I'm not following the relevance to the question you quoted.
His statement was: "I have played skill based games where a low level and a high level player can't group due to the power difference cause someone will be wasting their time" and I asked him which those were.
Originally posted by CactusmanX
"I can't think of any game that has a low power difference, but I am speaking more hypothetically, one could be made, since there is nothing about levels that inherently demand large power curves."
Actually, there is. Level disparity has been a flaw in the RPG game design ever since the PnP days. That is why campaigns were created for specific levels. Jumping into a level 6-8 campaign with a level 2 never ended very pretty. It's the reason MMOs like EQ2 and COx have come up with workarounds for the problem (Mentor and Sidekick, respectively).
You have valid points on the skill-based games, though. VC and Runescape do have noticeable ranges where a low level is more 'baggage' to a veteran team than a contributor. I wouldn't really fauly skill-based system for that, rather the way it was implemented there.
-- Whammy - a 64x64 miniRPG - RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right? - FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
Originally posted by LynxJSA I'm not following the relevance to the question you quoted. His statement was: "I have played skill based games where a low level and a high level player can't group due to the power difference cause someone will be wasting their time" and I asked him which those were.
Then just chalk it up as a rant from an over-zealous old guy who is particularly sensitive to social stratification in MMOs.
I'm not following the relevance to the question you quoted. His statement was: "I have played skill based games where a low level and a high level player can't group due to the power difference cause someone will be wasting their time" and I asked him which those were.
Originally posted by CactusmanX "I can't think of any game that has a low power difference, but I am speaking more hypothetically, one could be made, since there is nothing about levels that inherently demand large power curves." Actually, there is. Level disparity has been a flaw in the RPG game design ever since the PnP days. That is why campaigns were created for specific levels. Jumping into a level 6-8 campaign with a level 2 never ended very pretty. It's the reason MMOs like EQ2 and COx have come up with workarounds for the problem (Mentor and Sidekick, respectively).
You have valid points on the skill-based games, though. VC and Runescape do have noticeable ranges where a low level is more 'baggage' to a veteran team than a contributor. I wouldn't really fauly skill-based system for that, rather the way it was implemented there.
Well in the context of building community this isn't really an issue.
In the skill based games I've played (UO / SWG Pre-CU) I could group with new friends.
In level based games:
1) I couldn't really
2) I could with an extra system built in aka mentor
3) I could but basicly only power level them (think DAoC... a 1 can group with a 50 for level capped xp per kill).
In the context of "waste of my time" its the same regardless of situation.. either I want to help someone or I don't.
My point of view (and I do like to solo) is that making player not rely on anyone has destroyed community. There is absolutely no negative impact from being "anti social". Oh and I don't mean "omg you solo so you are anti social"... I mean the actual bad.. negative behaviour that destroys community.
I remember in EQ1 early on as a cleric.. if you were a real Ahole.. you get on a very specail list. This was called the "no group.. no ress list..." Eventually as I met more healers we had a global version of that list... and at the early stages healers were somewhat rare.
Once upon a time it was at least somewhat possible to impose behaviour modification as I like to call it. I spam a lot on these boards about this or that has killed MMO's for me... even join in the WoW clone or EQ clone discussions.
Right now the absolute biggest negative for *me* in games is how bad the community is.
I honestly don't know if its because there is so little need for other people... that people are like this now.
Or if its simply due to the size of the market now compared to 1997... 1999 or the early 2000's. Once upon a time I guess you were a bit more dedicated or serious gamer to have the cash to be in an MMO. You know back when CPU's cost the same as what some complete systems cost now...
I just hit cancel in yet another game.. simply because the community was so bad that why bother... why pay for that etc etc So Fallout 3 is back on the drive and hey.. at least community isn't a problem.
Oh and to end this wall of text... Ultima Online.. that full loot.. open pvp game... I had an ICQ friends list in the hundreds. Well ICQ was the thing back then... but in todays MMO's the only large list I have.. is my ignore list. I guess its only odd when I think about the fact that full loot... open pvp game had a better community than most of these "co-operative pve games I play now" and I certainly in general haven't been very supportive of pvp... so its all very odd from my point of view.
eople avoid pickup groups, stay in ventrillo or only chat and play with their guildies. If that's the kind of socialization you are referring to when you speak of community driven games then we already have it left and right.
That is absouletly not what I'm referring to. What happened to people being open? There's no more character left in the mmorpgs developers are putting out anymore. It feels more like a multiplayer SRPG experience, and if I wanted that, I could go play SRPGS that deliver that exerpience 10x better than mmorpgs. MMORPGS should be made with their strengths emphasized, instead of catering to people who want SRPG with multiplayer tagged on. It is truly the parasite of this genre, as far as I am concerened, the way the developers have been creating games to focus on what doesn't define an mmorpg but what defines a SRPG with multiplayer options.
I fully agree with you, but see it more as the masses do not, which is WHY we have games in this genre be the way they are.
Right now the absolute biggest negative for *me* in games is how bad the community is.
But developers do not create community - players do.
Developers can offer tools to make community building easier, but be careful what you wish for. Building community means either imposing your group's views, boundaries and rules on the rest of the populace or insulating your group from the rest of the populace. Again, that's not an MMO thing, that's just the nature of community.
-- Whammy - a 64x64 miniRPG - RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right? - FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
Originally posted by LynxJSA But developers do not create community - players do.
Developers can offer tools to make community building easier, but be careful what you wish for. Building community means either imposing your group's views, boundaries and rules on the rest of the populace or insulating your group from the rest of the populace. Again, that's not an MMO thing, that's just the nature of community.
I assume that you mean that community is a synergy between developers and players, but I'm not sure why you're underscoring a concern over developers actively pursuing community building. Inept community building can certainly backfire, but when properly done it is a very subtle effect.
Every element of gameplay has an impact on community. Do players relate over the appearance of their characters? Do they compete over power levels? Do they cooperate to attain mutual goals? Do they find the antics of the game AI to be entertaining to the point of discussion? Are travel times so great that players find themselves isolated or unwilling to rejoin friends elsewhere in the game?
It's not just an issue of creating game features that permit players to talk to each other or declare allegiances, etc. It's a fundamental design component to every single thing that players experience in the game. Done properly, all those elements of gameplay come together to naturally encourage players to build their community. It need not be a community that an outsider can point at and say "That's a community". It might just be a case where the people in the game feel a sense of community without knowing exactly why.
Comments
I'm not following the relevance to the question you quoted.
His statement was: "I have played skill based games where a low level and a high level player can't group due to the power difference cause someone will be wasting their time" and I asked him which those were.
Originally posted by CactusmanX
"I can't think of any game that has a low power difference, but I am speaking more hypothetically, one could be made, since there is nothing about levels that inherently demand large power curves."
Actually, there is. Level disparity has been a flaw in the RPG game design ever since the PnP days. That is why campaigns were created for specific levels. Jumping into a level 6-8 campaign with a level 2 never ended very pretty.
It's the reason MMOs like EQ2 and COx have come up with workarounds for the problem (Mentor and Sidekick, respectively).
You have valid points on the skill-based games, though. VC and Runescape do have noticeable ranges where a low level is more 'baggage' to a veteran team than a contributor. I wouldn't really fauly skill-based system for that, rather the way it was implemented there.
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
Then just chalk it up as a rant from an over-zealous old guy who is particularly sensitive to social stratification in MMOs.
Well in the context of building community this isn't really an issue.
In the skill based games I've played (UO / SWG Pre-CU) I could group with new friends.
In level based games:
1) I couldn't really
2) I could with an extra system built in aka mentor
3) I could but basicly only power level them (think DAoC... a 1 can group with a 50 for level capped xp per kill).
In the context of "waste of my time" its the same regardless of situation.. either I want to help someone or I don't.
My point of view (and I do like to solo) is that making player not rely on anyone has destroyed community. There is absolutely no negative impact from being "anti social". Oh and I don't mean "omg you solo so you are anti social"... I mean the actual bad.. negative behaviour that destroys community.
I remember in EQ1 early on as a cleric.. if you were a real Ahole.. you get on a very specail list. This was called the "no group.. no ress list..." Eventually as I met more healers we had a global version of that list... and at the early stages healers were somewhat rare.
Once upon a time it was at least somewhat possible to impose behaviour modification as I like to call it. I spam a lot on these boards about this or that has killed MMO's for me... even join in the WoW clone or EQ clone discussions.
Right now the absolute biggest negative for *me* in games is how bad the community is.
I honestly don't know if its because there is so little need for other people... that people are like this now.
Or if its simply due to the size of the market now compared to 1997... 1999 or the early 2000's. Once upon a time I guess you were a bit more dedicated or serious gamer to have the cash to be in an MMO. You know back when CPU's cost the same as what some complete systems cost now...
I just hit cancel in yet another game.. simply because the community was so bad that why bother... why pay for that etc etc So Fallout 3 is back on the drive and hey.. at least community isn't a problem.
Oh and to end this wall of text... Ultima Online.. that full loot.. open pvp game... I had an ICQ friends list in the hundreds. Well ICQ was the thing back then... but in todays MMO's the only large list I have.. is my ignore list. I guess its only odd when I think about the fact that full loot... open pvp game had a better community than most of these "co-operative pve games I play now" and I certainly in general haven't been very supportive of pvp... so its all very odd from my point of view.
That is absouletly not what I'm referring to. What happened to people being open? There's no more character left in the mmorpgs developers are putting out anymore. It feels more like a multiplayer SRPG experience, and if I wanted that, I could go play SRPGS that deliver that exerpience 10x better than mmorpgs. MMORPGS should be made with their strengths emphasized, instead of catering to people who want SRPG with multiplayer tagged on. It is truly the parasite of this genre, as far as I am concerened, the way the developers have been creating games to focus on what doesn't define an mmorpg but what defines a SRPG with multiplayer options.
I fully agree with you, but see it more as the masses do not, which is WHY we have games in this genre be the way they are.
If you compare the two online games Second Life and EvE they both cater to the base human characteristic of Greed.
One lacks combat, the other welcomes it, one physical group of people are drawn to the game that fills their tastes.
I think you're asking if there can be a game that can be combined to fill both in the same log in.
I don't see it happenin. the masses decide where they want to spend their dinero, and it's always a fickle choice.
"There is no honor among thieves."- an excerpt from the real DMG...it should have included snipers...
But developers do not create community - players do.
Developers can offer tools to make community building easier, but be careful what you wish for. Building community means either imposing your group's views, boundaries and rules on the rest of the populace or insulating your group from the rest of the populace. Again, that's not an MMO thing, that's just the nature of community.
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
I assume that you mean that community is a synergy between developers and players, but I'm not sure why you're underscoring a concern over developers actively pursuing community building. Inept community building can certainly backfire, but when properly done it is a very subtle effect.
Every element of gameplay has an impact on community. Do players relate over the appearance of their characters? Do they compete over power levels? Do they cooperate to attain mutual goals? Do they find the antics of the game AI to be entertaining to the point of discussion? Are travel times so great that players find themselves isolated or unwilling to rejoin friends elsewhere in the game?
It's not just an issue of creating game features that permit players to talk to each other or declare allegiances, etc. It's a fundamental design component to every single thing that players experience in the game. Done properly, all those elements of gameplay come together to naturally encourage players to build their community. It need not be a community that an outsider can point at and say "That's a community". It might just be a case where the people in the game feel a sense of community without knowing exactly why.