Jhanda quest, which really isn't supposed to be completed until 20 or higher (and subsequently designed to be much less percentage gain normally).
I was merely stating that WoW was described here as being quest-oriented experience gain instead of primarily kill-oriented experience gain, and how that was a far cry from what I know EQ2 to be. I haven't played WoW past level 18 (that was in beta), so I can't tell you what is beyond that--but I can tell you that up to that point, the majority of my experience came from completing quests.
Exactly. These games are made to make money. Wish died because running it would have been cost prohibitive. But as for astounding paradigm shifts, I don't think we will see any. Any inovation (which there will be) will be in little baby steps. Ultimately in order to be successful as a game you have to have in no order:
1) a large enough fan/subscriber base
2) financing to develop, maintain and grow that base
3) the technology demanded by said fans
4) balancing long term playability with short term playability
5) content that is immersive, compelling and complex
6) fun game play
7) dedicated devs, programmers, admins, et cetera
8) LUCK
I must confess I am a casual player (though my wife would beg to differ,
) I have played or tried UO, EQ, EQ2, AC, AC2, CoH, Horizons and DAOC since UO first came out way back when. I have never topped out a class...Perhaps my tolerance for grind is too low? But allowing one to get there too fast forces folks to have to start over, or forces the company to create ever more top end content or forces the player to leave. It has never been a problem with me. My problem is that I enjoy the low to mid level game and some games forget about new players and low level characters once the high level power gamers start crying for more content.
Anthrorob
http://onlinerpggames.blogspot.com/
The only possibly diverging opinion I would bring is, alternates should have a HUGE XP bonus for each toon you already bring to that level IMO. Alternates are not a solution to keep a MMORPG alive, peoples dont enjoy playing alternates, thereby, if for any reason a player play 1(bored, dont like first toon, whatever), it should be a LOT faster up to the point the first toon was. Alternates could receive, freely, a portion of what the original toon earn as well to make sure they are on par when they reach the same level, dont want them to level fast and be in troubles then because they are ghetto.
And for HUGE changes, only the very desesperates(like Verant was, eh they where still buyed out despite the success) or the very richs(Microsoft could) would dare take such risks.
- "Solo is, will always be, the main market. A MMORPG that succeed with little or no solo appeal is doing great considering they are ignoring the main player base.''
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
Put yourself in a place in time.... Back before UO was announced. Let's see, I think some sequel of Quake was the big game of the moment--especially the online play. Not sure if the original Unreal was even out then, but I bet you, like me, were playing some FPS game (if you were playing PCs at all, that is)...
Anyway, try to remember your attitude about games back then... If you were like me, you were probably getting weary of the numerous Quake and Doom clones that were everywhere back then. You may have thought at one point that, this was it. This is what PC gaming is all about and it probably will never change.
Then UO was announced. Sure others had dabbled in multiplayer games (MUDs and whatnot). They were certainly not unheard of, but for some reason it really blew me away. Then EQ was announced. Wow! 3D version of UO! But it couldn't have shared fewer similarities! The gameplay was completely different. It was revolutionary and a paradigm shift in the way I played games.
So how can we sit here today and say that nothing can revolutionize anymore? We've said that so many times in the past. Not just you and me, but numerous people in history. Lots of famous quotes about lack of vision that we can dredge up... Someone that posts here actually quotes a famous one in his sig (the one about Ken Olson).
Anyway, I maintain good hope that some dev will pull through and deliver something breathtaking that will change the way we play and the way we think about online games. Cheers!
I don't mean to suggest there won't be innovation. I am just skeptical of any MMO's claim of revolutionizing a given game aspect. When we talk about paradigmatic shifts, we are talking more than simply new GUI's, graphics or crafting systems...or at least I am. When I am talking paradigmatic shifts in the approach, I envision a sweeping change that radically changes.
I look forward to the games coming out this year, but besides of interesting changes, I doubt there will be a truly REVOLUTIONARY game.
That is all I was saying.
Anthrorob
http://onlinerpggames.blogspot.com/
I heard in an interview with some dev.. somewhere.. That something like 110 MMOs actually succeed, which compaired to 1100 single player games succeeding..
So, even tho 910 failed MMOs seems like a lot, its not. Probably only becuz there isnt so much of a market for MMORPGs becuz of the cost to makemaintain them. But if you DO succeed, n I mean like REALLY succeed, then its like winning a 5+ year lottery.
THATS why so many fail. Everybody tries to jump on the "buy our game and pay monthly subscription to make us rich bastards" bandwagon. But it doesnt work like that.