PnP games are pretty much dependant on the skill of the GM and the players. If you have good ones, you have a good experiance. Now I've been spoiled by having stellar GMs, and so many online games are less than that.
While that is true, i haven't seen any amateur who can beat AAA games like Tomb Raider or Dishonored, just because of the level of polish, and production values.
There is a reason why I play video games now, and do not play PnP RPGs any more.
PnP games are pretty much dependant on the skill of the GM and the players. If you have good ones, you have a good experiance. Now I've been spoiled by having stellar GMs, and so many online games are less than that.
While that is true, i haven't seen any amateur who can beat AAA games like Tomb Raider or Dishonored, just because of the level of polish, and production values.
There is a reason why I play video games now, and do not play PnP RPGs any more.
-- player progression without player levels (played an MMO like this once before and I think this feature helped greatly in building community. Why? because people could participate in the combat activities with guild members or friends without having to worry about being within a certain range of levels)
-- sandbox features with some optional "themepark" thrown in (brings more life to the game as far as not having a story that ends and makes for more immersion in game when I am not THE hero of the story doing some "you're the only one" type quest surrounded by a bunch of other players doing the same mission)
-- a true player economy where crafting matters from the very beginning with minimal looting or request rewards taking the place of player crafted items, instead looted and rewarded items would be a schematic or part used in crafting
-- ability to choose between combat, non-combat, or combination of both without progression of one being tied to the progression of the other; more non-combat roles than just crafting/merchant
-- choices in character development with the ability to change those choices within the game
-- PVP that is optional at least on some servers, makes sense within the game, and occurs in the world rather than being zoned or instanced (I'm not much of a PVPer but I did enjoy occasionally joining with my guild and others in the huge battles that took place in SWG)
-- professions/classes and factions are not race bound although there may be lore to the game that associates certain races to certain professions or factions and there may be racial bonuses or skills that better match certain professions or factions; various factions and races are able to interact/chat with each other (more roleplaying options when a player can create a story for the character as to why the character went a different way or a story of friends or families on opposite sides)
-- player cities that serve a purpose and occur in world
-- minimal instancing
-- a combination of soloable and group activities (I think a player should be able to completely develop their character without an extreme amount of frustration using soloable activities although there should be benefits to grouping, I also think that there should be plenty of things in game that could not be accomplished without a group); things that require a group should never require the group to be fully made up of maxed out characters
-- large size grouping limit (loved the group size limit in SWG, larger group size limit allows for the group to have at least 1 or 2 lower developed characters and still be able to succeed against difficult tasks)
-- NO end game (sorry but once again I refer to SWG; the most difficult monsters/"dungeons"/worlds were pretty much available from day one; true a player probably would not survive them until they had a certain amount of skills or couldn't get to them without a certain amount of funds but if one didn't mind dying or could get a group to support them, there were no limits....also one did not find themselves reaching the "end" of a game to only have the option of running the same few dungeons over and over and over again, but then this also goes with a game being a sandbox and lacking player levels)
-- pay to play with NO cash shop (seems these days that this is a "niche" too; but I want everything I "need" to be a part of the game with a given price rather than getting nickeled and dimed for it and I want "appearance" items to be a part of player crafted/player economy system)
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar this forum represents a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the general MMO population. It is not representative of the average MMO gamer in any way shape or form
your view represents a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of this forum's viewpoint...which you pointed out how small is compared to the average MMo gamer.
You're nowhere near a representative of the average MMO gamer.
Actually, he probably is very representative of the gamer in general because that's largely what developers make and they've done their homework. The old school gamers represent a tiny niche of the general gaming population, that's why they are not being catered to in the AAA MMO marketplace.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar this forum represents a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the general MMO population. It is not representative of the average MMO gamer in any way shape or form
your view represents a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of this forum's viewpoint...which you pointed out how small is compared to the average MMo gamer.
You're nowhere near a representative of the average MMO gamer.
On top of that, I'd ask what data he's collected to show exactly where the average gamer's opinions actually lie. How far off or how close to those who post here. Because I think he just said that to add some hyperbole while sounding authentic. How does anyone know how accurate a sample size this forum is to opinions at large?
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar this forum represents a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the general MMO population. It is not representative of the average MMO gamer in any way shape or form
your view represents a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of this forum's viewpoint...which you pointed out how small is compared to the average MMo gamer.
You're nowhere near a representative of the average MMO gamer.
On top of that, I'd ask what data he's collected to show exactly where the average gamer's opinions actually lie. How far off or how close to those who post here. Because I think he just said that to add some hyperbole while sounding authentic. How does anyone know how accurate a sample size this forum is to opinions at large?
I did not state nor imply in any way shape or form that my views are those of the average mmo gamer. I merely stated these forums are not representative of the average mmo gamer. Nor did I say I know what the average gamer thinks. However it is well known that most don't go to forums, regardless of what they think.
These forums are representative of the mmo gamer (subset of gamer) who know about other forums other than the main (a subset of mmo gamers) who go to forums (a subset of mmo gamers that no of other forums) who post on other forums (a subset of everything I said before).
It is well known in the industry that the majority do not go to forums, of those very few go to other forums, of those very few post.
That's it, nothing more.
Forums, anywhere, are not representative of the average mmo gamer. These forums are no exception.
edit - a robo pointed out, the fact that I post here, would indicate I am not the average mmo gamer.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Majority of the genre is "niche" in denial. They just serve a singular niche to the point that MMORPG players have little choice, knowledge or experience of anything else. Just because WoW is big cloning it does not mean you're mainstream. Its just servicing that one niche. People in and around the industry are very dogmatic about that works and doesn't work and what's mainstream. Its not based on what's been done but potential of one game.
But truly being niche doesn't mean that you don't sell well either. It just means you serve a specialized group like Eve which has a bigger audience then majority of the "mainstream" WoW like.
Funny thing with this kind of polls is that like 99% of those who answered "yes" would quit such a game even before their first month is over.
Nostalgia is a thing that gives very thick rose colored glasses, which makes the reality check even harder to endure.
Based on what evidence? The idea is that a niche market would have a community because like minded players are playing the game they want that is catered to them. So don't see your point at all.
It's an open discussion. The OP made some huge assumptions through the lens of their own bias. The OP makes a claim and the community responds with whatever they feel. Not everyone here would support a game like the OP wants. Did he just want a thread of affirmation? If there are people that want a game then it will get made. Pantheon just failed funding. Where was the support for that? There are a ton of indie games that offer old school features. Many of the old games are still around. Why not play them?
Well let's see here. I have made an assumption based on this certain niche market. So far from the votes my assumption is correct. How do you know not everyone here would support this? Only people who voted has a say in this or who have replied. They took action. The ones who didn't vote are not in the sample because they didn't vote. Simple really. Pantheon may of failed funding but maybe a lot of people can't afford to fund it? I don't know why it failed funding. But to tell me I am biased and making assumptions is stupid when you're doing the exact same thing. You're speaking for those who didn't vote or are not voicing their opinions here.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar this forum represents a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the general MMO population. It is not representative of the average MMO gamer in any way shape or form
If I wanted to get a sample from every mmo player out there I wouldn't of just posted out here. I would make a survey. I just wanted to keep this conversation and polling on this forum. That was the point. I don't understand why people are assuming I am saying my poll determines for every mmo player out there when that is not even remotely the intention of this thread. After all, isn't this an mmo forum? I am mmo player, you're an mmo player. So who dictates what an average mmo player? So what really defines an average mmo player? You?
It's appalling of how many comments on this thread are "what I say is correct and fact". I think it's fair to say that I proposed a question. Gave an example of the question and see where it went. I never once made it out that my opinions are fact. I personally know what I am looking for an mmo and was curious to see based on the features I have listed to see there was others interested in this niche. I was just curious to see what the community on this forum thought. Nothing more. It''s really simple. You guys derailed the thread and took it way out of proportion. But I guess this topic is a ball of fire to some.
No. Your poll was fine, it was what people thought it meant that is the topic. My comment was about people saying that it was representative of something more than the people that answered the poll.
It is rarely the topic heading that becomes the interesting discussion, more often than not the interesting topic is about people's comments themselves.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
No. Your poll was fine, it was what people thought it meant that is the topic. My comment was about people saying that it was representative of something more than the people that answered the poll.
It is rarely the topic heading that becomes the interesting discussion, more often than not the interesting topic is about people's comments themselves.
I see, sorry to misunderstand you. The point of the thread is still on terms.
Originally posted by Eronakis It's appalling of how many comments on this thread are "what I say is correct and fact".
"It does work. There is a market for it for sure." - a poster in this thread
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
Originally posted by Eronakis It's appalling of how many comments on this thread are "what I say is correct and fact".
"It does work. There is a market for it for sure." - a poster in this thread
That was based of the poll of this thread. I should've been more clear. I don't know how big this market is for this niche. There is one. Is it big enough for a title? I don't know. You don't know either.
Originally posted by Eronakis It's appalling of how many comments on this thread are "what I say is correct and fact".
"It does work. There is a market for it for sure." - a poster in this thread
That was based of the poll of this thread. I should've been more clear. I don't know how big this market is for this niche. There is one. Is it big enough for a title? I don't know. You don't know either.
People always turn this matter into a question of its economic feasibility. I always look at it as a cultural question. I could care less whether the company that makes the right MMO for me makes 100s of millions of 10s of millions or millions or a million or nothing. For instance, take single player games. I wont touch GTA no matter how much money it has made. It's garbage no matter how many people buy it and play it. Games like Primordia, on the order hand....
Originally posted by Eronakis It's appalling of how many comments on this thread are "what I say is correct and fact".
"It does work. There is a market for it for sure." - a poster in this thread
That was based of the poll of this thread. I should've been more clear. I don't know how big this market is for this niche. There is one. Is it big enough for a title? I don't know. You don't know either.
People always turn this matter into a question of its economic feasibility. I always look at it as a cultural question. I could care less whether the company that makes the right MMO for me makes 100s of millions of 10s of millions or millions or a million or nothing. For instance, take single player games. I wont touch GTA no matter how much money it has made. It's garbage no matter how many people buy it and play it. Games like Primordia, on the order hand....
Whether or not a person not making it cares if it is a profitable venture is irrelevant.
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
Originally posted by Eronakis It's appalling of how many comments on this thread are "what I say is correct and fact".
"It does work. There is a market for it for sure." - a poster in this thread
That was based of the poll of this thread. I should've been more clear. I don't know how big this market is for this niche. There is one. Is it big enough for a title? I don't know. You don't know either.
People always turn this matter into a question of its economic feasibility. I always look at it as a cultural question. I could care less whether the company that makes the right MMO for me makes 100s of millions of 10s of millions or millions or a million or nothing. For instance, take single player games. I wont touch GTA no matter how much money it has made. It's garbage no matter how many people buy it and play it. Games like Primordia, on the order hand....
Whether or not a person not making it cares if it is a profitable venture is irrelevant.
99% of the people here are not developing a game in any way and they always discuss it's economic feasibility. We should all probably drop the topic of it being economically feasible.
Originally posted by Eronakis It's appalling of how many comments on this thread are "what I say is correct and fact".
"It does work. There is a market for it for sure." - a poster in this thread
That was based of the poll of this thread. I should've been more clear. I don't know how big this market is for this niche. There is one. Is it big enough for a title? I don't know. You don't know either.
People always turn this matter into a question of its economic feasibility. I always look at it as a cultural question. I could care less whether the company that makes the right MMO for me makes 100s of millions of 10s of millions or millions or a million or nothing. For instance, take single player games. I wont touch GTA no matter how much money it has made. It's garbage no matter how many people buy it and play it. Games like Primordia, on the order hand....
Whether or not a person not making it cares if it is a profitable venture is irrelevant.
99% of the people here are not developing a game in any way and they always discuss it's economic feasibility. We should all probably drop the topic of it being economically feasible.
Economic feasibility is what determines whether a game is made at all and if it continues to be supported at all. More people need to be concerned with economic feasibility if they want games to exist at all. Money is all that matters to developers and the sooner you get that through your head, the better.
I like to add horizon design instead of railed base on level.
I mean i want to wear any gears i able to find and learn any spells that i manage to unlock.
Contents like quests not gated by level.
I want to see level as one way to raise character stats and make it stronger, but not key unlock major contents,
That's most thing i want to see in multiplayers game , since it make people easier to join the game with other without too much difference because of play time .
I'm thinking down the same line.. Most of us have done and are still doing the level progression thing.. Heck, I grew up on level based progression in AD&D, so it's just natural I follow the industry norm.. However, that formula always leads to one big problem.. It makes most of the game obsolete once you out level a zone or content area.. Now, GW2 has done a wonderful job in minimizing that with having that flex level thing as you move about their world. But it doesn't address new people coming into the game, that are locked out of most of the game and players in it..
So.. what do we do?
I'm in favor of experimenting on different forms of horizontal progression instead.. Over the years, I've seen some devs play with it, and players toy with ideas.. One issue I always had with horizontal skills is that one skill is just as costly as another.. It becomes nothing more then eye candy change.. So I was thinking.. What if not all spells and skill are equal, and to unlock various spells for example "COST" XP points.. As you progress through the game you earn XP, and then use that earned XP as you would currency and acquire that spell you want.. Different spells, different cost.. Example to follow:
I'm a druid exploring the wilderness for a month before finally going back to town.. During that time I earned 3,954 XP pts.. Over the course of playing the game I have discovered a number of NPC that act as "trainers".. that are able to teach me the arts and skills I require.. I find a warrior that is able to train me in the skill of mace blocking (cost 1,000 XP).. I had also found one other retired druid living outside town that is able to teach me his spell ability of vine entrapping (cost 2,000 XP).. I could do both and have 954 XP left over.. Maybe the next spell I have my eyes on will cost me 4,200 XP points (Lightening Bolt).. The point is that every spell or skill is available within that class line, just that you have different strengths at a different XP cost..
BTW.. NO, a druid can not go training from an old wizard and learn their spells.. I still believe in class define locks.. There are limits that people shouldn't be able to become and learn everything in the game.. We aren't Gods.. LOL
Its either for the past 10 years developers have been trying to tap a WoW 's market or MMORPG players only like one type of game.
IMO it's mathematically improbable that 10s of millions of players only will like and purchase WoW like games. It is hard for many to admit that its likely that we had a ton of Wow like themeparks isn't necessarily for proven player desire but potential sales.
No dev in their right mind would make a game today that forces you to group and the reason is simple....there are not enough players that like that game style to make the game profitable.
The sooner people stop thinking it's 1997 when devs forced this on everybody because they were lazy and did not have the capacity create actual content are long gone.
Good riddance to that archaic and totally mind numbing style of game play.
Originally posted by sethman75 No dev in their right mind would make a game today that forces you to group and the reason is simple....there are not enough players that like that game style to make the game profitable.
The sooner people stop thinking it's 1997 when devs forced this on everybody because they were lazy and did not have the capacity create actual content are long gone.
Good riddance to that archaic and totally mind numbing style of game play.
Deal with the reality and enjoy what we have.
1997 was UO 1999 was EQ...get your years straight because UO promoted interdependence not butchered independence like EQ so people had to ride the theme park at Dev dictated rates.
Comments
While that is true, i haven't seen any amateur who can beat AAA games like Tomb Raider or Dishonored, just because of the level of polish, and production values.
There is a reason why I play video games now, and do not play PnP RPGs any more.
Sometimes... you know it is worth it...
"Niche" features I would love to see in a game:
-- player progression without player levels (played an MMO like this once before and I think this feature helped greatly in building community. Why? because people could participate in the combat activities with guild members or friends without having to worry about being within a certain range of levels)
-- sandbox features with some optional "themepark" thrown in (brings more life to the game as far as not having a story that ends and makes for more immersion in game when I am not THE hero of the story doing some "you're the only one" type quest surrounded by a bunch of other players doing the same mission)
-- a true player economy where crafting matters from the very beginning with minimal looting or request rewards taking the place of player crafted items, instead looted and rewarded items would be a schematic or part used in crafting
-- ability to choose between combat, non-combat, or combination of both without progression of one being tied to the progression of the other; more non-combat roles than just crafting/merchant
-- choices in character development with the ability to change those choices within the game
-- PVP that is optional at least on some servers, makes sense within the game, and occurs in the world rather than being zoned or instanced (I'm not much of a PVPer but I did enjoy occasionally joining with my guild and others in the huge battles that took place in SWG)
-- professions/classes and factions are not race bound although there may be lore to the game that associates certain races to certain professions or factions and there may be racial bonuses or skills that better match certain professions or factions; various factions and races are able to interact/chat with each other (more roleplaying options when a player can create a story for the character as to why the character went a different way or a story of friends or families on opposite sides)
-- player cities that serve a purpose and occur in world
-- minimal instancing
-- a combination of soloable and group activities (I think a player should be able to completely develop their character without an extreme amount of frustration using soloable activities although there should be benefits to grouping, I also think that there should be plenty of things in game that could not be accomplished without a group); things that require a group should never require the group to be fully made up of maxed out characters
-- large size grouping limit (loved the group size limit in SWG, larger group size limit allows for the group to have at least 1 or 2 lower developed characters and still be able to succeed against difficult tasks)
-- NO end game (sorry but once again I refer to SWG; the most difficult monsters/"dungeons"/worlds were pretty much available from day one; true a player probably would not survive them until they had a certain amount of skills or couldn't get to them without a certain amount of funds but if one didn't mind dying or could get a group to support them, there were no limits....also one did not find themselves reaching the "end" of a game to only have the option of running the same few dungeons over and over and over again, but then this also goes with a game being a sandbox and lacking player levels)
-- pay to play with NO cash shop (seems these days that this is a "niche" too; but I want everything I "need" to be a part of the game with a given price rather than getting nickeled and dimed for it and I want "appearance" items to be a part of player crafted/player economy system)
Actually, he probably is very representative of the gamer in general because that's largely what developers make and they've done their homework. The old school gamers represent a tiny niche of the general gaming population, that's why they are not being catered to in the AAA MMO marketplace.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
On top of that, I'd ask what data he's collected to show exactly where the average gamer's opinions actually lie. How far off or how close to those who post here. Because I think he just said that to add some hyperbole while sounding authentic. How does anyone know how accurate a sample size this forum is to opinions at large?
I did not state nor imply in any way shape or form that my views are those of the average mmo gamer. I merely stated these forums are not representative of the average mmo gamer. Nor did I say I know what the average gamer thinks. However it is well known that most don't go to forums, regardless of what they think.
These forums are representative of the mmo gamer (subset of gamer) who know about other forums other than the main (a subset of mmo gamers) who go to forums (a subset of mmo gamers that no of other forums) who post on other forums (a subset of everything I said before).
It is well known in the industry that the majority do not go to forums, of those very few go to other forums, of those very few post.
That's it, nothing more.
Forums, anywhere, are not representative of the average mmo gamer. These forums are no exception.
edit - a robo pointed out, the fact that I post here, would indicate I am not the average mmo gamer.
But truly being niche doesn't mean that you don't sell well either. It just means you serve a specialized group like Eve which has a bigger audience then majority of the "mainstream" WoW like.
Based on what evidence? The idea is that a niche market would have a community because like minded players are playing the game they want that is catered to them. So don't see your point at all.
Well let's see here. I have made an assumption based on this certain niche market. So far from the votes my assumption is correct. How do you know not everyone here would support this? Only people who voted has a say in this or who have replied. They took action. The ones who didn't vote are not in the sample because they didn't vote. Simple really. Pantheon may of failed funding but maybe a lot of people can't afford to fund it? I don't know why it failed funding. But to tell me I am biased and making assumptions is stupid when you're doing the exact same thing. You're speaking for those who didn't vote or are not voicing their opinions here.
i would take anything other than the garbage they have been pumping out ever since wow.
and thats includeing wow.
If I wanted to get a sample from every mmo player out there I wouldn't of just posted out here. I would make a survey. I just wanted to keep this conversation and polling on this forum. That was the point. I don't understand why people are assuming I am saying my poll determines for every mmo player out there when that is not even remotely the intention of this thread. After all, isn't this an mmo forum? I am mmo player, you're an mmo player. So who dictates what an average mmo player? So what really defines an average mmo player? You?
No. Your poll was fine, it was what people thought it meant that is the topic. My comment was about people saying that it was representative of something more than the people that answered the poll.
It is rarely the topic heading that becomes the interesting discussion, more often than not the interesting topic is about people's comments themselves.
I see, sorry to misunderstand you. The point of the thread is still on terms.
"It does work. There is a market for it for sure." - a poster in this thread
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
That was based of the poll of this thread. I should've been more clear. I don't know how big this market is for this niche. There is one. Is it big enough for a title? I don't know. You don't know either.
People always turn this matter into a question of its economic feasibility. I always look at it as a cultural question. I could care less whether the company that makes the right MMO for me makes 100s of millions of 10s of millions or millions or a million or nothing. For instance, take single player games. I wont touch GTA no matter how much money it has made. It's garbage no matter how many people buy it and play it. Games like Primordia, on the order hand....
Whether or not a person not making it cares if it is a profitable venture is irrelevant.
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
99% of the people here are not developing a game in any way and they always discuss it's economic feasibility. We should all probably drop the topic of it being economically feasible.
Economic feasibility is what determines whether a game is made at all and if it continues to be supported at all. More people need to be concerned with economic feasibility if they want games to exist at all. Money is all that matters to developers and the sooner you get that through your head, the better.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
I'm thinking down the same line.. Most of us have done and are still doing the level progression thing.. Heck, I grew up on level based progression in AD&D, so it's just natural I follow the industry norm.. However, that formula always leads to one big problem.. It makes most of the game obsolete once you out level a zone or content area.. Now, GW2 has done a wonderful job in minimizing that with having that flex level thing as you move about their world. But it doesn't address new people coming into the game, that are locked out of most of the game and players in it..
So.. what do we do?
I'm in favor of experimenting on different forms of horizontal progression instead.. Over the years, I've seen some devs play with it, and players toy with ideas.. One issue I always had with horizontal skills is that one skill is just as costly as another.. It becomes nothing more then eye candy change.. So I was thinking.. What if not all spells and skill are equal, and to unlock various spells for example "COST" XP points.. As you progress through the game you earn XP, and then use that earned XP as you would currency and acquire that spell you want.. Different spells, different cost.. Example to follow:
I'm a druid exploring the wilderness for a month before finally going back to town.. During that time I earned 3,954 XP pts.. Over the course of playing the game I have discovered a number of NPC that act as "trainers".. that are able to teach me the arts and skills I require.. I find a warrior that is able to train me in the skill of mace blocking (cost 1,000 XP).. I had also found one other retired druid living outside town that is able to teach me his spell ability of vine entrapping (cost 2,000 XP).. I could do both and have 954 XP left over.. Maybe the next spell I have my eyes on will cost me 4,200 XP points (Lightening Bolt).. The point is that every spell or skill is available within that class line, just that you have different strengths at a different XP cost..
BTW.. NO, a druid can not go training from an old wizard and learn their spells.. I still believe in class define locks.. There are limits that people shouldn't be able to become and learn everything in the game.. We aren't Gods.. LOL
IMO it's mathematically improbable that 10s of millions of players only will like and purchase WoW like games. It is hard for many to admit that its likely that we had a ton of Wow like themeparks isn't necessarily for proven player desire but potential sales.
The sooner people stop thinking it's 1997 when devs forced this on everybody because they were lazy and did not have the capacity create actual content are long gone.
Good riddance to that archaic and totally mind numbing style of game play.
Deal with the reality and enjoy what we have.
1997 was UO 1999 was EQ...get your years straight because UO promoted interdependence not butchered independence like EQ so people had to ride the theme park at Dev dictated rates.