Levels. Not classes. Not Questing. Not PvE or PvP.... Levels. To understand this, you have to consider the logical end to which leveling leads and why this is a poor fit for games that (theoretically) have no end. See, levels imply an end. Sure, you could level to infinity, but then you'd just fall into what I call "Dragonball Syndrom." Eventually, your character will be so ridiculously overpowered that your willful suspension of disbelief will be broken, you'll no longer be impressed when you hit a new ding and then you'll cease to care about the game altogether. And then there's some bullshit about balance that says that everyone has to eventually be the same. Levels work in a single player game because there is an ending. You can let the player power level into infinity and just automatically scale everything to match the power curve and the game will still eventually end. Even if you reset the character to level one and take away all of their money and gear every time they die, the player will eventually beat the game. MMORPGs are technically unbeatable. And before anyone pipes up: skill based systems are still levels. Placing limitations on skill levels basically serves the same pupose as a level cap. Unfortunately, this leads us to the problem of how to make an RPG without any form of leveling whatsoever. Personally, I don't think it can be done. But there's still hope. Old table top games like Rune Quest and Call of Cthulhu give some really great ideas of how to balance out the power curve. The trick is to design the system that advances skills according to use and with the idea that even an experienced adventurer can be taken out by a weak but lucky creature. Combat isn't a very forgiving past-time after all. You also need to give the players enough options that no one can cover all the bases no matter how long they play. In this regard, Eve Online got it right. The other problem with levels is in the way it has focused the overall game development to mimic the single player experience. Developers need to start with open ended concepts that allow the players and the environment to tell a story. Instead, we cling to creating web works of quest chains with the expectation of just adding to it as time goes on. This continual addition is counterproductive and expensive as hell. In games that are sold on the size of their community, wouldn't it make sense to start with the community you hope to attract and design around that goal?
I agree that more MMOs should be without levels. Levels is a simple system but not the best and I would love a Rune quest MMO but the real problem here is that all MMOs use the same mechanics, not the mechanics in itself.
There should both be games with levels and without, you can use skill based games like Rune quest, career based game like Warhammer fantasy RPG or even gear based games (like FPS games but with a lot more gear that makes larger difference).
The regular EQ/D&D mechanics is fine in itself but it isn't good that every frigging game (almost) uses it.
Players are very weak in finding gameplay options themselves. I play WOW without leveling in PVE at all. I only level in PVP when I feel the content and professions get too high for my character. Mostly it's around 4 to 5 levels of difference from the world around me, that I am obliged to put on experience gains again and that I do solely through PvP. This kind of gameplay has been excellent and gives the "theme parc game by excellence" a complete other game direction. One can only hope that the wizards at Blizzard see the same advantages of such an "open" system that players can control themselves. In fact such techniques open up new experiences as "end game" and "leveling" are blended into one according to what players want. It brings back the adventure. NOT having an experience bar is so liberating and yes putting it back on again in PvP is challeging. One can only wonder what such a system could do to a complete new mmorpg with unexplored lore. Whatever your thought ... the above shows just how MANY more options exist in future mmo's. Even for the most popular ones.
What your post points to is that you've become so bored with 'normal' WOW gameplay you are now making up new ways to play (leveling through pvp only) to make it challenging and fun again.
You could have done the same thing in DAOC a few years ago if you wanted, and I recommend you try playing one handed or even blindfolded for yet more challenging options.
Sure, anyone can impose artificial limitations on themselves such as permanently deleting their characters upon death, but for most gamers, these alternatives are just silly. We wish to progress in the most efficient manner possible and pursue meaningful goals as the game is designed.
Your alternatives point to boredom, not innovation and its understandable why these sorts of options aren't offered by most games until they've become well worn and boring to give people a reason to stick around.
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
Levels are whatever the developer defines them to be. Typically they include some kind of base statistical increase. But it does not have to be that way. Gaining a level could just mean a small 2% increase in some very specific area like range, damage, health or whatever. Point is a level could be very infignificant, especially if a level gives you small increases and there are few levels.
The real difference between levels and skills is that a level is a more general form of advancement, while a skill applies to a specific skill. The way you level them is different too, skills increase through use and you gain levels by getting general XP. Neither is automatically predisposed to large power curves, since developers define how powerful a level is in the first place.
Personally I really dislike increase through use type leveling schemes, I prefer general XP leveling ones. So I don't think the issue is with levels so much as large power differences. No matter what type of advancement you use, levels or skills, big power differences hurt the game.
So I think it is more important to emphasize small power differences, and a large variety of things to do.
What I do dissagree with is the concept of open ended environments that allow the players to tell the story. I don't know how exactly you mean "tell the story", but I am sure that no matter what environment you create players will never create their own stories, maybe a few roleplayers but not enough to matter. The only way I think you will have stories in a MMO, of any consequence, is by developers putting them in.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
Levels are whatever the developer defines them to be. Typically they include some kind of base statistical increase. But it does not have to be that way. Gaining a level could just mean a small 2% increase in some very specific area like range, damage, health or whatever. Point is a level could be very infignificant, especially if a level gives you small increases and there are few levels. You're confusing progression with levels. The latter is a subset of the former. They are not one in the same. The OP is not saying progression hurt MMOs, but the level system - a mechanic that was flawed even in its original form in PnP gaming.
What I do dissagree with is the concept of open ended environments that allow the players to tell the story. I don't know how exactly you mean "tell the story", but I am sure that no matter what environment you create players will never create their own stories, maybe a few roleplayers but not enough to matter. The only way I think you will have stories in a MMO, of any consequence, is by developers putting them in. A story doesn't have to be contrived fanfic. It can simply be that character's exploits within the game world. That open ended environment is the sandbox, and comparing two character's stories from the same game can usually give you an idea of how much of a sandbox or themepark the game is. in most themparks (a design that goes hand in hand with level-based systems) you'll find the story is written for the players. The players are just completing tasks to progress to the next part of it. The more open ended the gameplay is, the more the player is actually writing their own story, developing a unique character history and timeline simply by making meaningful choices within the game world. Basically, you do not have to roleplay to create a character's story in an oipen ended game world.
-- Whammy - a 64x64 miniRPG - RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right? - FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
After reading thru most of this discussion it seems natural to use a system where
1. You level from 1 to (xx) within a week or 2 in order to "learn" the game, at the end of said leveling you get to choose what skills you desire to master from a pool of 100+ skillz
2. End game content begins here, you are locked into the skills you picked and can only increase the mastery of a skill thru pvp (added to that it must be pvp with different foes and theres a cap % of increase in ability you can achieve per day)
3. Gear is easily aquired thru PVE the best gear however is from mobs that take 6-8+ ppl to take down, and the mobs are tricky it will take some planning and skill to take them down (no tank and spank)
4. No gear will overpower your character no skill build will be the "best" the trick is to put postives and negatives into each skill and each piece of gear.
5. Add a forced activity that happens daily i.e fortress raids, PVP instances, guild vs guild battles, it doesnt matter just give those end gamers something to look foward to at a set time each day.
Of course im no game dev so the only way we will ever get a system like this is to make a set of guidelines like the above and a signed petition to a major game company.
Another problem in alot of games released is the lack of GM support, anti-cheat / macroing technology, and proper debugging
We really should stop talking about this kind of stuff and bring it to the next level (no joke) and get something done.
Levels are whatever the developer defines them to be. Typically they include some kind of base statistical increase. But it does not have to be that way. Gaining a level could just mean a small 2% increase in some very specific area like range, damage, health or whatever. Point is a level could be very infignificant, especially if a level gives you small increases and there are few levels. You're confusing progression with levels. The latter is a subset of the former. They are not one in the same. The OP is not saying progression hurt MMOs, but the level system - a mechanic that was flawed even in its original form in PnP gaming.
Well I was specifically talking about the power difference, ie levels don't have to produce large power differences, which is what most people assume. If you are talking about specifically levels being bad, not for the power difference but as a mechanic then I just dissagree, I would rather have general levels and pick what I level up than increase through use skills.
What I do dissagree with is the concept of open ended environments that allow the players to tell the story. I don't know how exactly you mean "tell the story", but I am sure that no matter what environment you create players will never create their own stories, maybe a few roleplayers but not enough to matter. The only way I think you will have stories in a MMO, of any consequence, is by developers putting them in. A story doesn't have to be contrived fanfic. It can simply be that character's exploits within the game world. That open ended environment is the sandbox, and comparing two character's stories from the same game can usually give you an idea of how much of a sandbox or themepark the game is. in most themparks (a design that goes hand in hand with level-based systems) you'll find the story is written for the players. The players are just completing tasks to progress to the next part of it. The more open ended the gameplay is, the more the player is actually writing their own story, developing a unique character history and timeline simply by making meaningful choices within the game world. Basically, you do not have to roleplay to create a character's story in an oipen ended game world. I guess but that is a story in much the same way the Dick and Jane books were, it is a sequence of events it just isn't very deep. Personally I find stories interesting because of things like character developement, in the personality sense not the statistical sense. Players actions seldom ever carry the depth that would make for a good story, unless you put it in the game, like a Bioware game. Left to their own though players will do all sorts of things their actions will just not be character driven, which I think you need for a good story, and mostly driven by mechanics, without all the deeper personal bits. I supose that in the strictest sense any series of events is a story. But in the way I am talkig about story, something more akin to a book or movie, just letting players go will not produce that. Unless you imagine the events to be deeper and more interesting in your head; but meh.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
I remember reading in a review about levels and how unfair they are. They talked about how two level 10's should have a chance against a level 20. Not just instantly be steamrolled by the 20. Or something along those lines. Leveling up in games and gear in games seem to take it too far and make it exponential. That's also a fail on gear imo. In games, you take away your character's gear. Now what? Is he completely useless? That's one of the things I never understood about games. On how your gear makes you a million times better.
My analogy is that the problems of games are 100% the players.It does not matter if it a cheat or the design,it is the players who support the cheats and the designs.There is literally millions of players lining up on cheat and exploit sites to ruin games for others,it is pathetic the immaturity level of gamers.
Even in sports you have many people trying to cheat the system,the problem is people and it is everywhere not just gaming.
In gaming i cannot believe how people act towards other players ,all for the sake of winning,it is really sad.
I think this is why i adored FFXI so much,it was not a game catered to drama 101 or bragging,it was a game designed to have players help each other with tasks.Square Enix is going to take the next step to perhaps remove more of the drama,by removing LEVELS.It is not levels themselves that are the problem ,it is how players react and use them in games,that makes it a problem.
So with FFXIV,it may not live up to a lot of my standards,but it will remove PVP drama ,and remove levels ,so it is a positive step towards a better community working with each other,not against each other.This type of community will remove a high % of the immature gamers and i did witness it in my FFXI days,the community was at least better than other games.
So since the players cannot be trusted to respect each other,the developer needs to do their part in designing a game,that does not allow the players to ruin it for others.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Originally postedOh, but FPS DO have progression. Or were you stuck with a pistol and/or crowbar throughout the entire game? Sorry. But if FPS truly didn't have progression, they would be very boring.
Two of the greatest olde skool shooter mods of all time were Rocket Arena in Quake 3 and Instagib with the Fatboy mutator in Unreal Tournament. In both, all the players have the same weapons, health, armor, and no healthpacks on the map. See also every damn tournament Street Fighter knock off EVER!
The allure is the high score. The draw of doing better than you did the last time. It isn't progress in the MMORPG sense, but it has been enough to keep me playing for decades.
These games make you start all over again every time you die. What's more, the dungeons are randomly generated and often times, the potions and scrolls are mixed up so that the effects have to be rediscovered every time you play.
Regarding the fps mods, those are the exceptions that prove the rule. FPS games generally have progression. Its not so much needed in FPS PvP,...
The whole get a new high score thing is not really what a mmorpg is all about, Maybe a mmog. If we could rate a players ability to play a certain type of character, that would be interesting. I've often thought that the high score board would be a good way to get players to play the under powered classes.
Random Dungeons. They've been done in MMORPGS, i happen to like them, but the consensus was that they have to be done real well for it to be a part of the mmorpg.
Originally posted by metalhead980 I have never seen a game without a power scale. Even in Eve if a Person with 10 million sp flying a Ishkur (t2) will beat a Newb with 1 million sp in a Incursus (t1 version) everytime.
Exactly, Skill Points = Level. And I'm sure it wouldn't take someone very long to create a Combat Skill Points metric in EVE (which only counts SP earned in combat skills.) Perhaps one already exists.
Even in the same ship the difference between the 10m and 1m SP characters is a considerable amount of passive combat bonuses.
The factors which matter are verticality of progression (how much stronger you become) and challenge types. The tougher a game's challenges, the more you'll be interested in only taking highly-progressed characters with you. If the same boss can be zerged by many players, that reduces the challenge and thus reduces the need to take only the best of players.
Alternatively if progression is lateral instead of verticle, you will almost immediately reach the peak amount of progression within a narrow focus but progression allows you to widen that focus. Planetside and Guild Wars are fantastic examples of Lateral Progression, and it's amazing for PVP-focused games (where winning due to time investment is a lot less satisfying than winning because you genuinely outplayed your opponent.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I am going to post in an attempt to enlighten you the true sense of an RPG, if I fail to make you see it...well I guess I'll just give up trying to participate in forum discussions until I start my own MMO.
Green is My Ideas
Red is My critiques.
The RPG Genre made great by the MMO, but also deformed by it.
Ok, first what is an RPG?, it is a game in which you act out as a character and go on a glorious quest and have fun adventures with friends and the adrenaline flows through you whenever your in combat, running away from guards, hutning down a criminal etc.
Now what has the MMO done?, it has connected us as a community...but has also putrified our vision of an RPG, we are no longer partaking in virtuous quests in which we hold our weak sword and face the odds to defeat the dragon or liberating the slave city, killing the trolls that have oppressed our village...no...we are talking about leveling, PVP, PVE, people whine, people sell gold with bots, we are discriminating people because he is level 6 and I am lvl 7, were button mashing till someone dies, a healer can't do anything besides healing, 40 avatars are running around spamming skills at a raid boss, we have outrageous AH prices, PEOPLE ARE LOGGING IN ALL DAY TO OBTAIN THEIR PRECIOUS PURPLE ITEMS, cities and villages are soulless places with NPCs that give everyone the same single static quest which never changes etc.
Were not roleplaying, everyone is using "MMO" terminology, I don't feel like I am in a world filled with fantasy/wonder, it doesn't matter if I log in today, no one will notice. Everyone is obsessed with leveling, no one has a job that makes them distinct, crafting is useless because we make a LOT MORE PROFITS killing endless mobs, mobs don't react or think, they just stand there.
There are no kings or thieves or cavaliers or wandering merchants because the MMORPG we know today are all about killing and reaching the endgame.
Isn't everyone tired of this charade of an "RPG", MMORPGs have lost their RPG, today we have MMOGLEF (Massively Multiplayer Online Grind, Level and Endgame Fighting).
I can't believe people are blaming this on the PVP of the games, it isn't the game that is wrong, it is the entire Genre and how it is viewed, it is those who are willing to play the games, the games we play aren't fun, we are, we are the one trying to roleplay in a stale world these...developers have created.
What if we changed the Genre?, what if we do a MMOSS? (Massively Multiplayer Online Society simulation)
What if we...discarded this sad excuse and TRY to start making a game that will appeal to the real RPGers, us, as far as I know many of us like roleplay, we want to live a stOry, we want to change it to our liking, we want to decide how it will turn out, WE WANT TO BE THE STORY!
People debate between sandbox and theme park, they say each one has a weakness, I'll express how I feel about this, discard what we call theme park and expand on the sandbox, the sandbox allows us the players to change the story, make our own true story (Like in that Guild Wars 2 commercial...I doubt Guild Wars 2 will let you do your "own story" in an obvious theme park, I'm still buying it though cause it is hopefully only 50 bucks without any subscription).
In our current MMOs, were all warriors, we all fight endless Mobs which do nothing, no one is in danger, towns are stale ghost towns, Mobs just sit around and we ALL kill them.
Here is where I recognize those people that want a ridiculous "non combat class" as the smart revolutionary generation of MMO consumers, sure everyone likes fighting, but wouldn't it be more exciting if we weren't just fighting with no reason, what if we could fight all action game like with swords clashing, arrows coming at us from the rooftops, hiding in the forest preparing for an ambush on a large caravan of players / NPCs, what if you were a wandering merchant going from village to village, a monarch, a bounty hunter (Hunting PKers requested by their victims), a mercenary (Take care of the dirty jobs be they legal, ilegal moral or inmoral in player law.
What if we avoided fighting and started constructing small villages, fishing for food, selling the fish to the next town and with the money buy some wood and stone to erect a new tower and some palisades to get those pesky PKers out of the village? (I see our current PVEers in this position).
PVPers would be warlords, mercenaries for hire, bounty hunters, militia.
PvEers would be merchants, blacksmiths, gatherers, scouts searching for new lands, they would construct and found villages and repel invaders, start trade and become as rich as possible. Or maybe some would group and look for rare resources, items of which only one of these remain IN EXISTENCE, start religions and get followers (Granting combat/economic) bonuses.
PKers would be bandits, thieves, outlaws, breaking the law and killing all by outnumbering, a horde of 20 players would assault a village run by the PVE who would proudly repel them.
No longer do you get 1 copper, 1 silver equaling 100 coppers or 1 gold a 100 silvers, a game with currency, have few distinct factions have their own currency and these shift in place as these progress economically.
Make every piece of land contested territory, let the players make their own imaginary borders, make the AI smart and have these try to run away, gang up on you or hide if you attack them instead of the boring routine of last one standing. Maybe even let the player outrun these.
In a world like this, GMs and developers would have no trouble making events, this world is run, built and destroyed by the players themselves.
Levels are whatever the developer defines them to be. Typically they include some kind of base statistical increase. But it does not have to be that way. Gaining a level could just mean a small 2% increase in some very specific area like range, damage, health or whatever. Point is a level could be very infignificant, especially if a level gives you small increases and there are few levels. You're confusing progression with levels. The latter is a subset of the former. They are not one in the same. The OP is not saying progression hurt MMOs, but the level system - a mechanic that was flawed even in its original form in PnP gaming. And you're confusing mathematical progression with some un-named difference. If there's anything more annoying than people saying skill based levels are not levels, it's people who argue with others without actually saying why they're wrong.
What I do dissagree with is the concept of open ended environments that allow the players to tell the story. I don't know how exactly you mean "tell the story", but I am sure that no matter what environment you create players will never create their own stories, maybe a few roleplayers but not enough to matter. The only way I think you will have stories in a MMO, of any consequence, is by developers putting them in. A story doesn't have to be contrived fanfic. It can simply be that character's exploits within the game world. That open ended environment is the sandbox, and comparing two character's stories from the same game can usually give you an idea of how much of a sandbox or themepark the game is. in most themparks (a design that goes hand in hand with level-based systems) Wrong. 100% wrong. There's no correlation between themebox andSandpark - EQ, the template for the level based games allowed characters to have completely different stories. you'll find the story is written for the players. The players are just completing tasks to progress to the next part of it. The more open ended the gameplay is, the more the player is actually writing their own story, developing a unique character history and timeline simply by making meaningful choices within the game world. Have you ever considered backing up things you say, with evidence? Basically, you do not have to roleplay to create a character's story in an oipen ended game world.
What is an "open ended game world" one where player content defines "end game"? Random content, player generated content or designer content = that's your three options. In all three of those options, players can lead totally different stories or do the exact same thing. Correlation is not causation. Write it down.
This is getting ridiculous. You can blame every aspect / participant / process in the MMO community, but the flaws all really come to this (we're talking social flaws here, not technical limitations).
The MMO, is an attempt to create a pocket world, a sustainable made-up community / ecosystem in which players' can act out their imaginations and have fun. It is basically an attempt to create ones' own imaginary world. In doing so, the more these worlds evolve, they begin to resemble the 'real' world. The very thing many RPGs are trying to get away from. Most of these social problems can not be fixed, only mitigated. Poor community, selfishness, a shortsighted goal for levels (money, power). These are all problems that we, as people, create. Welcome to the real world.
The only way to truly get away from such things is to create a world which does not cater to them. In short, you need to create a world that is not structured at all like the one we currently live in. Games have done this, but then they get criticized for not being a 'true MMO'. There are the occasional games that have decent communities, but seem to only be that way because they only cater to a niche market, which happens to be generally well behaved.
The harsh truth, is that in order for these games we all seem to want to be made, they need to attract enough players to warrant the funding necessary to do so. This means opening them up to a larger community of potential customers, many of which we don't seem to want to play with. If you don't want to have to deal w/ such players, then you'll probably have to stick to single player games going forward. As they say, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
This is getting ridiculous. You can blame every aspect / participant / process in the MMO community, but the flaws all really come to this (we're talking social flaws here, not technical limitations). The MMO, is an attempt to create a pocket world, a sustainable made-up community / ecosystem in which players' can act out their imaginations and have fun. It is basically an attempt to create ones' own imaginary world. In doing so, the more these worlds evolve, they begin to resemble the 'real' world. The very thing many RPGs are trying to get away from. Most of these social problems can not be fixed, only mitigated. Poor community, selfishness, a shortsighted goal for levels (money, power). These are all problems that we, as people, create. Welcome to the real world. The only way to truly get away from such things is to create a world which does not cater to them. In short, you need to create a world that is not structured at all like the one we currently live in. Games have done this, but then they get criticized for not being a 'true MMO'. There are the occasional games that have decent communities, but seem to only be that way because they only cater to a niche market, which happens to be generally well behaved. The harsh truth, is that in order for these games we all seem to want to be made, they need to attract enough players to warrant the funding necessary to do so. This means opening them up to a larger community of potential customers, many of which we don't seem to want to play with. If you don't want to have to deal w/ such players, then you'll probably have to stick to single player games going forward. As they say, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
First, mention one game that resembles the real world, because i don't grind in the real world and I certainly don't go around dancing and annoying people or go button mashing etc.
Second, we as humans enjoy the problems of daily life and much more if these are not going to impact us later on, we live for the daily life problems, having them in a game is very fun, and no MMO is near "real life", games are not an escape from life (At least for those who have a life), they are entertainment, period.
I also have never seen a functioning MMO community (Player actions have no impact on the game whatsoever) and even less an ecosystem (Mobs just stand there and respawn 15 seconds after death, once attacked these will not leave you alone until either one of you is dead or you are at a certain radius).
MMOs seriously need to be remade from the bottom to the top (View my post in the second page).
I think SWG Pre-CU did the power level curve thing the best. When there was a grind, it was minimal, and could be done just doing your normal thing. It was not overwhelming like DFO is now. It would not take a year and a half like EVE. And when people were maxed, they kept on playing because everyone was needed in some fashion. Then came the holo-grind and killed it.
If it were my game, it would be like SWG, but instead of working to get there, you just doled out your 256(?) skill points in the areas you wanted . . . but you would have a whole bunch of choices to make.
People will gravitate towards power build, but people will also gravitate to what interests the, In SWG thousands of people ran around in Buffs+Comp, but thousands more ran around in regular street clothes . . . harvesting, selling goods, making goods, etc.
Oh . . . and balanced be damned. I hate games that HAVE to be balanced. No one is equal to anyone . . . ever
First, mention one game that resembles the real world, because i don't grind in the real world and I certainly don't go around dancing and annoying people or go button mashing etc.
Second, we as humans enjoy the problems of daily life and much more if these are not going to impact us later on, we live for the daily life problems, having them in a game is very fun, and no MMO is near "real life", games are not an escape from life (At least for those who have a life), they are entertainment, period.
I also have never seen a functioning MMO community (Player actions have no impact on the game whatsoever) and even less an ecosystem (Mobs just stand there and respawn 15 seconds after death, once attacked these will not leave you alone until either one of you is dead or you are at a certain radius).
MMOs seriously need to be remade from the bottom to the top (View my post in the second page).
If you've got a job or go to school, you grind. You do something every day that results in either an increase in that skill (XP) or the reward of money, sometimes both. When you fail catastrophically, you get fired (die) and have to start over again. You spend every waking moment putting in the appropriate amount of time and/or passing the right tests/exams to gain the next level, promotion, grade ... whatever.
If you enjoy what you're doing, then you might not notice you're grinding ... but you are. Just swap places with someone that really hates what you do and see how fast your "no grind" job becomes a grind to them.
And games are entertainment to you. To imply they can't be a social network to someone else is naive or arrogant. Is there really much difference between going to a bar and chatting in a game? Chances are pretty high that in both cases 90% of the people you "see" are misrepresenting themselves. Like that hot chick dancing in the corner with that sweet bouncing ... Adam's apple?
However, you are absolutely correct in that the next big step in MMOs HAS to be creating a world that is mutable. We run out of things to do because eventually we can no longer change the character we're running. Max level, max gear, max skills, whatever. I'm not sure if you can in EVE as with an open skillset as vast as their's it might be possible to max all the skills in a very narrow section. But since there isn't really an acheivable maximum, you can conceivably improve some aspect of your character "forever", especially as they add and tweak skills/areas/ships, etc.
But you still really don't change anything. The NPCs still patrol the same sectors and, as far as I know, sector security never changes through player actions.
The next big hit is going to have levels, areas, loot, all the stuff we're used to. But at cap, you'll start working towards world building like AoCs player built/run cities were supposed to be. You'll be able to purchase and plant quest giving NPCs and these NPCs will give some (or all) of whatever the person brings back to the planting player. Then, and here's where great dev's have to step up, starting areas need to be shifted into player run cities.
You could really accomplish the same thing if all those buildings you see when you walk through an MMO city, a player could walk in and buy. Why can't Inns be bought or sold? You mean that fat guy charging 3 coppers for his best brew wouldn't take 12,000 gp for the whole kit'n'kaboodle?
Why can't players clear out a ruin and establish a base there? Yes, it would lead to land rushes but what a great reason for expansions. You'd have to cap everyone to one area, keep, town or whatever. And if you're in a guild you're guild leader's "base" counts against you. Maybe even just one per account, would make more sense.
But it seems silly to just have goblin after goblin after goblin pile out of nowhere.
It get's a little fuzzier but much more fun when you start adding factions. And for every quest to conquer and keep an area, you'd have to create an equally tough quest for the other side to retake it, and one that stops a faction that is trying to take it over (so it becomes a constant struggle between completing quests), and finally a system where you can PvP for it.
I picture going to the quest giver that has all the other quests and choosing "Assault the Keep". The keep holder (and other admins) get a quest response where they can choose the time the attack can happen, choose to refuse PvP (in which case the originator has to go the PvE route), or if ignored too long, the originator sets the time. Then, at that appointed time, the groups enter an instance very similar to their area with defenses, buffs, whatever, based on the amount of improvements made to that particular area by that particular guild/person/ruler/whatever.
And just like that, you've created a world with flowing borders, boundaries, consentual PvP/RvR with a purpose and HUGE money sinks as guilds work to build and improve their areas to ward of attacks and draw other players to them.
And I've always wondered why the longest playing player isn't "The King"? Why is every "important" person in an NPC city an NPC? Why can't GMs hand out quests? Why isn't the lead developer playing as "The King" or "The Queen"?
I'd be curious what the impact of knowing that James Ohlen (SW:TOR lead designer) was the Sith Overlord ... and he was asking you to kill 10 womprats because those pelts would be broken down into resources that would finally allow a massive overarching plan to rule the entire universe to be unleashed! And at level three, you were the deciding factor in redrawing the map that everyone sees when they push 'm' . I know I'd think it was awesome!
Originally posted by metalhead980 I have never seen a game without a power scale. Even in Eve if a Person with 10 million sp flying a Ishkur (t2) will beat a Newb with 1 million sp in a Incursus (t1 version) everytime.
Exactly, Skill Points = Level.
No. No they dont. If for instance, the 10M SP player was in a snipe-fit Eagle or Zealot - a Tech 2 cruiser - and got caught at the gate by that 1M SP dude in the Incursus, he'd be dead in a couple of minutes. Chances are that he wouldn't get a single hit on to the T1 frigate. The example given above was loaded by Axelhilt specifying the 10M SP player in a ship specifically designed to kill small ships outside web range and giving the 1M SP guy a small ship designed to operate at point blank range. If the Incursus pilot had a billion SP, he still wouldn't win. If the billion SP pilot was in a rail Harpy (equivalent ship class), he still wouldn't win. If he was in a speed-fit Stabber with an energy neutraliser (tech 1 cruiser), he would always win. In short, the type of ship and the role it's fit for, and the pilot's knowledge of that role, count for hugely more than the character SP.
And all that is assuming that the SP are in immediately useful skills. You can have a jillion SP in missiles, but they'll do you no good in a drone ship. Where is your "Skill Points = Level" equation then? That equation only applys very loosely to EvE, because you can change your 'class' by getting in to a new ship, and change your 'class build' by refitting it.
I am going to post in an attempt to enlighten you the true sense of an RPG, if I fail to make you see it...well I guess I'll just give up trying to participate in forum discussions until I start my own MMO. Green is My Ideas
Red is My critiques.
The RPG Genre made great by the MMO, but also deformed by it. Ok, first what is an RPG?, it is a game in which you act out as a character and go on a glorious quest and have fun adventures with friends and the adrenaline flows through you whenever your in combat, running away from guards, hutning down a criminal etc. Now what has the MMO done?, it has connected us as a community...but has also putrified our vision of an RPG, we are no longer partaking in virtuous quests in which we hold our weak sword and face the odds to defeat the dragon or liberating the slave city, killing the trolls that have oppressed our village...no...we are talking about leveling, PVP, PVE, people whine, people sell gold with bots, we are discriminating people because he is level 6 and I am lvl 7, were button mashing till someone dies, a healer can't do anything besides healing, 40 avatars are running around spamming skills at a raid boss, we have outrageous AH prices, PEOPLE ARE LOGGING IN ALL DAY TO OBTAIN THEIR PRECIOUS PURPLE ITEMS, cities and villages are soulless places with NPCs that give everyone the same single static quest which never changes etc. Were not roleplaying, everyone is using "MMO" terminology, I don't feel like I am in a world filled with fantasy/wonder, it doesn't matter if I log in today, no one will notice. Everyone is obsessed with leveling, no one has a job that makes them distinct, crafting is useless because we make a LOT MORE PROFITS killing endless mobs, mobs don't react or think, they just stand there.
There are no kings or thieves or cavaliers or wandering merchants because the MMORPG we know today are all about killing and reaching the endgame. Isn't everyone tired of this charade of an "RPG", MMORPGs have lost their RPG, today we have MMOGLEF (Massively Multiplayer Online Grind, Level and Endgame Fighting). I can't believe people are blaming this on the PVP of the games, it isn't the game that is wrong, it is the entire Genre and how it is viewed, it is those who are willing to play the games, the games we play aren't fun, we are, we are the one trying to roleplay in a stale world these...developers have created.
What if we changed the Genre?, what if we do a MMOSS? (Massively Multiplayer Online Society simulation) What if we...discarded this sad excuse and TRY to start making a game that will appeal to the real RPGers, us, as far as I know many of us like roleplay, we want to live a stOry, we want to change it to our liking, we want to decide how it will turn out, WE WANT TO BE THE STORY! People debate between sandbox and theme park, they say each one has a weakness, I'll express how I feel about this, discard what we call theme park and expand on the sandbox, the sandbox allows us the players to change the story, make our own true story (Like in that Guild Wars 2 commercial...I doubt Guild Wars 2 will let you do your "own story" in an obvious theme park, I'm still buying it though cause it is hopefully only 50 bucks without any subscription). In our current MMOs, were all warriors, we all fight endless Mobs which do nothing, no one is in danger, towns are stale ghost towns, Mobs just sit around and we ALL kill them.
Here is where I recognize those people that want a ridiculous "non combat class" as the smart revolutionary generation of MMO consumers, sure everyone likes fighting, but wouldn't it be more exciting if we weren't just fighting with no reason, what if we could fight all action game like with swords clashing, arrows coming at us from the rooftops, hiding in the forest preparing for an ambush on a large caravan of players / NPCs, what if you were a wandering merchant going from village to village, a monarch, a bounty hunter (Hunting PKers requested by their victims), a mercenary (Take care of the dirty jobs be they legal, ilegal moral or inmoral in player law.
What if we avoided fighting and started constructing small villages, fishing for food, selling the fish to the next town and with the money buy some wood and stone to erect a new tower and some palisades to get those pesky PKers out of the village? (I see our current PVEers in this position).
PVPers would be warlords, mercenaries for hire, bounty hunters, militia.
PvEers would be merchants, blacksmiths, gatherers, scouts searching for new lands, they would construct and found villages and repel invaders, start trade and become as rich as possible. Or maybe some would group and look for rare resources, items of which only one of these remain IN EXISTENCE, start religions and get followers (Granting combat/economic) bonuses.
PKers would be bandits, thieves, outlaws, breaking the law and killing all by outnumbering, a horde of 20 players would assault a village run by the PVE who would proudly repel them.
No longer do you get 1 copper, 1 silver equaling 100 coppers or 1 gold a 100 silvers, a game with currency, have few distinct factions have their own currency and these shift in place as these progress economically.
Make every piece of land contested territory, let the players make their own imaginary borders, make the AI smart and have these try to run away, gang up on you or hide if you attack them instead of the boring routine of last one standing. Maybe even let the player outrun these.
In a world like this, GMs and developers would have no trouble making events, this world is run, built and destroyed by the players themselves.
Well said, I'd love to play a game like that if it wasn't horribly unbalanced and actually lives up to that.
One of the problems is that the market is saturated with mmos. MMOs should not be something that you can rush and think you can make money off of it. Developers should take more time and give the genre more love than they are giving it. I would rather have 3 mmos that are great in a 10 year life span than have to choose from 30-50 mmos that are horrible. Quality should be greater than quantity.
No. No they dont. If for instance, the 10M SP player was in a snipe-fit Eagle or Zealot - a Tech 2 cruiser - and got caught at the gate by that 1M SP dude in the Incursus, he'd be dead in a couple of minutes. Chances are that he wouldn't get a single hit on to the T1 frigate. The example given above was loaded by Axelhilt specifying the 10M SP player in a ship specifically designed to kill small ships outside web range and giving the 1M SP guy a small ship designed to operate at point blank range. If the Incursus pilot had a billion SP, he still wouldn't win. If the billion SP pilot was in a rail Harpy (equivalent ship class), he still wouldn't win. If he was in a speed-fit Stabber with an energy neutraliser (tech 1 cruiser), he would always win. In short, the type of ship and the role it's fit for, and the pilot's knowledge of that role, count for hugely more than the character SP. And all that is assuming that the SP are in immediately useful skills. You can have a jillion SP in missiles, but they'll do you no good in a drone ship. Where is your "Skill Points = Level" equation then? That equation only applys very loosely to EvE, because you can change your 'class' by getting in to a new ship, and change your 'class build' by refitting it.
Didn't mean to infer SP trumped ship counters, but the simple fact remains that a high-SP character accumulates a lot of passive bonuses to every aspect of his ship piloting, which result in a sizable power difference: one not all that different from level in terms of acting as a generic metric of character power.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
ditto man. if someone were to come up with a really superior MMORPG it would simply take the market hands down. I believe the next closest thing to this will be guild wars 2 later this year. I have not too much against MMO's despite my very pro-instancing stance. They are great for the clans and guilds and what not, and have a much more intricate story line if not 2 or 3 story lines that people follow. There's just not that many great ones yet.
The other problem with levels is in the way it has focused the overall game development to mimic the single player experience. Developers need to start with open ended concepts that allow the players and the environment to tell a story. Instead, we cling to creating web works of quest chains with the expectation of just adding to it as time goes on.
One of the problems I've had with my experiments in open-ended game design, is that many players find it so obtuse to their perception of what an MMO is, that they 1. don't feel like they are making any progress (lack of gratification), 2. feel lost without the customary linear design with pre-configured steps to take them from task to task.
I'm not bashing the comment, I too find free-roaming gameplay to be great fun (more of a VR adventure than a game).
This is going to sound odd, but I think PVP players tend to be MORE accepting of free-roaming designs, while PVE players prefer the structure of the single player game experience design.
Ken
www.ActionMMORPG.com One man, a small pile of money, and the screwball idea of a DIY Indie MMORPG? Yep, that's him. ~sigh~
Comments
That people will not pay monthly fees for a game that has no progression?
I agree that more MMOs should be without levels. Levels is a simple system but not the best and I would love a Rune quest MMO but the real problem here is that all MMOs use the same mechanics, not the mechanics in itself.
There should both be games with levels and without, you can use skill based games like Rune quest, career based game like Warhammer fantasy RPG or even gear based games (like FPS games but with a lot more gear that makes larger difference).
The regular EQ/D&D mechanics is fine in itself but it isn't good that every frigging game (almost) uses it.
What your post points to is that you've become so bored with 'normal' WOW gameplay you are now making up new ways to play (leveling through pvp only) to make it challenging and fun again.
You could have done the same thing in DAOC a few years ago if you wanted, and I recommend you try playing one handed or even blindfolded for yet more challenging options.
Sure, anyone can impose artificial limitations on themselves such as permanently deleting their characters upon death, but for most gamers, these alternatives are just silly. We wish to progress in the most efficient manner possible and pursue meaningful goals as the game is designed.
Your alternatives point to boredom, not innovation and its understandable why these sorts of options aren't offered by most games until they've become well worn and boring to give people a reason to stick around.
"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
Levels are whatever the developer defines them to be. Typically they include some kind of base statistical increase. But it does not have to be that way. Gaining a level could just mean a small 2% increase in some very specific area like range, damage, health or whatever. Point is a level could be very infignificant, especially if a level gives you small increases and there are few levels.
The real difference between levels and skills is that a level is a more general form of advancement, while a skill applies to a specific skill. The way you level them is different too, skills increase through use and you gain levels by getting general XP. Neither is automatically predisposed to large power curves, since developers define how powerful a level is in the first place.
Personally I really dislike increase through use type leveling schemes, I prefer general XP leveling ones. So I don't think the issue is with levels so much as large power differences. No matter what type of advancement you use, levels or skills, big power differences hurt the game.
So I think it is more important to emphasize small power differences, and a large variety of things to do.
What I do dissagree with is the concept of open ended environments that allow the players to tell the story. I don't know how exactly you mean "tell the story", but I am sure that no matter what environment you create players will never create their own stories, maybe a few roleplayers but not enough to matter. The only way I think you will have stories in a MMO, of any consequence, is by developers putting them in.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
After reading thru most of this discussion it seems natural to use a system where
1. You level from 1 to (xx) within a week or 2 in order to "learn" the game, at the end of said leveling you get to choose what skills you desire to master from a pool of 100+ skillz
2. End game content begins here, you are locked into the skills you picked and can only increase the mastery of a skill thru pvp (added to that it must be pvp with different foes and theres a cap % of increase in ability you can achieve per day)
3. Gear is easily aquired thru PVE the best gear however is from mobs that take 6-8+ ppl to take down, and the mobs are tricky it will take some planning and skill to take them down (no tank and spank)
4. No gear will overpower your character no skill build will be the "best" the trick is to put postives and negatives into each skill and each piece of gear.
5. Add a forced activity that happens daily i.e fortress raids, PVP instances, guild vs guild battles, it doesnt matter just give those end gamers something to look foward to at a set time each day.
Of course im no game dev so the only way we will ever get a system like this is to make a set of guidelines like the above and a signed petition to a major game company.
Another problem in alot of games released is the lack of GM support, anti-cheat / macroing technology, and proper debugging
We really should stop talking about this kind of stuff and bring it to the next level (no joke) and get something done.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
I remember reading in a review about levels and how unfair they are. They talked about how two level 10's should have a chance against a level 20. Not just instantly be steamrolled by the 20. Or something along those lines. Leveling up in games and gear in games seem to take it too far and make it exponential. That's also a fail on gear imo. In games, you take away your character's gear. Now what? Is he completely useless? That's one of the things I never understood about games. On how your gear makes you a million times better.
My analogy is that the problems of games are 100% the players.It does not matter if it a cheat or the design,it is the players who support the cheats and the designs.There is literally millions of players lining up on cheat and exploit sites to ruin games for others,it is pathetic the immaturity level of gamers.
Even in sports you have many people trying to cheat the system,the problem is people and it is everywhere not just gaming.
In gaming i cannot believe how people act towards other players ,all for the sake of winning,it is really sad.
I think this is why i adored FFXI so much,it was not a game catered to drama 101 or bragging,it was a game designed to have players help each other with tasks.Square Enix is going to take the next step to perhaps remove more of the drama,by removing LEVELS.It is not levels themselves that are the problem ,it is how players react and use them in games,that makes it a problem.
So with FFXIV,it may not live up to a lot of my standards,but it will remove PVP drama ,and remove levels ,so it is a positive step towards a better community working with each other,not against each other.This type of community will remove a high % of the immature gamers and i did witness it in my FFXI days,the community was at least better than other games.
So since the players cannot be trusted to respect each other,the developer needs to do their part in designing a game,that does not allow the players to ruin it for others.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Two of the greatest olde skool shooter mods of all time were Rocket Arena in Quake 3 and Instagib with the Fatboy mutator in Unreal Tournament. In both, all the players have the same weapons, health, armor, and no healthpacks on the map. See also every damn tournament Street Fighter knock off EVER!
The allure is the high score. The draw of doing better than you did the last time. It isn't progress in the MMORPG sense, but it has been enough to keep me playing for decades.
These games make you start all over again every time you die. What's more, the dungeons are randomly generated and often times, the potions and scrolls are mixed up so that the effects have to be rediscovered every time you play.
Regarding the fps mods, those are the exceptions that prove the rule. FPS games generally have progression. Its not so much needed in FPS PvP,...
The whole get a new high score thing is not really what a mmorpg is all about, Maybe a mmog. If we could rate a players ability to play a certain type of character, that would be interesting. I've often thought that the high score board would be a good way to get players to play the under powered classes.
Random Dungeons. They've been done in MMORPGS, i happen to like them, but the consensus was that they have to be done real well for it to be a part of the mmorpg.
Exactly, Skill Points = Level. And I'm sure it wouldn't take someone very long to create a Combat Skill Points metric in EVE (which only counts SP earned in combat skills.) Perhaps one already exists.
Even in the same ship the difference between the 10m and 1m SP characters is a considerable amount of passive combat bonuses.
The factors which matter are verticality of progression (how much stronger you become) and challenge types. The tougher a game's challenges, the more you'll be interested in only taking highly-progressed characters with you. If the same boss can be zerged by many players, that reduces the challenge and thus reduces the need to take only the best of players.
Alternatively if progression is lateral instead of verticle, you will almost immediately reach the peak amount of progression within a narrow focus but progression allows you to widen that focus. Planetside and Guild Wars are fantastic examples of Lateral Progression, and it's amazing for PVP-focused games (where winning due to time investment is a lot less satisfying than winning because you genuinely outplayed your opponent.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I am going to post in an attempt to enlighten you the true sense of an RPG, if I fail to make you see it...well I guess I'll just give up trying to participate in forum discussions until I start my own MMO.
Green is My Ideas
Red is My critiques.
The RPG Genre made great by the MMO, but also deformed by it.
Ok, first what is an RPG?, it is a game in which you act out as a character and go on a glorious quest and have fun adventures with friends and the adrenaline flows through you whenever your in combat, running away from guards, hutning down a criminal etc.
Now what has the MMO done?, it has connected us as a community...but has also putrified our vision of an RPG, we are no longer partaking in virtuous quests in which we hold our weak sword and face the odds to defeat the dragon or liberating the slave city, killing the trolls that have oppressed our village...no...we are talking about leveling, PVP, PVE, people whine, people sell gold with bots, we are discriminating people because he is level 6 and I am lvl 7, were button mashing till someone dies, a healer can't do anything besides healing, 40 avatars are running around spamming skills at a raid boss, we have outrageous AH prices, PEOPLE ARE LOGGING IN ALL DAY TO OBTAIN THEIR PRECIOUS PURPLE ITEMS, cities and villages are soulless places with NPCs that give everyone the same single static quest which never changes etc.
Were not roleplaying, everyone is using "MMO" terminology, I don't feel like I am in a world filled with fantasy/wonder, it doesn't matter if I log in today, no one will notice. Everyone is obsessed with leveling, no one has a job that makes them distinct, crafting is useless because we make a LOT MORE PROFITS killing endless mobs, mobs don't react or think, they just stand there.
There are no kings or thieves or cavaliers or wandering merchants because the MMORPG we know today are all about killing and reaching the endgame.
Isn't everyone tired of this charade of an "RPG", MMORPGs have lost their RPG, today we have MMOGLEF (Massively Multiplayer Online Grind, Level and Endgame Fighting).
I can't believe people are blaming this on the PVP of the games, it isn't the game that is wrong, it is the entire Genre and how it is viewed, it is those who are willing to play the games, the games we play aren't fun, we are, we are the one trying to roleplay in a stale world these...developers have created.
What if we changed the Genre?, what if we do a MMOSS? (Massively Multiplayer Online Society simulation)
What if we...discarded this sad excuse and TRY to start making a game that will appeal to the real RPGers, us, as far as I know many of us like roleplay, we want to live a stOry, we want to change it to our liking, we want to decide how it will turn out, WE WANT TO BE THE STORY!
People debate between sandbox and theme park, they say each one has a weakness, I'll express how I feel about this, discard what we call theme park and expand on the sandbox, the sandbox allows us the players to change the story, make our own true story (Like in that Guild Wars 2 commercial...I doubt Guild Wars 2 will let you do your "own story" in an obvious theme park, I'm still buying it though cause it is hopefully only 50 bucks without any subscription).
In our current MMOs, were all warriors, we all fight endless Mobs which do nothing, no one is in danger, towns are stale ghost towns, Mobs just sit around and we ALL kill them.
Here is where I recognize those people that want a ridiculous "non combat class" as the smart revolutionary generation of MMO consumers, sure everyone likes fighting, but wouldn't it be more exciting if we weren't just fighting with no reason, what if we could fight all action game like with swords clashing, arrows coming at us from the rooftops, hiding in the forest preparing for an ambush on a large caravan of players / NPCs, what if you were a wandering merchant going from village to village, a monarch, a bounty hunter (Hunting PKers requested by their victims), a mercenary (Take care of the dirty jobs be they legal, ilegal moral or inmoral in player law.
What if we avoided fighting and started constructing small villages, fishing for food, selling the fish to the next town and with the money buy some wood and stone to erect a new tower and some palisades to get those pesky PKers out of the village? (I see our current PVEers in this position).
PVPers would be warlords, mercenaries for hire, bounty hunters, militia.
PvEers would be merchants, blacksmiths, gatherers, scouts searching for new lands, they would construct and found villages and repel invaders, start trade and become as rich as possible. Or maybe some would group and look for rare resources, items of which only one of these remain IN EXISTENCE, start religions and get followers (Granting combat/economic) bonuses.
PKers would be bandits, thieves, outlaws, breaking the law and killing all by outnumbering, a horde of 20 players would assault a village run by the PVE who would proudly repel them.
No longer do you get 1 copper, 1 silver equaling 100 coppers or 1 gold a 100 silvers, a game with currency, have few distinct factions have their own currency and these shift in place as these progress economically.
Make every piece of land contested territory, let the players make their own imaginary borders, make the AI smart and have these try to run away, gang up on you or hide if you attack them instead of the boring routine of last one standing. Maybe even let the player outrun these.
In a world like this, GMs and developers would have no trouble making events, this world is run, built and destroyed by the players themselves.
This is getting ridiculous. You can blame every aspect / participant / process in the MMO community, but the flaws all really come to this (we're talking social flaws here, not technical limitations).
The MMO, is an attempt to create a pocket world, a sustainable made-up community / ecosystem in which players' can act out their imaginations and have fun. It is basically an attempt to create ones' own imaginary world. In doing so, the more these worlds evolve, they begin to resemble the 'real' world. The very thing many RPGs are trying to get away from. Most of these social problems can not be fixed, only mitigated. Poor community, selfishness, a shortsighted goal for levels (money, power). These are all problems that we, as people, create. Welcome to the real world.
The only way to truly get away from such things is to create a world which does not cater to them. In short, you need to create a world that is not structured at all like the one we currently live in. Games have done this, but then they get criticized for not being a 'true MMO'. There are the occasional games that have decent communities, but seem to only be that way because they only cater to a niche market, which happens to be generally well behaved.
The harsh truth, is that in order for these games we all seem to want to be made, they need to attract enough players to warrant the funding necessary to do so. This means opening them up to a larger community of potential customers, many of which we don't seem to want to play with. If you don't want to have to deal w/ such players, then you'll probably have to stick to single player games going forward. As they say, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
First, mention one game that resembles the real world, because i don't grind in the real world and I certainly don't go around dancing and annoying people or go button mashing etc.
Second, we as humans enjoy the problems of daily life and much more if these are not going to impact us later on, we live for the daily life problems, having them in a game is very fun, and no MMO is near "real life", games are not an escape from life (At least for those who have a life), they are entertainment, period.
I also have never seen a functioning MMO community (Player actions have no impact on the game whatsoever) and even less an ecosystem (Mobs just stand there and respawn 15 seconds after death, once attacked these will not leave you alone until either one of you is dead or you are at a certain radius).
MMOs seriously need to be remade from the bottom to the top (View my post in the second page).
I did not read the whole thread.
I think SWG Pre-CU did the power level curve thing the best. When there was a grind, it was minimal, and could be done just doing your normal thing. It was not overwhelming like DFO is now. It would not take a year and a half like EVE. And when people were maxed, they kept on playing because everyone was needed in some fashion. Then came the holo-grind and killed it.
If it were my game, it would be like SWG, but instead of working to get there, you just doled out your 256(?) skill points in the areas you wanted . . . but you would have a whole bunch of choices to make.
People will gravitate towards power build, but people will also gravitate to what interests the, In SWG thousands of people ran around in Buffs+Comp, but thousands more ran around in regular street clothes . . . harvesting, selling goods, making goods, etc.
Oh . . . and balanced be damned. I hate games that HAVE to be balanced. No one is equal to anyone . . . ever
First, mention one game that resembles the real world, because i don't grind in the real world and I certainly don't go around dancing and annoying people or go button mashing etc.
Second, we as humans enjoy the problems of daily life and much more if these are not going to impact us later on, we live for the daily life problems, having them in a game is very fun, and no MMO is near "real life", games are not an escape from life (At least for those who have a life), they are entertainment, period.
I also have never seen a functioning MMO community (Player actions have no impact on the game whatsoever) and even less an ecosystem (Mobs just stand there and respawn 15 seconds after death, once attacked these will not leave you alone until either one of you is dead or you are at a certain radius).
MMOs seriously need to be remade from the bottom to the top (View my post in the second page).
If you've got a job or go to school, you grind. You do something every day that results in either an increase in that skill (XP) or the reward of money, sometimes both. When you fail catastrophically, you get fired (die) and have to start over again. You spend every waking moment putting in the appropriate amount of time and/or passing the right tests/exams to gain the next level, promotion, grade ... whatever.
If you enjoy what you're doing, then you might not notice you're grinding ... but you are. Just swap places with someone that really hates what you do and see how fast your "no grind" job becomes a grind to them.
And games are entertainment to you. To imply they can't be a social network to someone else is naive or arrogant. Is there really much difference between going to a bar and chatting in a game? Chances are pretty high that in both cases 90% of the people you "see" are misrepresenting themselves. Like that hot chick dancing in the corner with that sweet bouncing ... Adam's apple?
However, you are absolutely correct in that the next big step in MMOs HAS to be creating a world that is mutable. We run out of things to do because eventually we can no longer change the character we're running. Max level, max gear, max skills, whatever. I'm not sure if you can in EVE as with an open skillset as vast as their's it might be possible to max all the skills in a very narrow section. But since there isn't really an acheivable maximum, you can conceivably improve some aspect of your character "forever", especially as they add and tweak skills/areas/ships, etc.
But you still really don't change anything. The NPCs still patrol the same sectors and, as far as I know, sector security never changes through player actions.
The next big hit is going to have levels, areas, loot, all the stuff we're used to. But at cap, you'll start working towards world building like AoCs player built/run cities were supposed to be. You'll be able to purchase and plant quest giving NPCs and these NPCs will give some (or all) of whatever the person brings back to the planting player. Then, and here's where great dev's have to step up, starting areas need to be shifted into player run cities.
You could really accomplish the same thing if all those buildings you see when you walk through an MMO city, a player could walk in and buy. Why can't Inns be bought or sold? You mean that fat guy charging 3 coppers for his best brew wouldn't take 12,000 gp for the whole kit'n'kaboodle?
Why can't players clear out a ruin and establish a base there? Yes, it would lead to land rushes but what a great reason for expansions. You'd have to cap everyone to one area, keep, town or whatever. And if you're in a guild you're guild leader's "base" counts against you. Maybe even just one per account, would make more sense.
But it seems silly to just have goblin after goblin after goblin pile out of nowhere.
It get's a little fuzzier but much more fun when you start adding factions. And for every quest to conquer and keep an area, you'd have to create an equally tough quest for the other side to retake it, and one that stops a faction that is trying to take it over (so it becomes a constant struggle between completing quests), and finally a system where you can PvP for it.
I picture going to the quest giver that has all the other quests and choosing "Assault the Keep". The keep holder (and other admins) get a quest response where they can choose the time the attack can happen, choose to refuse PvP (in which case the originator has to go the PvE route), or if ignored too long, the originator sets the time. Then, at that appointed time, the groups enter an instance very similar to their area with defenses, buffs, whatever, based on the amount of improvements made to that particular area by that particular guild/person/ruler/whatever.
And just like that, you've created a world with flowing borders, boundaries, consentual PvP/RvR with a purpose and HUGE money sinks as guilds work to build and improve their areas to ward of attacks and draw other players to them.
And I've always wondered why the longest playing player isn't "The King"? Why is every "important" person in an NPC city an NPC? Why can't GMs hand out quests? Why isn't the lead developer playing as "The King" or "The Queen"?
I'd be curious what the impact of knowing that James Ohlen (SW:TOR lead designer) was the Sith Overlord ... and he was asking you to kill 10 womprats because those pelts would be broken down into resources that would finally allow a massive overarching plan to rule the entire universe to be unleashed! And at level three, you were the deciding factor in redrawing the map that everyone sees when they push 'm' . I know I'd think it was awesome!
Exactly, Skill Points = Level.
No. No they dont. If for instance, the 10M SP player was in a snipe-fit Eagle or Zealot - a Tech 2 cruiser - and got caught at the gate by that 1M SP dude in the Incursus, he'd be dead in a couple of minutes. Chances are that he wouldn't get a single hit on to the T1 frigate. The example given above was loaded by Axelhilt specifying the 10M SP player in a ship specifically designed to kill small ships outside web range and giving the 1M SP guy a small ship designed to operate at point blank range. If the Incursus pilot had a billion SP, he still wouldn't win. If the billion SP pilot was in a rail Harpy (equivalent ship class), he still wouldn't win. If he was in a speed-fit Stabber with an energy neutraliser (tech 1 cruiser), he would always win. In short, the type of ship and the role it's fit for, and the pilot's knowledge of that role, count for hugely more than the character SP.
And all that is assuming that the SP are in immediately useful skills. You can have a jillion SP in missiles, but they'll do you no good in a drone ship. Where is your "Skill Points = Level" equation then? That equation only applys very loosely to EvE, because you can change your 'class' by getting in to a new ship, and change your 'class build' by refitting it.
Give me liberty or give me lasers
Well said, I'd love to play a game like that if it wasn't horribly unbalanced and actually lives up to that.
yay this discussion is the primisses of instance gaming with a singular beatable story line. AKA Diablo and games similar.
One of the problems is that the market is saturated with mmos. MMOs should not be something that you can rush and think you can make money off of it. Developers should take more time and give the genre more love than they are giving it. I would rather have 3 mmos that are great in a 10 year life span than have to choose from 30-50 mmos that are horrible. Quality should be greater than quantity.
Didn't mean to infer SP trumped ship counters, but the simple fact remains that a high-SP character accumulates a lot of passive bonuses to every aspect of his ship piloting, which result in a sizable power difference: one not all that different from level in terms of acting as a generic metric of character power.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
ditto man. if someone were to come up with a really superior MMORPG it would simply take the market hands down. I believe the next closest thing to this will be guild wars 2 later this year. I have not too much against MMO's despite my very pro-instancing stance. They are great for the clans and guilds and what not, and have a much more intricate story line if not 2 or 3 story lines that people follow. There's just not that many great ones yet.
One of the problems I've had with my experiments in open-ended game design, is that many players find it so obtuse to their perception of what an MMO is, that they 1. don't feel like they are making any progress (lack of gratification), 2. feel lost without the customary linear design with pre-configured steps to take them from task to task.
I'm not bashing the comment, I too find free-roaming gameplay to be great fun (more of a VR adventure than a game).
This is going to sound odd, but I think PVP players tend to be MORE accepting of free-roaming designs, while PVE players prefer the structure of the single player game experience design.
Ken
www.ActionMMORPG.com
One man, a small pile of money, and the screwball idea of a DIY Indie MMORPG? Yep, that's him. ~sigh~
I think Fallen Earth is meant to be non level-based.