"time spent" IS what grants any 'hardcore' moniker.
I don't care how much shouting or mountain dew gets thrown at a monitor, it doesn't make him a "hardcore MW player". Doing it all day, every day, does.
Then again, Lok makes a good point about "intent".
I mean the merriam webster definition of casual is more or less based on your intent. But most players know what you mean if you say casual.
Instead of asking:
Are you someone who only plays a little bit to kill time and has much more important prioriries?
You ask:
Are you a casual?
People who aren't being nitpicky about definitions understand what you mean in the context of video games.
Actually, there's a significant difference, and it's important to understand that difference especially since you are planning to create a game such as you describe in your initial post.
The time-limited hardcore player is often the most disenfranchised player segment in an MMO. /PLAYED as a gauge of 'hardcore' would never allow you to properly identify the players who are most invested in your game.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I am real curious, but what MMO do you play Loktofeit?
Currently EVE Online, Puzzle Pirates, Free Realms and Vendetta Online.
OMG, Free Realms? You are hardcore. /wink
LOL!
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
"time spent" IS what grants any 'hardcore' moniker.
I don't care how much shouting or mountain dew gets thrown at a monitor, it doesn't make him a "hardcore MW player". Doing it all day, every day, does.
Then again, Lok makes a good point about "intent".
I mean the merriam webster definition of casual is more or less based on your intent. But most players know what you mean if you say casual.
Instead of asking:
Are you someone who only plays a little bit to kill time and has much more important prioriries?
You ask:
Are you a casual?
People who aren't being nitpicky about definitions understand what you mean in the context of video games.
Actually, there's a significant difference, and it's important to understand that difference especially since you are planning to create a game such as you describe in your initial post.
The time-limited hardcore player is often the most disenfranchised player segment in an MMO. /PLAYED as a gauge of 'hardcore' would never allow you to properly identify the players who are most invested in your game.
MMOs screw over time limited hardcores by their very nature. Any persistant game fucks those people over. Those people are better suited to synchronus PvP or Co op RPG games. Any game that rewards even a little the amount of time you play ruins its for time limited hardcores. Except pure PvE games. And even then a time unlimited hardcore will be able to affect the game more.
My game allows space for time limited hardcores and casuals as long as they don't expect to get to do all the things non limited people can do. Even a newbie character has some value to any aspect of the game. And since the game has a diminishing returns progression system players who have only an hour a day will be very useful after a month or two, and useful right away in building aspects.
But the game may or may not offer them the content they want. Ie, you can't just spawn a character and start killing mobs. It is not combat centric like every other MMO but Wurm and ATITD.
So how do endless levels work. Either people all become unbalanced against content or levels are marginal power increases and become meaningless after a while. It has to be either one.
I love the Nerdspeak term "hardcore", pertaining as it does to something as trivial a computer game - it must make them feel all manly and uber.
Well, hardcore is just a time identifier imo. It doesn't apply only to video games either. Anything you put a lot of time in. Hardcore artist, hardcore musician, w/e. Sports too.
I thought hardcore meant that you were really good, not just that you spend a lot of time in a game.
Of course many people who do spend a lot of time in a game becomes good but far from all and I know several people who plays many hours every day that still sucks and calling them hardcore just doesn´t seems right, "No lifers" is more like it.
It is also a atitude thing of course.
The thing you said about someone with 10 million XP stomping someone with one million sounds a bit worrying to me, how large is really the gap between people with different XP?
I mean it is fine that there is no roof, I like that but having too large gap in a game like that can be a problem and kill the fun of it.
The idea of roleplaying games being "game" centric has always been incorrect. Its about your role, not the game mechanics.
MMOs have always been terrible games. In fact raids, the part that is most largely a game because its set up for a certain number of players with certain spells and specific gear is the minority of content in MMOs.
The leveling system has always been a shit game.
And in any case many many people get obessed with virtual worlds. And many many people watch hours and hours of TV and shows and books have "hardcore" fans who think it, breathe it and dream it.
And the game I am talking about does require skills. Not every fucking second of the time, but RTS skills over the game and math skills to make decisions on what to do, and art skills to make cool gear and engineering skills and construction skills to build things. I never said it was a largest common denominator game. I prefer that it isn't.
Also, being good at chess requires just as much time commitment as succeeding at an mmo and people who don't memorize all the openings and spend time watching opponents play lose.
Period. Yet chess is an interesting game. Oh wait, its not. The largest common denominator loves football and doesn't give a fuck about chess. Chess can still be a hardcore game, and you can still be a hardcore chess player.
And when is your role most meaningful? When you need to work together with your teammates to maximize your strengths and minimize your weaknesses in order to beat a tough challenge. Roleplaying videogames have always involved this element, and the more strongly they tie strategy, tactics, twitch, and teamwork to success, the better they've done.
Leveling has certainly always diluted the importance of player decisions, and therefore made them worse games. But that doesn't mean a RPG has to forsake all good gameplay just because it involves this element. (Again: the most successful RPGs are the ones that provided leveling and were still good games.)
Let's not call them RTS skills if they're not RTS skills. Let's call them strategy skills if you're making an online strategy game. RTS skills are those you'd see exhibited in a pro Starcraft 2 or LoL match, which don't sound like a central element to your game.
If you want it not to be a largest common denominator game, you wouldn't be making a virtual world where time investment accumulates insurmountable advantage That's what makes open world PVP so casual: skill is almost completely irrelevant in most of the fights that happen in world PVP games.
The difference in Chess is skill. You win by playing smart and thinking ahead. You don't start with an extra Queen just because you've played 100 games of Chess. You're on equal footing and it's purely your decisionmaking that determines victory.
As for competitive games which are more popular than Chess, take a step back and realize that none of them involve substantial non-skill elements. If my football team has played 500 games and yours only played 100 games, I don't start 10 points ahead. I don't score more points per touchdown. I don't get to field 2x as many linebackers. It's purely my team's skill vs. your's.
In popular competitive games, the better player wins. Good PVP is about competition and skill. It's not about the game rules rewarding players for investing more time -- that's going to happen automatically, why would you need to make it a game mechanic?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I love the Nerdspeak term "hardcore", pertaining as it does to something as trivial a computer game - it must make them feel all manly and uber.
Well, hardcore is just a time identifier imo. It doesn't apply only to video games either. Anything you put a lot of time in. Hardcore artist, hardcore musician, w/e. Sports too.
So how do endless levels work. Either people all become unbalanced against content or levels are marginal power increases and become meaningless after a while. It has to be either one.
Content levels up too actually. Both in numbers and larger organized groups and also more individual strength.
There are no levels per say. Just experience which goes through a formula. As an example I use:
exp^.5/100
After a long time you get less of return on smaller amounts of exp. So from 0 to 100exp is a lot but from 10000 to10100 is not. However you do get some small increase in gains at higher exp.
But you can level many different skills to make your character more useful or powerful. So if you had 10billion exp for killing creatures you may want to start spending time learning magic or crafting or just building things.
Players may become more unbalanced against other players but the game is pure coop pvp so it doesnt matter.
Also if you avoid the hard content eventually it hits a certain cap and launches a raid on your town and since you didn't fight it you got less exp and not as good materials for crafting and building and not as good magic so you get smashed. And if you lose a town its just gone. So be lazy if you like and reap what you've sown.
I love the Nerdspeak term "hardcore", pertaining as it does to something as trivial a computer game - it must make them feel all manly and uber.
Well, hardcore is just a time identifier imo. It doesn't apply only to video games either. Anything you put a lot of time in. Hardcore artist, hardcore musician, w/e. Sports too.
I love the Nerdspeak term "hardcore", pertaining as it does to something as trivial a computer game - it must make them feel all manly and uber.
Well, hardcore is just a time identifier imo. It doesn't apply only to video games either. Anything you put a lot of time in. Hardcore artist, hardcore musician, w/e. Sports too.
I thought hardcore meant that you were really good, not just that you spend a lot of time in a game.
Of course many people who do spend a lot of time in a game becomes good but far from all and I know several people who plays many hours every day that still sucks and calling them hardcore just doesn´t seems right, "No lifers" is more like it.
It is also a atitude thing of course.
The thing you said about someone with 10 million XP stomping someone with one million sounds a bit worrying to me, how large is really the gap between people with different XP?
I mean it is fine that there is no roof, I like that but having too large gap in a game like that can be a problem and kill the fun of it.
You cannot attack other players or fuck with their stuff. Technically if you worked your way into a guild and then stole their stuff after you got permissions on it, you could grief, but that has nothing to do with levels and I will ban you with no remorse because I don't tolerate that shit unless it was designed to happen, in which case it would be full loot pvp and not pure PvE.
The idea of roleplaying games being "game" centric has always been incorrect. Its about your role, not the game mechanics.
MMOs have always been terrible games. In fact raids, the part that is most largely a game because its set up for a certain number of players with certain spells and specific gear is the minority of content in MMOs.
The leveling system has always been a shit game.
And in any case many many people get obessed with virtual worlds. And many many people watch hours and hours of TV and shows and books have "hardcore" fans who think it, breathe it and dream it.
And the game I am talking about does require skills. Not every fucking second of the time, but RTS skills over the game and math skills to make decisions on what to do, and art skills to make cool gear and engineering skills and construction skills to build things. I never said it was a largest common denominator game. I prefer that it isn't.
Also, being good at chess requires just as much time commitment as succeeding at an mmo and people who don't memorize all the openings and spend time watching opponents play lose.
Period. Yet chess is an interesting game. Oh wait, its not. The largest common denominator loves football and doesn't give a fuck about chess. Chess can still be a hardcore game, and you can still be a hardcore chess player.
And when is your role most meaningful? When you need to work together with your teammates to maximize your strengths and minimize your weaknesses in order to beat a tough challenge. Roleplaying videogames have always involved this element, and the more strongly they tie strategy, tactics, twitch, and teamwork to success, the better they've done.
Leveling has certainly always diluted the importance of player decisions, and therefore made them worse games. But that doesn't mean a RPG has to forsake all good gameplay just because it involves this element. (Again: the most successful RPGs are the ones that provided leveling and were still good games.)
Let's not call them RTS skills if they're not RTS skills. Let's call them strategy skills if you're making an online strategy game. RTS skills are those you'd see exhibited in a pro Starcraft 2 or LoL match, which don't sound like a central element to your game.
If you want it not to be a largest common denominator game, you wouldn't be making a virtual world where time investment accumulates insurmountable advantage That's what makes open world PVP so casual: skill is almost completely irrelevant in most of the fights that happen in world PVP games.
The difference in Chess is skill. You win by playing smart and thinking ahead. You don't start with an extra Queen just because you've played 100 games of Chess. You're on equal footing and it's purely your decisionmaking that determines victory.
As for competitive games which are more popular than Chess, take a step back and realize that none of them involve substantial non-skill elements. If my football team has played 500 games and yours only played 100 games, I don't start 10 points ahead. I don't score more points per touchdown. I don't get to field 2x as many linebackers. It's purely my team's skill vs. your's.
In popular competitive games, the better player wins. Good PVP is about competition and skill. It's not about the game rules rewarding players for investing more time -- that's going to happen automatically, why would you need to make it a game mechanic?
What part of role play don't you understand? RPGs are about character skill. Not personal skill. Your character has 100 levels in magic because you spent time training his magic. The other guy didn't so you win the magic duel. This is not a complicated concept.
The most hardcore thing I've done in a game is find the ideal zone of choice to take a screenshot of the avatar looking off into a sunset... super hardcore. No1 else in the history of that game even bothered reaching that peak as the yeti cave entrances ended a hundred yards below.
The most hardcore thing I've done in a game is find the ideal zone of choice to take a screenshot of the avatar looking off into a sunset... super hardcore. No1 else in the history of that game even bothered reaching that peak as the yeti cave entrances ended a hundred yards below.
What part of role play don't you understand? RPGs are about character skill. Not personal skill. Your character has 100 levels in magic because you spent time training his magic. The other guy didn't so you win the magic duel. This is not a complicated concept.
Sure, but RPGs can involve character abilities without completely compromising their gameplay. In fact those RPGs which are built this way enjoy the greatest success and entertain the most players.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
What part of role play don't you understand? RPGs are about character skill. Not personal skill. Your character has 100 levels in magic because you spent time training his magic. The other guy didn't so you win the magic duel. This is not a complicated concept.
Sure, but RPGs can involve character abilities without completely compromising their gameplay. In fact those RPGs which are built this way enjoy the greatest success and entertain the most players.
Why even bother with that though? Just play LoL or an FPS. Mixing in too much player skill dilutes the purpose of RPGs. Which is roleplay. And it also ruins the epicness of MMOs. If everyone is the same and no one can be awesome why even bother with an MMO?
Most MMOs fucking ruin the lore too. In what fantasy novels was 50% of the worlds population a mage and those who weren't mages were capable of totally wtf pwning a low level mage with their sword?
In a sense this has always been the conflict between people who wanted to live in the worlds of stories and people who wanted didn't. Even in games where I don't have time to be a god among men I still enjoy helping out the group. MMOs today are focused around making everyone god by lowering the bar.
"No one wants to play the shopkeeper!"
"Ren faire."
"Fuck."
But w/e. I'll let you have your gameplay and your repeated fights against one Deathwing while I am fending off hundreds dragons demons and their hordes of minions from my kingdom's wall of sky forts as we evacuate the great city of our society across the void between the worlds.
Meanwhile, you have fun fighting the same "gameplay" based raid over and over.
That right n00b, I just justified massive power differentials with the "Rule of Cool". You just got TV Trope'd.
Why even bother with that though? Just play LoL or an FPS. Mixing in too much player skill dilutes the purpose of RPGs. Which is roleplay. And it also ruins the epicness of MMOs. If everyone is the same and no one can be awesome why even bother with an MMO?
Most MMOs fucking ruin the lore too. In what fantasy novels was 50% of the worlds population a mage and those who weren't mages were capable of totally wtf pwning a low level mage with their sword?
In a sense this has always been the conflict between people who wanted to live in the worlds of stories and people who wanted didn't. Even in games where I don't have time to be a god among men I still enjoy helping out the group. MMOs today are focused around making everyone god by lowering the bar.
"No one wants to play the shopkeeper!"
"Ren faire."
"Fuck."
But w/e. I'll let you have your gameplay and your repeated fights against one Deathwing while I am fending off hundreds dragons demons and their hordes of minions from my kingdom's wall of sky forts as we evacuate the great city of our society across the void between the worlds.
Meanwhile, you have fun fighting the same "gameplay" based raid over and over.
That right n00b, I just justified massive power differentials with the "Rule of Cool". You just got TV Trope'd.
1. The purpose of RPGs, as with any game, is fun. There is no mystic "purpose of RPGs" which trumps this.
2. You cite a concern that "everyone is the same", and yet when player skill matter players are less the same. Instead of everyone being exactly as powerful as their time investment, they're a combination of time investment and skill.
3. What fantasy novel did you read where you're like, "OMFG I totally want to be that shopkeeper!"?
4. Conversely, how many exist where you're like, "OMFG, I wish I was this particular main character!"?
5. In the event that you're weird (or intentionally contrary) and want to be some cruddy shopkeeper...how many normalpeople do you think feel that same way?
6. I find it sort of hilarious that you cite this epic anti-dragon skyfort gameplay as something that players would clearly be interested in participating in, en masse, and yet in the actual implementation of your game those players are likely to be crappy novice warriors who can't participate in that sort of gameplay. Your desire to simulate a world rather than give players the superb gameplay they crave is exactly why your game will be unpopular. You don't have to create an unpopular game. Just give players the fun gameplay they want. That's sort of the job of a game designer.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
What part of role play don't you understand? RPGs are about character skill. Not personal skill. Your character has 100 levels in magic because you spent time training his magic. The other guy didn't so you win the magic duel. This is not a complicated concept.
Sure, but RPGs can involve character abilities without completely compromising their gameplay. In fact those RPGs which are built this way enjoy the greatest success and entertain the most players.
Why even bother with that though? Just play LoL or an FPS. Mixing in too much player skill dilutes the purpose of RPGs. Which is roleplay. And it also ruins the epicness of MMOs. If everyone is the same and no one can be awesome why even bother with an MMO?
Most MMOs fucking ruin the lore too. In what fantasy novels was 50% of the worlds population a mage and those who weren't mages were capable of totally wtf pwning a low level mage with their sword?
In a sense this has always been the conflict between people who wanted to live in the worlds of stories and people who wanted didn't. Even in games where I don't have time to be a god among men I still enjoy helping out the group. MMOs today are focused around making everyone god by lowering the bar.
"No one wants to play the shopkeeper!" I think you are wrong here. I would not mind owning a Tavern, or a shop, or be a pure Crafter who never steps out of Town. If the game mechanics were setup so that people need to eat/sleep and repiar items.. No world dropps are better then crafting, and things could get stolen. I would not mind at all playing a service roll. If I had lots of customers I could make great RP inside my Tavern, Hire musicians and gossipe about the latest Player vs Player global conflicts. If CCP had made Incarna like they should have I would have gotten my own SPACE BAR and just hung out there chatting with people...
"Ren faire."
"Fuck."
But w/e. I'll let you have your gameplay and your repeated fights against one Deathwing while I am fending off hundreds dragons demons and their hordes of minions from my kingdom's wall of sky forts as we evacuate the great city of our society across the void between the worlds.
Meanwhile, you have fun fighting the same "gameplay" based raid over and over.
That right n00b, I just justified massive power differentials with the "Rule of Cool". You just got TV Trope'd.
Why even bother with that though? Just play LoL or an FPS. Mixing in too much player skill dilutes the purpose of RPGs. Which is roleplay. And it also ruins the epicness of MMOs. If everyone is the same and no one can be awesome why even bother with an MMO?
Most MMOs fucking ruin the lore too. In what fantasy novels was 50% of the worlds population a mage and those who weren't mages were capable of totally wtf pwning a low level mage with their sword?
In a sense this has always been the conflict between people who wanted to live in the worlds of stories and people who wanted didn't. Even in games where I don't have time to be a god among men I still enjoy helping out the group. MMOs today are focused around making everyone god by lowering the bar.
"No one wants to play the shopkeeper!"
"Ren faire."
"Fuck."
But w/e. I'll let you have your gameplay and your repeated fights against one Deathwing while I am fending off hundreds dragons demons and their hordes of minions from my kingdom's wall of sky forts as we evacuate the great city of our society across the void between the worlds.
Meanwhile, you have fun fighting the same "gameplay" based raid over and over.
That right n00b, I just justified massive power differentials with the "Rule of Cool". You just got TV Trope'd.
1. The purpose of RPGs, as with any game, is fun. There is no mystic "purpose of RPGs" which trumps this.
Yes there is. There are genres of games. Not all fun activities are games. Do you understand the distinction between play and games? Virtual worlds incoporate aspects of play.
2. You cite a concern that "everyone is the same", and yet when player skill matter players are less the same. Instead of everyone being exactly as powerful as their time investment, they're a combination of time investment and skill.
Am not sure if stupid. When everyone has to be the same you get homogenuous builds among other things.
3. What fantasy novel did you read where you're like, "OMFG I totally want to be that shopkeeper!"?
A lot of main characters in some books ARE shopkeepers. And its not like all you can do is run a shop anyways. You can run a magic shop AND be a famous wizard.
4. Conversely, how many exist where you're like, "OMFG, I wish I was this particular main character!"?
I actually prefer not to be the main character because I would like to interact WITH them, not AS them. It depends on the story and how I feel at the moment but I often act as a merchant. Also a lot of novels possess school type elements, I mean obviously harry potter but I prefer Ged or Vanyel and their worlds to harry.
5. In the event that you're weird (or intentionally contrary) and want to be some cruddy shopkeeper...how many normalpeople do you think feel that same way?
SWG. So many people were bar owners or shopkeepers. They also did combat. In any case fuck normal people. Normal people are boring. If I wanted to hang out with normal people I would go to a Mizzou football game with people I know there.
6. I find it sort of hilarious that you cite this epic anti-dragon skyfort gameplay as something that players would clearly be interested in participating in, en masse, and yet in the actual implementation of your game those players are likely to be crappy novice warriors who can't participate in that sort of gameplay. Your desire to simulate a world rather than give players the superb gameplay they crave is exactly why your game will be unpopular. You don't have to create an unpopular game. Just give players the fun gameplay they want. That's sort of the job of a game designer.
Yes, you have to work to get to the fun stuff. I don't answer to players anyways. I do what I want. Popular games are boring. I've played too much of them.
Why even bother with that though? Just play LoL or an FPS. Mixing in too much player skill dilutes the purpose of RPGs. Which is roleplay. And it also ruins the epicness of MMOs. If everyone is the same and no one can be awesome why even bother with an MMO?
Most MMOs fucking ruin the lore too. In what fantasy novels was 50% of the worlds population a mage and those who weren't mages were capable of totally wtf pwning a low level mage with their sword?
In a sense this has always been the conflict between people who wanted to live in the worlds of stories and people who wanted didn't. Even in games where I don't have time to be a god among men I still enjoy helping out the group. MMOs today are focused around making everyone god by lowering the bar.
"No one wants to play the shopkeeper!"
"Ren faire."
"Fuck."
But w/e. I'll let you have your gameplay and your repeated fights against one Deathwing while I am fending off hundreds dragons demons and their hordes of minions from my kingdom's wall of sky forts as we evacuate the great city of our society across the void between the worlds.
Meanwhile, you have fun fighting the same "gameplay" based raid over and over.
That right n00b, I just justified massive power differentials with the "Rule of Cool". You just got TV Trope'd.
1. The purpose of RPGs, as with any game, is fun. There is no mystic "purpose of RPGs" which trumps this.
Yes there is. There are genres of games. Not all fun activities are games. Do you understand the distinction between play and games? Virtual worlds incoporate aspects of play.
2. You cite a concern that "everyone is the same", and yet when player skill matter players are less the same. Instead of everyone being exactly as powerful as their time investment, they're a combination of time investment and skill.
Am not sure if stupid. When everyone has to be the same you get homogenuous builds among other things.
3. What fantasy novel did you read where you're like, "OMFG I totally want to be that shopkeeper!"?
A lot of main characters in some books ARE shopkeepers. And its not like all you can do is run a shop anyways. You can run a magic shop AND be a famous wizard.
4. Conversely, how many exist where you're like, "OMFG, I wish I was this particular main character!"?
I actually prefer not to be the main character because I would like to interact WITH them, not AS them. It depends on the story and how I feel at the moment but I often act as a merchant. Also a lot of novels possess school type elements, I mean obviously harry potter but I prefer Ged or Vanyel and their worlds to harry.
5. In the event that you're weird (or intentionally contrary) and want to be some cruddy shopkeeper...how many normalpeople do you think feel that same way?
SWG. So many people were bar owners or shopkeepers. They also did combat. In any case fuck normal people. Normal people are boring. If I wanted to hang out with normal people I would go to a Mizzou football game with people I know there.
6. I find it sort of hilarious that you cite this epic anti-dragon skyfort gameplay as something that players would clearly be interested in participating in, en masse, and yet in the actual implementation of your game those players are likely to be crappy novice warriors who can't participate in that sort of gameplay. Your desire to simulate a world rather than give players the superb gameplay they crave is exactly why your game will be unpopular. You don't have to create an unpopular game. Just give players the fun gameplay they want. That's sort of the job of a game designer.
Yes, you have to work to get to the fun stuff. I don't answer to players anyways. I do what I want. Popular games are boring. I've played too much of them.
Weird because you wANt a shop? This kid is clearly part of the new age of gamers. Why don't you go get another lip ring and spend the rest of the day trying ot squeeze your XL self into your sisters jeans?
"I am not in a server with Gankers...THEY ARE IN A SERVER WITH ME!!!"
1. The purpose of RPGs, as with any game, is fun. There is no mystic "purpose of RPGs" which trumps this.
Yes there is. There are genres of games. Not all fun activities are games. Do you understand the distinction between play and games? Virtual worlds incoporate aspects of play.
2. You cite a concern that "everyone is the same", and yet when player skill matter players are less the same. Instead of everyone being exactly as powerful as their time investment, they're a combination of time investment and skill.
Am not sure if stupid. When everyone has to be the same you get homogenuous builds among other things.
3. What fantasy novel did you read where you're like, "OMFG I totally want to be that shopkeeper!"?
A lot of main characters in some books ARE shopkeepers. And its not like all you can do is run a shop anyways. You can run a magic shop AND be a famous wizard.
4. Conversely, how many exist where you're like, "OMFG, I wish I was this particular main character!"?
I actually prefer not to be the main character because I would like to interact WITH them, not AS them. It depends on the story and how I feel at the moment but I often act as a merchant. Also a lot of novels possess school type elements, I mean obviously harry potter but I prefer Ged or Vanyel and their worlds to harry.
5. In the event that you're weird (or intentionally contrary) and want to be some cruddy shopkeeper...how many normalpeople do you think feel that same way?
SWG. So many people were bar owners or shopkeepers. They also did combat. In any case fuck normal people. Normal people are boring. If I wanted to hang out with normal people I would go to a Mizzou football game with people I know there.
6. I find it sort of hilarious that you cite this epic anti-dragon skyfort gameplay as something that players would clearly be interested in participating in, en masse, and yet in the actual implementation of your game those players are likely to be crappy novice warriors who can't participate in that sort of gameplay. Your desire to simulate a world rather than give players the superb gameplay they crave is exactly why your game will be unpopular. You don't have to create an unpopular game. Just give players the fun gameplay they want. That's sort of the job of a game designer.
Yes, you have to work to get to the fun stuff. I don't answer to players anyways. I do what I want. Popular games are boring. I've played too much of them.
Virtual worlds do incorporate play. Doesn't mean RPGs are driven by a stronger purpose than fun. Between that comment and your final one you really come across as that RPG DM who forces players to play his game, rather than collaboratively create a community game. Few people come back for return sessions with that DM, but apparently those DMs just don't care.
"You know DM, we're not having very much fun here..."
"Are you stupid? The purpose of games isn't fun!"
<players get up and leave>
I don't even know how to respond to your comment that everyone is homogenous when I just finished describing why they're not.
And it appears like #5 was preemptively well-timed in that you think that players are interested in themes which are in reality not very interesting to players.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You guys need to stop equating time spent to any one stereotypical playstyle. Casuals may play less but it's more likely due to the fact that they may play when their friends are on or don't find that playing the same game repeatedly for hours on end to be fun - maybe that's because they don't feel like putting as much into the game as Hardcores.
Time is just an easy way for one group to insult or belittle the other group. Hardcores use the "you didn't invest the time so you shouldn't get it" when speaking to casuals and casuals use "I don't have all day to play a game like you" when speaking to Hardcores.
Yes, they probably both play the game for different amounts of time but I've known plenty of people who are Hardcore who play far less than some casuals who play all day but lounge around in a main city for a couple of hours chatting in a general channel.
The more time you spend, the more you can accomplish. That doesn't just apply to MMOs, that applies to just about everything.
If you work a full-time hourly job, you expect to get a larger paycheck than a part-timer making the same wage, right? "I have other things to do besides working all week" doesn't mean they should get the same pay as you. If that were the case I would SO drop to part-time.
You guys need to stop equating time spent to any one stereotypical playstyle. Casuals may play less but it's more likely due to the fact that they may play when their friends are on or don't find that playing the same game repeatedly for hours on end to be fun - maybe that's because they don't feel like putting as much into the game as Hardcores.
Time is just an easy way for one group to insult or belittle the other group. Hardcores use the "you didn't invest the time so you shouldn't get it" when speaking to casuals and casuals use "I don't have all day to play a game like you" when speaking to Hardcores.
Yes, they probably both play the game for different amounts of time but I've known plenty of people who are Hardcore who play far less than some casuals who play all day but lounge around in a main city for a couple of hours chatting in a general channel.
The more time you spend, the more you can accomplish. That doesn't just apply to MMOs, that applies to just about everything.
If you work a full-time hourly job, you expect to get a larger paycheck than a part-timer making the same wage, right? "I have other things to do besides working all week" doesn't mean they should get the same pay as you. If that were the case I would SO drop to part-time.
See that's funny because if you actually do work you know the dangers of getting "too much" overtime. This will put you in another tax bracket and you actually end up making less than you would during a normal work week.
"I am not in a server with Gankers...THEY ARE IN A SERVER WITH ME!!!"
1. The purpose of RPGs, as with any game, is fun. There is no mystic "purpose of RPGs" which trumps this.
Yes there is. There are genres of games. Not all fun activities are games. Do you understand the distinction between play and games? Virtual worlds incoporate aspects of play.
2. You cite a concern that "everyone is the same", and yet when player skill matter players are less the same. Instead of everyone being exactly as powerful as their time investment, they're a combination of time investment and skill.
Am not sure if stupid. When everyone has to be the same you get homogenuous builds among other things.
3. What fantasy novel did you read where you're like, "OMFG I totally want to be that shopkeeper!"?
A lot of main characters in some books ARE shopkeepers. And its not like all you can do is run a shop anyways. You can run a magic shop AND be a famous wizard.
4. Conversely, how many exist where you're like, "OMFG, I wish I was this particular main character!"?
I actually prefer not to be the main character because I would like to interact WITH them, not AS them. It depends on the story and how I feel at the moment but I often act as a merchant. Also a lot of novels possess school type elements, I mean obviously harry potter but I prefer Ged or Vanyel and their worlds to harry.
5. In the event that you're weird (or intentionally contrary) and want to be some cruddy shopkeeper...how many normalpeople do you think feel that same way?
SWG. So many people were bar owners or shopkeepers. They also did combat. In any case fuck normal people. Normal people are boring. If I wanted to hang out with normal people I would go to a Mizzou football game with people I know there.
6. I find it sort of hilarious that you cite this epic anti-dragon skyfort gameplay as something that players would clearly be interested in participating in, en masse, and yet in the actual implementation of your game those players are likely to be crappy novice warriors who can't participate in that sort of gameplay. Your desire to simulate a world rather than give players the superb gameplay they crave is exactly why your game will be unpopular. You don't have to create an unpopular game. Just give players the fun gameplay they want. That's sort of the job of a game designer.
Yes, you have to work to get to the fun stuff. I don't answer to players anyways. I do what I want. Popular games are boring. I've played too much of them.
Virtual worlds do incorporate play. Doesn't mean RPGs are driven by a stronger purpose than fun. Between that comment and your final one you really come across as that RPG DM who forces players to play his game, rather than collaboratively create a community game. Few people come back for return sessions with that DM, but apparently those DMs just don't care.
"You know DM, we're not having very much fun here..."
"Are you stupid? The purpose of games isn't fun!"
I don't even know how to respond to your comment that everyone is homogenous when I just finished describing why they're not.
And it appears like #5 was preemptively well-timed in that you think that players are interested in themes which are in reality not very interesting to players.
I don't care if I get 1million players. I would be fine with 1000-10000. I do think that I could get that many people to play. You have this dumbass obsession with catering to the largest common denominator. I am not making my game to be as interesting as possible to the majority. I am making it to be epic and awesome to the minority. EvE and SWG and ATITD and Wurm all do this and they have from 1000-300000 players. That is good enough for me.
Shockingly gameplay is not the most important and only aspect of fun. Which you can't seem to get over. I am adding things besides gameplay.
And anyways its fucking impossible to have a game like this focus on the stuff you seem to obsess about in games. You cannot have instanced shit and still have the ability to do things you can do in sandboxes.
If you don't like the game why do you insist on posting in my threads to attack the idea? Are you just doing it to be a contrary asshole?
You guys need to stop equating time spent to any one stereotypical playstyle. Casuals may play less but it's more likely due to the fact that they may play when their friends are on or don't find that playing the same game repeatedly for hours on end to be fun - maybe that's because they don't feel like putting as much into the game as Hardcores.
Time is just an easy way for one group to insult or belittle the other group. Hardcores use the "you didn't invest the time so you shouldn't get it" when speaking to casuals and casuals use "I don't have all day to play a game like you" when speaking to Hardcores.
Yes, they probably both play the game for different amounts of time but I've known plenty of people who are Hardcore who play far less than some casuals who play all day but lounge around in a main city for a couple of hours chatting in a general channel.
The more time you spend, the more you can accomplish. That doesn't just apply to MMOs, that applies to just about everything.
If you work a full-time hourly job, you expect to get a larger paycheck than a part-timer making the same wage, right? "I have other things to do besides working all week" doesn't mean they should get the same pay as you. If that were the case I would SO drop to part-time.
I know right? Casuals are so entitled. And anyways you cannot do cool things in a game that caters to casuals.
The more time you spend, the more you can accomplish. That doesn't just apply to MMOs, that applies to just about everything.
If you work a full-time hourly job, you expect to get a larger paycheck than a part-timer making the same wage, right? "I have other things to do besides working all week" doesn't mean they should get the same pay as you. If that were the case I would SO drop to part-time.
Actually this analogy is fantastic for justifying skill being the bigger factor.
Who makes more money, the McDs employee working overtime or a skilled Doctor?
Time increases pay, but skill increases it by far more.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Comments
Actually, there's a significant difference, and it's important to understand that difference especially since you are planning to create a game such as you describe in your initial post.
The time-limited hardcore player is often the most disenfranchised player segment in an MMO. /PLAYED as a gauge of 'hardcore' would never allow you to properly identify the players who are most invested in your game.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
LOL!
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
MMOs screw over time limited hardcores by their very nature. Any persistant game fucks those people over. Those people are better suited to synchronus PvP or Co op RPG games. Any game that rewards even a little the amount of time you play ruins its for time limited hardcores. Except pure PvE games. And even then a time unlimited hardcore will be able to affect the game more.
My game allows space for time limited hardcores and casuals as long as they don't expect to get to do all the things non limited people can do. Even a newbie character has some value to any aspect of the game. And since the game has a diminishing returns progression system players who have only an hour a day will be very useful after a month or two, and useful right away in building aspects.
But the game may or may not offer them the content they want. Ie, you can't just spawn a character and start killing mobs. It is not combat centric like every other MMO but Wurm and ATITD.
So how do endless levels work. Either people all become unbalanced against content or levels are marginal power increases and become meaningless after a while. It has to be either one.
I thought hardcore meant that you were really good, not just that you spend a lot of time in a game.
Of course many people who do spend a lot of time in a game becomes good but far from all and I know several people who plays many hours every day that still sucks and calling them hardcore just doesn´t seems right, "No lifers" is more like it.
It is also a atitude thing of course.
The thing you said about someone with 10 million XP stomping someone with one million sounds a bit worrying to me, how large is really the gap between people with different XP?
I mean it is fine that there is no roof, I like that but having too large gap in a game like that can be a problem and kill the fun of it.
And when is your role most meaningful? When you need to work together with your teammates to maximize your strengths and minimize your weaknesses in order to beat a tough challenge. Roleplaying videogames have always involved this element, and the more strongly they tie strategy, tactics, twitch, and teamwork to success, the better they've done.
Leveling has certainly always diluted the importance of player decisions, and therefore made them worse games. But that doesn't mean a RPG has to forsake all good gameplay just because it involves this element. (Again: the most successful RPGs are the ones that provided leveling and were still good games.)
Let's not call them RTS skills if they're not RTS skills. Let's call them strategy skills if you're making an online strategy game. RTS skills are those you'd see exhibited in a pro Starcraft 2 or LoL match, which don't sound like a central element to your game.
If you want it not to be a largest common denominator game, you wouldn't be making a virtual world where time investment accumulates insurmountable advantage
That's what makes open world PVP so casual: skill is almost completely irrelevant in most of the fights that happen in world PVP games.
The difference in Chess is skill. You win by playing smart and thinking ahead. You don't start with an extra Queen just because you've played 100 games of Chess. You're on equal footing and it's purely your decisionmaking that determines victory.
As for competitive games which are more popular than Chess, take a step back and realize that none of them involve substantial non-skill elements. If my football team has played 500 games and yours only played 100 games, I don't start 10 points ahead. I don't score more points per touchdown. I don't get to field 2x as many linebackers. It's purely my team's skill vs. your's.
In popular competitive games, the better player wins. Good PVP is about competition and skill. It's not about the game rules rewarding players for investing more time -- that's going to happen automatically, why would you need to make it a game mechanic?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I'm hardcore, into hardcore porn!
Content levels up too actually. Both in numbers and larger organized groups and also more individual strength.
There are no levels per say. Just experience which goes through a formula. As an example I use:
exp^.5/100
After a long time you get less of return on smaller amounts of exp. So from 0 to 100exp is a lot but from 10000 to10100 is not. However you do get some small increase in gains at higher exp.
But you can level many different skills to make your character more useful or powerful. So if you had 10billion exp for killing creatures you may want to start spending time learning magic or crafting or just building things.
Players may become more unbalanced against other players but the game is pure coop pvp so it doesnt matter.
Also if you avoid the hard content eventually it hits a certain cap and launches a raid on your town and since you didn't fight it you got less exp and not as good materials for crafting and building and not as good magic so you get smashed. And if you lose a town its just gone. So be lazy if you like and reap what you've sown.
+1
You cannot attack other players or fuck with their stuff. Technically if you worked your way into a guild and then stole their stuff after you got permissions on it, you could grief, but that has nothing to do with levels and I will ban you with no remorse because I don't tolerate that shit unless it was designed to happen, in which case it would be full loot pvp and not pure PvE.
What part of role play don't you understand? RPGs are about character skill. Not personal skill. Your character has 100 levels in magic because you spent time training his magic. The other guy didn't so you win the magic duel. This is not a complicated concept.
The most hardcore thing I've done in a game is find the ideal zone of choice to take a screenshot of the avatar looking off into a sunset... super hardcore. No1 else in the history of that game even bothered reaching that peak as the yeti cave entrances ended a hundred yards below.
Haha. Nice.
Sure, but RPGs can involve character abilities without completely compromising their gameplay. In fact those RPGs which are built this way enjoy the greatest success and entertain the most players.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Why even bother with that though? Just play LoL or an FPS. Mixing in too much player skill dilutes the purpose of RPGs. Which is roleplay. And it also ruins the epicness of MMOs. If everyone is the same and no one can be awesome why even bother with an MMO?
Most MMOs fucking ruin the lore too. In what fantasy novels was 50% of the worlds population a mage and those who weren't mages were capable of totally wtf pwning a low level mage with their sword?
In a sense this has always been the conflict between people who wanted to live in the worlds of stories and people who wanted didn't. Even in games where I don't have time to be a god among men I still enjoy helping out the group. MMOs today are focused around making everyone god by lowering the bar.
"No one wants to play the shopkeeper!"
"Ren faire."
"Fuck."
But w/e. I'll let you have your gameplay and your repeated fights against one Deathwing while I am fending off hundreds dragons demons and their hordes of minions from my kingdom's wall of sky forts as we evacuate the great city of our society across the void between the worlds.
Meanwhile, you have fun fighting the same "gameplay" based raid over and over.
That right n00b, I just justified massive power differentials with the "Rule of Cool". You just got TV Trope'd.
1. The purpose of RPGs, as with any game, is fun. There is no mystic "purpose of RPGs" which trumps this.
2. You cite a concern that "everyone is the same", and yet when player skill matter players are less the same. Instead of everyone being exactly as powerful as their time investment, they're a combination of time investment and skill.
3. What fantasy novel did you read where you're like, "OMFG I totally want to be that shopkeeper!"?
4. Conversely, how many exist where you're like, "OMFG, I wish I was this particular main character!"?
5. In the event that you're weird (or intentionally contrary) and want to be some cruddy shopkeeper...how many normal people do you think feel that same way?
6. I find it sort of hilarious that you cite this epic anti-dragon skyfort gameplay as something that players would clearly be interested in participating in, en masse, and yet in the actual implementation of your game those players are likely to be crappy novice warriors who can't participate in that sort of gameplay. Your desire to simulate a world rather than give players the superb gameplay they crave is exactly why your game will be unpopular. You don't have to create an unpopular game. Just give players the fun gameplay they want. That's sort of the job of a game designer.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Yes, you have to work to get to the fun stuff. I don't answer to players anyways. I do what I want. Popular games are boring. I've played too much of them.
Weird because you wANt a shop? This kid is clearly part of the new age of gamers. Why don't you go get another lip ring and spend the rest of the day trying ot squeeze your XL self into your sisters jeans?
"I am not in a server with Gankers...THEY ARE IN A SERVER WITH ME!!!"
Virtual worlds do incorporate play. Doesn't mean RPGs are driven by a stronger purpose than fun. Between that comment and your final one you really come across as that RPG DM who forces players to play his game, rather than collaboratively create a community game. Few people come back for return sessions with that DM, but apparently those DMs just don't care.
"You know DM, we're not having very much fun here..."
"Are you stupid? The purpose of games isn't fun!"
<players get up and leave>
I don't even know how to respond to your comment that everyone is homogenous when I just finished describing why they're not.
And it appears like #5 was preemptively well-timed in that you think that players are interested in themes which are in reality not very interesting to players.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The more time you spend, the more you can accomplish. That doesn't just apply to MMOs, that applies to just about everything.
If you work a full-time hourly job, you expect to get a larger paycheck than a part-timer making the same wage, right? "I have other things to do besides working all week" doesn't mean they should get the same pay as you. If that were the case I would SO drop to part-time.
See that's funny because if you actually do work you know the dangers of getting "too much" overtime. This will put you in another tax bracket and you actually end up making less than you would during a normal work week.
"I am not in a server with Gankers...THEY ARE IN A SERVER WITH ME!!!"
I don't care if I get 1million players. I would be fine with 1000-10000. I do think that I could get that many people to play. You have this dumbass obsession with catering to the largest common denominator. I am not making my game to be as interesting as possible to the majority. I am making it to be epic and awesome to the minority. EvE and SWG and ATITD and Wurm all do this and they have from 1000-300000 players. That is good enough for me.
Shockingly gameplay is not the most important and only aspect of fun. Which you can't seem to get over. I am adding things besides gameplay.
And anyways its fucking impossible to have a game like this focus on the stuff you seem to obsess about in games. You cannot have instanced shit and still have the ability to do things you can do in sandboxes.
If you don't like the game why do you insist on posting in my threads to attack the idea? Are you just doing it to be a contrary asshole?
I know right? Casuals are so entitled. And anyways you cannot do cool things in a game that caters to casuals.
Actually this analogy is fantastic for justifying skill being the bigger factor.
Who makes more money, the McDs employee working overtime or a skilled Doctor?
Time increases pay, but skill increases it by far more.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver