This thread is about people being tired of the same ol' stuff and the need for something truly different and it's devolved into talk about rotations.
Truly different stuff exists. Want it? Go play it.
Same-but-different stuff is impossible. Want it? Tough, your expectations are impossible.
If you want something different but it must be the same (ie it must be an MMORPG) then that's same-but-different.
Whatever you say. I've grown too tired of arguing your bullshjt take on MMOs over the years.
He has a point. There's a lot of people who want innovation but reject innovation when it is brought before them. Or they have impossible demands because they don't have the slightest idea what the industry (and the technology) is capable of.
These people are on a spiral of frustration and bitterness and they make these forums worse for everyone little by little. And every attempt to explain how things work or why things are the way they are is met with vicious hostility.
It's like they don't want to understand. They want to be miserable and they want to spread it. It's like a disease.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
I'll not say what game I think is better, but I will comment on the topic of rotation since an outlook was asked for:
In truth, I believe WoW's combat rotation in WoD is child's play when compared to FFXIV's intricacies,
See now that's what I'm talking about. That's actual evidence of a game finally creating something equal to (and possibly better than) WOW's combat depth.
Thanks for the write-up!
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Well yes it is all obvious stuff to me,definitely not to many as i still see many think every same game with a new face is great,until they realize a month or two later,it was the same old.
References to Wow are nothing more than tainted glasses,EQ2 came out a couple weeks prior and was doing the same thing,where do you think Wow got it's ideas from?The producers were EQ fans,likely following everything SOE was doing including testing of EQ2.
Since most MMORPG gamer's had never seen one before Wow they didn't even realize how much it was a copy of free to play Asian games,same low end graphics,same markers floating everywhere,same questing design.It is real funny too because EVERYONE was insulting those Asian games as crap,yet they play the same thing ion Wow and all of a sudden they change their story into "this is great".
There is only so much you can do to change up a mmorgp without changing the entire genre,which si what a lot of devs ar trying to do.You can dicker with class design "multi class or Altaholic ",world design"instance or not",yo uchange how XP is gained "questing or killing",you can change many otehr subtle areas,but for the msot part it will always be the ame sort of game.
Where devs CAN do a LOT more is add depth to the entire design,that brings out a more realistic world.The other MOST important aspect is to allow players freedom to move around the world as you would expect in a RPG.If it is not your role to play then it is NOT a role playing game.Hence why games on rails are imo NOT RPG's,more like puzzle games only worse because even with a puzzle you can fill in pieces as you choose.In these clone games they are LINEAR puzzles,you have to fill in pieces as the developer chooses,so not rpg and more like a single player game.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
This thread is about people being tired of the same ol' stuff and the need for something truly different and it's devolved into talk about rotations.
Truly different stuff exists. Want it? Go play it.
Same-but-different stuff is impossible. Want it? Tough, your expectations are impossible.
If you want something different but it must be the same (ie it must be an MMORPG) then that's same-but-different.
Whatever you say. I've grown too tired of arguing your bullshjt take on MMOs over the years.
He has a point. There's a lot of people who want innovation but reject innovation when it is brought before them. Or they have impossible demands because they don't have the slightest idea what the industry (and the technology) is capable of.
These people are on a spiral of frustration and bitterness and they make these forums worse for everyone little by little. And every attempt to explain how things work or why things are the way they are is met with vicious hostility.
It's like they don't want to understand. They want to be miserable and they want to spread it. It's like a disease.
No he doesn't. Get off your high horse and stop acting like people who want something different than Themepark don't have a brain.
You, Axehilt, and a few others have defended your ideal game (same ol' same ol') to the point of taking anything said as all lumped together into one huge unreasonable demand. We can't talked about all the things we'd like to see without you guys lumping it all together as one demand and claiming the "impossibility" of it all. You guys take thing out of context and build your case against all reason.
Then you tell us that those low budget crappy games are what we want and we should play them. Or you point out innovations in games that still adhere to things we don't want like Themepark, Cash Shops, and lobbies.
And when we point out your fallacies you ignore us and keep going on, over and over and over again. To the point that most of us just give up.
Which is what I'm going to do at this point unless you guys start a reasonable discussion without your hellbent slant.
Well yes it is all obvious stuff to me,definitely not to many as i still see many think every same game with a new face is great,until they realize a month or two later,it was the same old.
References to Wow are nothing more than tainted glasses,EQ2 came out a couple weeks prior and was doing the same thing,where do you think Wow got it's ideas from?The producers were EQ fans,likely following everything SOE was doing including testing of EQ2.
Since most MMORPG gamer's had never seen one before Wow they didn't even realize how much it was a copy of free to play Asian games,same low end graphics,same markers floating everywhere,same questing design.It is real funny too because EVERYONE was insulting those Asian games as crap,yet they play the same thing ion Wow and all of a sudden they change their story into "this is great".
There is only so much you can do to change up a mmorgp without changing the entire genre,which si what a lot of devs ar trying to do.You can dicker with class design "multi class or Altaholic ",world design"instance or not",yo uchange how XP is gained "questing or killing",you can change many otehr subtle areas,but for the msot part it will always be the ame sort of game.
Where devs CAN do a LOT more is add depth to the entire design,that brings out a more realistic world.The other MOST important aspect is to allow players freedom to move around the world as you would expect in a RPG.If it is not your role to play then it is NOT a role playing game.Hence why games on rails are imo NOT RPG's,more like puzzle games only worse because even with a puzzle you can fill in pieces as you choose.In these clone games they are LINEAR puzzles,you have to fill in pieces as the developer chooses,so not rpg and more like a single player game.
You are wrong to think that if by somehow everyone started roleplaying in these games we would go "back to the roots" so to speak. Video game RPGs have always been story-driven games with heavy emphasis on stats and progression. You want to roleplay, you do it in a pen & paper RPG although I must warn you that even there you are at the mercy of the gamemaster.
The irony here is that questing and raiding are more in line with traditional RPGs than farming, resource gathering or crafting for example.
So yeah, keep telling us how these games are not RPGs.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
No he doesn't. Get off your high horse and stop acting like people who want something different than Themepark don't have a brain.
You, Axehilt, and a few others have defended your ideal game (same ol' same ol') to the point of taking anything said as all lumped together into one huge unreasonable demand. We can't talked about all the things we'd like to see without you guys lumping it all together as one demand and claiming the "impossibility" of it all. You guys take thing out of context and build your case against all reason.
Then you tell us that those low budget crappy games are what we want and we should play them. Or you point out innovations in games that still adhere to things we don't want like Themepark, Cash Shops, and lobbies.
And when we point out your fallacies you ignore us and keep going on, over and over and over again. To the point that most of us just give up.
Which is what I'm going to do at this point unless you guys start a reasonable discussion without your hellbent slant.
No, I don't act like people with different preferences don't have a brain. I act like people who don't have a brain, don't have a brain! At the end of the day, I don't care what you want or what you like. I only care if what you write is accurate or not, objective when it is in fact subjective or if you are using faulty logic.
The usual pattern is: You wish a game had X. Then proceed to bash games that don't fulfill your wishes calling developers either stupid, greedy, lazy or any combination of the above for not seeing the seemingly obvious. I don't think anyone has a problem with the first part as long as the demand is within reason. What I usually pick out, and I can't speak for others, is the ones who think making games is easy, the solutions simple and bash the devs day in day out for not doing things the way they want. Things are almost never as simple as some people see them, and they need to be told why.
I have too much respect for the professionals who make these games to let that go unchecked.
If your feature X is unpopular, you are unlikely to find it from an AAA title. It is also unlikely that people woke up tomorrow and changed their gaming preferences entirely overnight.
The only objective measure of quality we have is sales numbers and popularity. Pretty much anything beyond that is entirely subjective. You may not like themeparks, cash shops or lobbies but the larger audience does. I don't need to like any of those things to defend their good qualities because I can look at things objectively. Can you?
I can play a Pirates of the Burning Sea for a month and a half and say "boy, this game is by no means good, but I sure am a sucker for games set in the Age of Sail milieu". Unlike you, I don't need to defend the games I like or bash the games I don't like. I am not emotionally invested.
I haven't played an MMO properly in 2 years yet you don't see me touting doom & gloom and acting out, do you? And I don't even see a game on the horizon that I might like!
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
No he doesn't. Get off your high horse and stop acting like people who want something different than Themepark don't have a brain.
You, Axehilt, and a few others have defended your ideal game (same ol' same ol') to the point of taking anything said as all lumped together into one huge unreasonable demand. We can't talked about all the things we'd like to see without you guys lumping it all together as one demand and claiming the "impossibility" of it all. You guys take thing out of context and build your case against all reason.
Then you tell us that those low budget crappy games are what we want and we should play them. Or you point out innovations in games that still adhere to things we don't want like Themepark, Cash Shops, and lobbies.
And when we point out your fallacies you ignore us and keep going on, over and over and over again. To the point that most of us just give up.
Which is what I'm going to do at this point unless you guys start a reasonable discussion without your hellbent slant.
No, I don't act like people with different preferences don't have a brain. I act like people who don't have a brain, don't have a brain! At the end of the day, I don't care what you want or what you like. I only care if what you write is accurate or not, objective when it is in fact subjective or if you are using faulty logic.
The usual pattern is: You wish a game had X. Then proceed to bash games that don't fulfill your wishes calling developers either stupid, greedy, lazy or any combination of the above for not seeing the seemingly obvious. I don't think anyone has a problem with the first part as long as the demand is within reason. What I usually pick out, and I can't speak for others, is the ones who think making games is easy, the solutions simple and bash the devs day in day out for not doing things the way they want. Things are almost never as simple as some people see them, and they need to be told why.
I have too much respect for the professionals who make these games to let that go unchecked.
If your feature X is unpopular, you are unlikely to find it from an AAA title. It is also unlikely that people woke up tomorrow and changed their gaming preferences entirely overnight.
The only objective measure of quality we have is sales numbers and popularity. Pretty much anything beyond that is entirely subjective. You may not like themeparks, cash shops or lobbies but the larger audience does. I don't need to like any of those things to defend their good qualities because I can look at things objectively. Can you?
I can play a Pirates of the Burning Sea for a month and a half and say "boy, this game is by no means good, but I sure am a sucker for games set in the Age of Sail milieu". Unlike you, I don't need to defend the games I like or bash the games I don't like. I am not emotionally invested.
I haven't played an MMO properly in 2 years yet you don't see me touting doom & gloom and acting out, do you? And I don't even see a game on the horizon that I might like!
First of all, players are completely at the mercy of the products. We have a choice of those problematic game with Cash Shops, lobbies, and Themepark design or basically bland games made with barely enough money to get anything at all out the door.
So what do the numbers mean? Especially when the games with numbers have to give them away to get players in?
So, even you don't like MMOs these days? Then why are you constantly arguing against change? What do you want the next good game to do that would bring you in? Or not do? Get in the spirit of positive feedback if you really have any desire to move the industry forwards.
And you know, when someone makes a suggestion you don't think can work you might try making adjustments to the idea instead of just crapping on it.
First of all, players are completely at the mercy of the products. We have a choice of those problematic game with Cash Shops, lobbies, and Themepark design or basically bland games made with barely enough money to get anything at all out the door.
So what do the numbers mean? Especially when the games with numbers have to give them away to get players in?
Did it occur to you that these companies which invest millions of dollars on these projects don't do market research or that some of the developers are gamers themselves?
What are the chances that everyone in the industry has missed the "massive sandbox niche" that's out there like some people on this forum suggest? Why is it that even when quest/scripted content is so expensive and so time consuming to produce developers still prefer it over sandbox content? -Because people want it.
So, even you don't like MMOs these days? Then why are you constantly arguing against change? What do you want the next good game to do that would bring you in? Or not do? Get in the spirit of positive feedback if you really have any desire to move the industry forwards.
I really can't say what sort of game I would like to play out of hand. I've already proposed if a more managerial gameplay would be better for resource gathering and crafting activities since "X Tycoon", "Theme Y" and "Z manager" style games are quite popular outside MMOs.
I wonder why OWPvP games don't try to avoid the holy trinity style combat like the plague because it doesn't work at all in PvP and thus creates a disparity between PvP and PvE builds. Wolves and sheep basically.
I am coining whether a round/season system for sandbox games would make them more competitive and "gamier" and possibly more attractive to more players. They seem to work well enough on games like Path of Exile, Diablo, Civilization, Colonization, Total War and the like. I also think the research aspect borrowed from some strategy games would fit quite nicely into sandbox MMOs. But it only works if the game resets every now and again, you see.
What measures should be taken to preserve the relevance of certain abilities and roles when the scale of the combat moves from duel to small scale to large scale. Case in point: In Eve Online, Logistics have a huge impact on the outcome of the battle up until the size of the fleets involved doesn't rise above a critical mass where they can kill everything in the field instantly. In those large numbers logistics is pretty much useless; although since the battle is going to be a slugfest at that point, the numbers are going to come down fast and the matter sort of fixes itself. That leaves the question: Is this fun? For some - maybe. But for the majority? -I don't think so.
All the while I don't care about half of these things. OWPvP in particular is always going to be a small niche no matter what you try to do to make it better, I prefer small scale tactical combat and, so far, I haven't found a sandbox MMO that I liked.
You want to start a thread on any of these, or threads in similar spirit, I'd be happy to weigh in and have a discussion. Would be a change to all this doom & gloom, reminiscing of the old days and nonsensical arguments over definitions...
And you know, when someone makes a suggestion you don't think can work you might try making adjustments to the idea instead of just crapping on it.
I'm not going to spend 20 minutes forming a polite post explaining why some idea is bad when the author didn't spend even 2 minutes thinking his/her idea through. In such cases, I reserve my right to take a shit on them.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
First of all, players are completely at the mercy of the products. We have a choice of those problematic game with Cash Shops, lobbies, and Themepark design or basically bland games made with barely enough money to get anything at all out the door.
So what do the numbers mean? Especially when the games with numbers have to give them away to get players in?
Did it occur to you that these companies which invest millions of dollars on these projects don't do market research or that some of the developers are gamers themselves?
What are the chances that everyone in the industry has missed the "massive sandbox niche" that's out there like some people on this forum suggest? Why is it that even when quest/scripted content is so expensive and so time consuming to produce developers still prefer it over sandbox content? -Because people want it.
So, even you don't like MMOs these days? Then why are you constantly arguing against change? What do you want the next good game to do that would bring you in? Or not do? Get in the spirit of positive feedback if you really have any desire to move the industry forwards.
I really can't say what sort of game I would like to play out of hand. I've already proposed if a more managerial gameplay would be better for resource gathering and crafting activities since "X Tycoon", "Theme Y" and "Z manager" style games are quite popular outside MMOs.
I wonder why OWPvP games don't try to avoid the holy trinity style combat like the plague because it doesn't work at all in PvP and thus creates a disparity between PvP and PvE builds. Wolves and sheep basically.
I am coining whether a round/season system for sandbox games would make them more competitive and "gamier" and possibly more attractive to more players. They seem to work well enough on games like Path of Exile, Diablo, Civilization, Colonization, Total War and the like. I also think the research aspect borrowed from some strategy games would fit quite nicely into sandbox MMOs. But it only works if the game resets every now and again, you see.
What measures should be taken to preserve the relevance of certain abilities and roles when the scale of the combat moves from duel to small scale to large scale. Case in point: In Eve Online, Logistics have a huge impact on the outcome of the battle up until the size of the fleets involved doesn't rise above a critical mass where they can kill everything in the field instantly. In those large numbers logistics is pretty much useless; although since the battle is going to be a slugfest at that point, the numbers are going to come down fast and the matter sort of fixes itself. That leaves the question: Is this fun? For some - maybe. But for the majority? -I don't think so.
All the while I don't care about half of these things. OWPvP in particular is always going to be a small niche no matter what you try to do to make it better, I prefer small scale tactical combat and, so far, I haven't found a sandbox MMO that I liked.
You want to start a thread on any of these, or threads in similar spirit, I'd be happy to weigh in and have a discussion. Would be a change to all this doom & gloom, reminiscing of the old days and nonsensical arguments over definitions...
And you know, when someone makes a suggestion you don't think can work you might try making adjustments to the idea instead of just crapping on it.
I'm not going to spend 20 minutes forming a polite post explaining why some idea is bad when the author didn't spend even 2 minutes thinking his/her idea through. In such cases, I reserve my right to take a shit on them.
In my opinion your take on improving Sandbox games is still restricted by the old thinking. PvP dominance of Sandboxes needs to be replaced with PvE. PvP should still be relevant but controlled. It should be meaningful and in the Open world, but not "wide open". There's several angles that I think could be used to make this happen, with varying degrees of outcome.
"Licensed" PvP, in other words you have to sign up for wars, join the Assassins Guild, etc., to PvP in that particular aspect only.
Justice system that puts the hurt on rampant PKers but allows open world PvP
Racial/Territorial antagonists
Guild wars
a variety of nuanced rules that prevent rampant PKing or help to guide players towards another system
Personally I've been thinking more and more along the lines of a combination of the above. But that depends on the game. For example, a game with Pixies as playable might flag players for cutting down trees or picking flowers in their forest home as "criminal". While including their guildmates or other associates in flagging PvP+. Lots to think about though, that's just a rough idea.
Overall, I think Sandbox games need a heavy wealth of PvE and PvWorld activities and game play. Mystery, exploration, discovery from both. And a highly interactive world where it's just more interesting and also hides access to mysteries as well as rare finds of treasure and resources.
A great Sandbox world also needs the ability to change. A system of adding and removing "rooms" of various types. And AI that adds to MOBs in several ways.
Now don't take all that as going wayyyyy overboard on it. Start small with the concepts, add to them as possible. But make the game and in particular it's world more interesting and changeable.
In my opinion your take on improving Sandbox games is still restricted by the old thinking. PvP dominance of Sandboxes needs to be replaced with PvE. PvP should still be relevant but controlled. It should be meaningful and in the Open world, but not "wide open". There's several angles that I think could be used to make this happen, with varying degrees of outcome.
"Licensed" PvP, in other words you have to sign up for wars, join the Assassins Guild, etc., to PvP in that particular aspect only.
Justice system that puts the hurt on rampant PKers but allows open world PvP
Racial/Territorial antagonists
Guild wars
a variety of nuanced rules that prevent rampant PKing or help to guide players towards another system
Personally I've been thinking more and more along the lines of a combination of the above. But that depends on the game. For example, a game with Pixies as playable might flag players for cutting down trees or picking flowers in their forest home as "criminal". While including their guildmates or other associates in flagging PvP+. Lots to think about though, that's just a rough idea.
Overall, I think Sandbox games need a heavy wealth of PvE and PvWorld activities and game play. Mystery, exploration, discovery from both. And a highly interactive world where it's just more interesting and also hides access to mysteries as well as rare finds of treasure and resources.
A great Sandbox world also needs the ability to change. A system of adding and removing "rooms" of various types. And AI that adds to MOBs in several ways.
Now don't take all that as going wayyyyy overboard on it. Start small with the concepts, add to them as possible. But make the game and in particular it's world more interesting and changeable.
Flagging systems are messy, often complicated and thus unintuitive, highly exploitable. I don't know what perceived benefits you might have for such systems, but I'm fairly certain its not worth the trouble. A far easier solution, I would think, is to just have areas where you can PvP and where you can't PvP (or have varying degrees of security like in Eve).
As a developer you would have to weigh whether you want to spend your efforts into creating a working flagging system or just do the areas and spend the leftover time on something else.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
WTF DUDE ? its like taking a vacation to unknown destination - its all the same - u just getting exited to see and feel new place - take a pictures or eat on a strange restaurants and so on - the same happens with the MMO's - the thing is there is so much of them in the last years u just visit them and jumping to another - like a vacation
in the past we all had only UO and EQ1 and every one was stuck there so this was "new" thing and its was a magical thing - like ur first vacation. ( i sure u all remember)
its same like all the other repetitive things u make in ur life, there is no logical reason its just a part of emotional act of human-beings.
In my opinion your take on improving Sandbox games is still restricted by the old thinking. PvP dominance of Sandboxes needs to be replaced with PvE. PvP should still be relevant but controlled. It should be meaningful and in the Open world, but not "wide open". There's several angles that I think could be used to make this happen, with varying degrees of outcome.
"Licensed" PvP, in other words you have to sign up for wars, join the Assassins Guild, etc., to PvP in that particular aspect only.
Justice system that puts the hurt on rampant PKers but allows open world PvP
Racial/Territorial antagonists
Guild wars
a variety of nuanced rules that prevent rampant PKing or help to guide players towards another system
Personally I've been thinking more and more along the lines of a combination of the above. But that depends on the game. For example, a game with Pixies as playable might flag players for cutting down trees or picking flowers in their forest home as "criminal". While including their guildmates or other associates in flagging PvP+. Lots to think about though, that's just a rough idea.
Overall, I think Sandbox games need a heavy wealth of PvE and PvWorld activities and game play. Mystery, exploration, discovery from both. And a highly interactive world where it's just more interesting and also hides access to mysteries as well as rare finds of treasure and resources.
A great Sandbox world also needs the ability to change. A system of adding and removing "rooms" of various types. And AI that adds to MOBs in several ways.
Now don't take all that as going wayyyyy overboard on it. Start small with the concepts, add to them as possible. But make the game and in particular it's world more interesting and changeable.
Flagging systems are messy, often complicated and thus unintuitive, highly exploitable. I don't know what perceived benefits you might have for such systems, but I'm fairly certain its not worth the trouble. A far easier solution, I would think, is to just have areas where you can PvP and where you can't PvP (or have varying degrees of security like in Eve).
As a developer you would have to weigh whether you want to spend your efforts into creating a working flagging system or just do the areas and spend the leftover time on something else.
What's messy about the flags I mentioned?
You want to PvP in a war, you sign up.
If you're in Pixie Land, and if you pick their wild flowers, you flag to Pixies and can be attacked. If they do attack you they flag PvP+ to your guildmates/group, who in turn onlt flag PvP+ if they attack the Pixies.
It could be designed messy, or not. Why assume it WILL BE?
The benefit is that it brings PvP to the world at large and can have meaning to the world. Conquer territory, stop someone from accomplishing a task, etc.
Battle grounds are pretty meaningless except for points in a separate game of leader boards. Yeah, a game can do that, or they can choose to make the game feel more meaningful by doing what I'm suggesting. There's various ways to go, and each one goes to the kind of game as a whole.
In my opinion your take on improving Sandbox games is still restricted by the old thinking. PvP dominance of Sandboxes needs to be replaced with PvE. PvP should still be relevant but controlled. It should be meaningful and in the Open world, but not "wide open". There's several angles that I think could be used to make this happen, with varying degrees of outcome.
"Licensed" PvP, in other words you have to sign up for wars, join the Assassins Guild, etc., to PvP in that particular aspect only.
Justice system that puts the hurt on rampant PKers but allows open world PvP
Racial/Territorial antagonists
Guild wars
a variety of nuanced rules that prevent rampant PKing or help to guide players towards another system
Personally I've been thinking more and more along the lines of a combination of the above. But that depends on the game. For example, a game with Pixies as playable might flag players for cutting down trees or picking flowers in their forest home as "criminal". While including their guildmates or other associates in flagging PvP+. Lots to think about though, that's just a rough idea.
Overall, I think Sandbox games need a heavy wealth of PvE and PvWorld activities and game play. Mystery, exploration, discovery from both. And a highly interactive world where it's just more interesting and also hides access to mysteries as well as rare finds of treasure and resources.
A great Sandbox world also needs the ability to change. A system of adding and removing "rooms" of various types. And AI that adds to MOBs in several ways.
Now don't take all that as going wayyyyy overboard on it. Start small with the concepts, add to them as possible. But make the game and in particular it's world more interesting and changeable.
Flagging systems are messy, often complicated and thus unintuitive, highly exploitable. I don't know what perceived benefits you might have for such systems, but I'm fairly certain its not worth the trouble. A far easier solution, I would think, is to just have areas where you can PvP and where you can't PvP (or have varying degrees of security like in Eve).
As a developer you would have to weigh whether you want to spend your efforts into creating a working flagging system or just do the areas and spend the leftover time on something else.
What's messy about the flags I mentioned?
You want to PvP in a war, you sign up.
If you're in Pixie Land, and if you pick their wild flowers, you flag to Pixies and can be attacked. If they do attack you they flag PvP+ to your guildmates/group, who in turn onlt flag PvP+ if they attack the Pixies.
It could be designed messy, or not. Why assume it WILL BE?
The benefit is that it brings PvP to the world at large and can have meaning to the world. Conquer territory, stop someone from accomplishing a task, etc.
Battle grounds are pretty meaningless except for points in a separate game of leader boards. Yeah, a game can do that, or they can choose to make the game feel more meaningful by doing what I'm suggesting. There's various ways to go, and each one goes to the kind of game as a whole.
What is messy? An example:
Player A, an exclusive PvE player and a healer is in a guild with Player B. They enjoy running the PvE stuff together. Player B chooses to get flagged for PvP, later they both (A &B) group for some PvE play. Suddenly Player A is now flagged for PvP, how do they get unflagged? If it is easy then Player B can avoid the consequences of PvP by unflagging at will, if it is hard then Player A (an exclusive PvE player remember) is vulnerable to PvP. If it is very hard Player A will be really pissed off and may rage quit either the guild or the game.
BTW PvP only has benefit ("make the game more meaningful") if you like PvP. If you think PvP is a sick joke then, at the very most, you are willing for it to exist side by side with the PvE game provided it does not ever cross over.
he is exactly right and that "feeling" you got in your first mmo is never coming back. everything has been done before, even the "living breathing worlds".
sadly this is a case in the entertainment world in general......everything has been done before and until someone comes up with something completely new it isn't going to change.
he is exactly right and that "feeling" you got in your first mmo is never coming back. everything has been done before, even the "living breathing worlds".
sadly this is a case in the entertainment world in general......everything has been done before and until someone comes up with something completely new it isn't going to change.
Well yes and no, if MMO's continue to develop in the way they have then there is little chance you will see the feels again. Also MMO's can be like relationships, just because the first person you fell for felt like the best the same experience does not relate to everyone. I played EQ and Ultima before FFXI and neither of them gripped me like FFXI did. Even then I loved games Phatasy star online on gamecube despite not being a MMO. So it was actually my 3rd MMO that really consumed my time and gave me the best MMO experience yet to be rivaled. And to add to things further, it wasn't "asian" style of characters and the Final fantasy brand that enticed me (prior to 11 I was a hardcore Final fantasy fan and still hold it as some of my most favorite rpg titles as a little brat) because after I thought I found love once It happened again with Warhammer Online.
Despite all the bonds and relationships that FFXI has brought to me over the past 10 years, Warhammer brought me together with two friends that to this day still MMO hop with me with the same hopes that I share to find those feels again. We may have settled in FFXI for the time being, but we always thought we were PvE dragon slaying carebears until we found WAR. The first thing we would do is run into the first RvR lake at level 1 and proceed to not do a single quest to Rank 40, because In WAR you could. A lot of people can say that its hard for a new MMO to compete and retain a playerbase, and WAR was definitely no shining gem at launch dropping from close to 1M subs to under 500K in the first month. Lag, FPS drops, crashing, bugs, classes that took 2-3 years to fix tooltip and animation bugs (Im looking at your "lots of arrers" squig herder!) castle sieges were a farce, CC AoE rift farming players in Battle Grounds, and Bright Wizard/Sorc/General MAJOR imbalances between AoE/Ranged vs Melee.
While others quit, and moved on me and my friends stayed and roughed things out. We saw update after update, class rebalancing, AoE CC changes, Keep changes, Rewards Changes, AoE damage calculation changes, and the list went on. In WAR it was well known that Destro way outnumbered Order so me and my friends played the underdogs. Despite being unable to take keeps, we would sit inside terrain and trees and wait for some stragglers to come by and do small 3v5 or 8v8 skirmishes and because AAO (Against all odds; a system added later that gave you a stacking bonus based on how outnumbered you were) would stack so high we could get the equivalence of two keep caps from killing a small group. The last year of WAR before it closed was the most fun I had in fond memory playing RvR because players stopped queing for Battle Grounds and just RvRed so they could cap realm rank.
The day the game closed was really a sad day, and I still think of the fun I had from time to time. The last year of the game saw so much polish and was so enjoyable, but sadly while Mythic did a WHOLE LOT it was also way too late. The MMO player is a fickle one, and that cost us all that enjoyed it in the end.
In my opinion your take on improving Sandbox games is still restricted by the old thinking. PvP dominance of Sandboxes needs to be replaced with PvE. PvP should still be relevant but controlled. It should be meaningful and in the Open world, but not "wide open". There's several angles that I think could be used to make this happen, with varying degrees of outcome.
"Licensed" PvP, in other words you have to sign up for wars, join the Assassins Guild, etc., to PvP in that particular aspect only.
Justice system that puts the hurt on rampant PKers but allows open world PvP
Racial/Territorial antagonists
Guild wars
a variety of nuanced rules that prevent rampant PKing or help to guide players towards another system
Personally I've been thinking more and more along the lines of a combination of the above. But that depends on the game. For example, a game with Pixies as playable might flag players for cutting down trees or picking flowers in their forest home as "criminal". While including their guildmates or other associates in flagging PvP+. Lots to think about though, that's just a rough idea.
Overall, I think Sandbox games need a heavy wealth of PvE and PvWorld activities and game play. Mystery, exploration, discovery from both. And a highly interactive world where it's just more interesting and also hides access to mysteries as well as rare finds of treasure and resources.
A great Sandbox world also needs the ability to change. A system of adding and removing "rooms" of various types. And AI that adds to MOBs in several ways.
Now don't take all that as going wayyyyy overboard on it. Start small with the concepts, add to them as possible. But make the game and in particular it's world more interesting and changeable.
Flagging systems are messy, often complicated and thus unintuitive, highly exploitable. I don't know what perceived benefits you might have for such systems, but I'm fairly certain its not worth the trouble. A far easier solution, I would think, is to just have areas where you can PvP and where you can't PvP (or have varying degrees of security like in Eve).
As a developer you would have to weigh whether you want to spend your efforts into creating a working flagging system or just do the areas and spend the leftover time on something else.
What's messy about the flags I mentioned?
You want to PvP in a war, you sign up.
If you're in Pixie Land, and if you pick their wild flowers, you flag to Pixies and can be attacked. If they do attack you they flag PvP+ to your guildmates/group, who in turn onlt flag PvP+ if they attack the Pixies.
It could be designed messy, or not. Why assume it WILL BE?
The benefit is that it brings PvP to the world at large and can have meaning to the world. Conquer territory, stop someone from accomplishing a task, etc.
Battle grounds are pretty meaningless except for points in a separate game of leader boards. Yeah, a game can do that, or they can choose to make the game feel more meaningful by doing what I'm suggesting. There's various ways to go, and each one goes to the kind of game as a whole.
What is messy? An example:
Player A, an exclusive PvE player and a healer is in a guild with Player B. They enjoy running the PvE stuff together. Player B chooses to get flagged for PvP, later they both (A &B) group for some PvE play. Suddenly Player A is now flagged for PvP, how do they get unflagged? If it is easy then Player B can avoid the consequences of PvP by unflagging at will, if it is hard then Player A (an exclusive PvE player remember) is vulnerable to PvP. If it is very hard Player A will be really pissed off and may rage quit either the guild or the game.
BTW PvP only has benefit ("make the game more meaningful") if you like PvP. If you think PvP is a sick joke then, at the very most, you are willing for it to exist side by side with the PvE game provided it does not ever cross over.
The flags wouldn't last that long. But Player A doesn't enter PvP unless he attacks a Pixie who attacked Player B, which he can only do if he's a guildmate or in a group with Player B.
My example is a two step process. One player "breaks a law" then he turns on his PvP flag, but everyone in his guild, and the defenders of the realm (the Pixies in this case) all enter a mode where they can enter PvP. But they aren't in it yet. They are merely candidates. In my example, to start it off, one or more Pixies would have to attack Player B for breaking their law. Then Player B can only fight back against those Pixies that attacked him because they are the only ones who turned on their flag by attacking. Now Player A can also attack one of those Pixies who attacked Player B, flagging him PvP only against those Pixies in PvP. The other Pixies can now attack Player A as well as Player B (the original lawbreaker).
In other words, you turn on your flag by:
breaking a clearly defined law
defending that law by attacking the lawbreaker
defending a guildmate or group member against PvP attack
But until you turn on your PvP status by one of those actions you are not flagged into PvP. And you can't even turn on your PvP flag willy-nilly, only under the situations above.
And the flags only last for something like 5 minutes after the last thing, breaking the law or being in PvP combat. It's a situational thing.
Understand too that I just through this idea out there in raw form per this scenario only. I haven't thought about using the same thing for situations like warefare, Thieves stealing or assassinations. It's just an example of what can be explored to make an MMO "something different". I suspect if I did I'd see a need for a much longer lasting flag (maybe even permanent?) for the original "law breaker".
Been saying WoW is responsible for years now and for the same reasons. Guess others are finally starting to see the light. Blizzard didn't do it intentionally of course, all the other greedy companies did by cloning a clone looking for fast cash.
I'm trying to think of the ways a new game can capture that feeling. What do you do to get players to feel "invested" and want to keep coming back?
Catch them when mmos are still new to them.
That only happens once.
Happened twice with me. lol.
First EQ2, then WoW.
Yeah, don't understand this "once and you're done" mentality.
I can remember playing 1st Lineage 1, then DAOC, then Shadowbane, Lineage 2, and WOW all pretty much with a sense of awe, because each was such a very different experience from the previous.
Wasn't until the steady flow of WOW clones came along that boredom set in and then I found EVE which was by far the best experience of them all, and why I'm still playing it to this day, over 7 years later.
If modern games aren't generating the same feeling as before, don't assume it's a problem with jaded players, maybe, just maybe, it's because these games are just too darn similar in design.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Comments
He has a point. There's a lot of people who want innovation but reject innovation when it is brought before them. Or they have impossible demands because they don't have the slightest idea what the industry (and the technology) is capable of.
These people are on a spiral of frustration and bitterness and they make these forums worse for everyone little by little. And every attempt to explain how things work or why things are the way they are is met with vicious hostility.
It's like they don't want to understand. They want to be miserable and they want to spread it. It's like a disease.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Catch them when mmos are still new to them.
That only happens once.
An endless amount of indie games exists. People who want different games should play the different games which exist.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
See now that's what I'm talking about. That's actual evidence of a game finally creating something equal to (and possibly better than) WOW's combat depth.
Thanks for the write-up!
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Well yes it is all obvious stuff to me,definitely not to many as i still see many think every same game with a new face is great,until they realize a month or two later,it was the same old.
References to Wow are nothing more than tainted glasses,EQ2 came out a couple weeks prior and was doing the same thing,where do you think Wow got it's ideas from?The producers were EQ fans,likely following everything SOE was doing including testing of EQ2.
Since most MMORPG gamer's had never seen one before Wow they didn't even realize how much it was a copy of free to play Asian games,same low end graphics,same markers floating everywhere,same questing design.It is real funny too because EVERYONE was insulting those Asian games as crap,yet they play the same thing ion Wow and all of a sudden they change their story into "this is great".
There is only so much you can do to change up a mmorgp without changing the entire genre,which si what a lot of devs ar trying to do.You can dicker with class design "multi class or Altaholic ",world design"instance or not",yo uchange how XP is gained "questing or killing",you can change many otehr subtle areas,but for the msot part it will always be the ame sort of game.
Where devs CAN do a LOT more is add depth to the entire design,that brings out a more realistic world.The other MOST important aspect is to allow players freedom to move around the world as you would expect in a RPG.If it is not your role to play then it is NOT a role playing game.Hence why games on rails are imo NOT RPG's,more like puzzle games only worse because even with a puzzle you can fill in pieces as you choose.In these clone games they are LINEAR puzzles,you have to fill in pieces as the developer chooses,so not rpg and more like a single player game.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
No he doesn't. Get off your high horse and stop acting like people who want something different than Themepark don't have a brain.
You, Axehilt, and a few others have defended your ideal game (same ol' same ol') to the point of taking anything said as all lumped together into one huge unreasonable demand. We can't talked about all the things we'd like to see without you guys lumping it all together as one demand and claiming the "impossibility" of it all. You guys take thing out of context and build your case against all reason.
Then you tell us that those low budget crappy games are what we want and we should play them. Or you point out innovations in games that still adhere to things we don't want like Themepark, Cash Shops, and lobbies.
And when we point out your fallacies you ignore us and keep going on, over and over and over again. To the point that most of us just give up.
Which is what I'm going to do at this point unless you guys start a reasonable discussion without your hellbent slant.
Once upon a time....
You are wrong to think that if by somehow everyone started roleplaying in these games we would go "back to the roots" so to speak. Video game RPGs have always been story-driven games with heavy emphasis on stats and progression. You want to roleplay, you do it in a pen & paper RPG although I must warn you that even there you are at the mercy of the gamemaster.
The irony here is that questing and raiding are more in line with traditional RPGs than farming, resource gathering or crafting for example.
So yeah, keep telling us how these games are not RPGs.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
No, I don't act like people with different preferences don't have a brain. I act like people who don't have a brain, don't have a brain! At the end of the day, I don't care what you want or what you like. I only care if what you write is accurate or not, objective when it is in fact subjective or if you are using faulty logic.
The usual pattern is: You wish a game had X. Then proceed to bash games that don't fulfill your wishes calling developers either stupid, greedy, lazy or any combination of the above for not seeing the seemingly obvious. I don't think anyone has a problem with the first part as long as the demand is within reason. What I usually pick out, and I can't speak for others, is the ones who think making games is easy, the solutions simple and bash the devs day in day out for not doing things the way they want. Things are almost never as simple as some people see them, and they need to be told why.
I have too much respect for the professionals who make these games to let that go unchecked.
If your feature X is unpopular, you are unlikely to find it from an AAA title. It is also unlikely that people woke up tomorrow and changed their gaming preferences entirely overnight.
The only objective measure of quality we have is sales numbers and popularity. Pretty much anything beyond that is entirely subjective. You may not like themeparks, cash shops or lobbies but the larger audience does. I don't need to like any of those things to defend their good qualities because I can look at things objectively. Can you?
I can play a Pirates of the Burning Sea for a month and a half and say "boy, this game is by no means good, but I sure am a sucker for games set in the Age of Sail milieu". Unlike you, I don't need to defend the games I like or bash the games I don't like. I am not emotionally invested.
I haven't played an MMO properly in 2 years yet you don't see me touting doom & gloom and acting out, do you? And I don't even see a game on the horizon that I might like!
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
First of all, players are completely at the mercy of the products. We have a choice of those problematic game with Cash Shops, lobbies, and Themepark design or basically bland games made with barely enough money to get anything at all out the door.
So what do the numbers mean? Especially when the games with numbers have to give them away to get players in?
So, even you don't like MMOs these days? Then why are you constantly arguing against change? What do you want the next good game to do that would bring you in? Or not do? Get in the spirit of positive feedback if you really have any desire to move the industry forwards.
And you know, when someone makes a suggestion you don't think can work you might try making adjustments to the idea instead of just crapping on it.
Once upon a time....
Happened twice with me. lol.
First EQ2, then WoW.
Did it occur to you that these companies which invest millions of dollars on these projects don't do market research or that some of the developers are gamers themselves?
What are the chances that everyone in the industry has missed the "massive sandbox niche" that's out there like some people on this forum suggest? Why is it that even when quest/scripted content is so expensive and so time consuming to produce developers still prefer it over sandbox content? -Because people want it.
I really can't say what sort of game I would like to play out of hand. I've already proposed if a more managerial gameplay would be better for resource gathering and crafting activities since "X Tycoon", "Theme Y" and "Z manager" style games are quite popular outside MMOs.
I wonder why OWPvP games don't try to avoid the holy trinity style combat like the plague because it doesn't work at all in PvP and thus creates a disparity between PvP and PvE builds. Wolves and sheep basically.
I am coining whether a round/season system for sandbox games would make them more competitive and "gamier" and possibly more attractive to more players. They seem to work well enough on games like Path of Exile, Diablo, Civilization, Colonization, Total War and the like. I also think the research aspect borrowed from some strategy games would fit quite nicely into sandbox MMOs. But it only works if the game resets every now and again, you see.
What measures should be taken to preserve the relevance of certain abilities and roles when the scale of the combat moves from duel to small scale to large scale. Case in point: In Eve Online, Logistics have a huge impact on the outcome of the battle up until the size of the fleets involved doesn't rise above a critical mass where they can kill everything in the field instantly. In those large numbers logistics is pretty much useless; although since the battle is going to be a slugfest at that point, the numbers are going to come down fast and the matter sort of fixes itself. That leaves the question: Is this fun? For some - maybe. But for the majority? -I don't think so.
All the while I don't care about half of these things. OWPvP in particular is always going to be a small niche no matter what you try to do to make it better, I prefer small scale tactical combat and, so far, I haven't found a sandbox MMO that I liked.
You want to start a thread on any of these, or threads in similar spirit, I'd be happy to weigh in and have a discussion. Would be a change to all this doom & gloom, reminiscing of the old days and nonsensical arguments over definitions...
I'm not going to spend 20 minutes forming a polite post explaining why some idea is bad when the author didn't spend even 2 minutes thinking his/her idea through. In such cases, I reserve my right to take a shit on them.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
In my opinion your take on improving Sandbox games is still restricted by the old thinking. PvP dominance of Sandboxes needs to be replaced with PvE. PvP should still be relevant but controlled. It should be meaningful and in the Open world, but not "wide open". There's several angles that I think could be used to make this happen, with varying degrees of outcome.
Once upon a time....
Flagging systems are messy, often complicated and thus unintuitive, highly exploitable. I don't know what perceived benefits you might have for such systems, but I'm fairly certain its not worth the trouble. A far easier solution, I would think, is to just have areas where you can PvP and where you can't PvP (or have varying degrees of security like in Eve).
As a developer you would have to weigh whether you want to spend your efforts into creating a working flagging system or just do the areas and spend the leftover time on something else.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
in the past we all had only UO and EQ1 and every one was stuck there so this was "new" thing and its was a magical thing - like ur first vacation. ( i sure u all remember)
its same like all the other repetitive things u make in ur life, there is no logical reason its just a part of emotional act of human-beings.
its my point of view anyway
What's messy about the flags I mentioned?
Once upon a time....
What is messy? An example:
Player A, an exclusive PvE player and a healer is in a guild with Player B. They enjoy running the PvE stuff together. Player B chooses to get flagged for PvP, later they both (A &B) group for some PvE play. Suddenly Player A is now flagged for PvP, how do they get unflagged? If it is easy then Player B can avoid the consequences of PvP by unflagging at will, if it is hard then Player A (an exclusive PvE player remember) is vulnerable to PvP. If it is very hard Player A will be really pissed off and may rage quit either the guild or the game.
BTW PvP only has benefit ("make the game more meaningful") if you like PvP. If you think PvP is a sick joke then, at the very most, you are willing for it to exist side by side with the PvE game provided it does not ever cross over.
he is exactly right and that "feeling" you got in your first mmo is never coming back. everything has been done before, even the "living breathing worlds".
sadly this is a case in the entertainment world in general......everything has been done before and until someone comes up with something completely new it isn't going to change.
Well yes and no, if MMO's continue to develop in the way they have then there is little chance you will see the feels again. Also MMO's can be like relationships, just because the first person you fell for felt like the best the same experience does not relate to everyone. I played EQ and Ultima before FFXI and neither of them gripped me like FFXI did. Even then I loved games Phatasy star online on gamecube despite not being a MMO. So it was actually my 3rd MMO that really consumed my time and gave me the best MMO experience yet to be rivaled. And to add to things further, it wasn't "asian" style of characters and the Final fantasy brand that enticed me (prior to 11 I was a hardcore Final fantasy fan and still hold it as some of my most favorite rpg titles as a little brat) because after I thought I found love once It happened again with Warhammer Online.
Despite all the bonds and relationships that FFXI has brought to me over the past 10 years, Warhammer brought me together with two friends that to this day still MMO hop with me with the same hopes that I share to find those feels again. We may have settled in FFXI for the time being, but we always thought we were PvE dragon slaying carebears until we found WAR. The first thing we would do is run into the first RvR lake at level 1 and proceed to not do a single quest to Rank 40, because In WAR you could. A lot of people can say that its hard for a new MMO to compete and retain a playerbase, and WAR was definitely no shining gem at launch dropping from close to 1M subs to under 500K in the first month. Lag, FPS drops, crashing, bugs, classes that took 2-3 years to fix tooltip and animation bugs (Im looking at your "lots of arrers" squig herder!) castle sieges were a farce, CC AoE rift farming players in Battle Grounds, and Bright Wizard/Sorc/General MAJOR imbalances between AoE/Ranged vs Melee.
While others quit, and moved on me and my friends stayed and roughed things out. We saw update after update, class rebalancing, AoE CC changes, Keep changes, Rewards Changes, AoE damage calculation changes, and the list went on. In WAR it was well known that Destro way outnumbered Order so me and my friends played the underdogs. Despite being unable to take keeps, we would sit inside terrain and trees and wait for some stragglers to come by and do small 3v5 or 8v8 skirmishes and because AAO (Against all odds; a system added later that gave you a stacking bonus based on how outnumbered you were) would stack so high we could get the equivalence of two keep caps from killing a small group. The last year of WAR before it closed was the most fun I had in fond memory playing RvR because players stopped queing for Battle Grounds and just RvRed so they could cap realm rank.
The day the game closed was really a sad day, and I still think of the fun I had from time to time. The last year of the game saw so much polish and was so enjoyable, but sadly while Mythic did a WHOLE LOT it was also way too late. The MMO player is a fickle one, and that cost us all that enjoyed it in the end.
i have said it before and ill say it again WOW is the best and the worst thing that has pappened to mmo games.
i am so glad i discovered the souls games and bloodborne is totally different than dark souls 2 or 1.
i will try skyforge but i think it will be the same old story.
fable legends have new interesting gaming innovations,go and check it out.
The flags wouldn't last that long. But Player A doesn't enter PvP unless he attacks a Pixie who attacked Player B, which he can only do if he's a guildmate or in a group with Player B.
My example is a two step process. One player "breaks a law" then he turns on his PvP flag, but everyone in his guild, and the defenders of the realm (the Pixies in this case) all enter a mode where they can enter PvP. But they aren't in it yet. They are merely candidates. In my example, to start it off, one or more Pixies would have to attack Player B for breaking their law. Then Player B can only fight back against those Pixies that attacked him because they are the only ones who turned on their flag by attacking. Now Player A can also attack one of those Pixies who attacked Player B, flagging him PvP only against those Pixies in PvP. The other Pixies can now attack Player A as well as Player B (the original lawbreaker).
Once upon a time....
Been saying WoW is responsible for years now and for the same reasons. Guess others are finally starting to see the light. Blizzard didn't do it intentionally of course, all the other greedy companies did by cloning a clone looking for fast cash.
www.90and9.net
www.prophecymma.com
Yeah, don't understand this "once and you're done" mentality.
I can remember playing 1st Lineage 1, then DAOC, then Shadowbane, Lineage 2, and WOW all pretty much with a sense of awe, because each was such a very different experience from the previous.
Wasn't until the steady flow of WOW clones came along that boredom set in and then I found EVE which was by far the best experience of them all, and why I'm still playing it to this day, over 7 years later.
If modern games aren't generating the same feeling as before, don't assume it's a problem with jaded players, maybe, just maybe, it's because these games are just too darn similar in design.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon