When a large number of consumers of a product have a problem not met by any current models of those products on the market you refer to their collective problem as an opportunity or a market need.
Raids are over-rated IMO but here is my thought. Yes very few sandboxes have good small group content and raids. But is there any reason that they can't?
I think the answer to that is a pretty clear no. The word "instance" is often seen as a dirty word in the sandbox community but I don't think there is any reason it has to be.
Caves are like the closest thing to an instance as far as I've seen. But I kind of agree with you as long as its not the main focus of the mmo than yea, some instances are fine with me. 90 percent open world, 10 percent instanced, not a huge deal breaker.
Trinity isn't seen as a good thing in sandbox communities either.
I kind of agree with the trinity thing to some extent. I at least really hate the traditional tank roll of "I pull aggro and everything attacks me. So all I focus on is being able to take hits."
I think tanking needs to be taken in a new direction from pulling aggro to using abilities that help protect allies and hinder enemies but not taking all the incoming damage, and doing that will change the way people min-max their healer and DPS.
i like action combat where there is no pure tanker.
meaning tanker are less effective as tank, meaning he cant tank too long, he needs to pull back early and heal up. winning and losing depends on player dodging timing
But sometimes it is. The D&D system was not invented for a massively multiplayer format. It was designed for groups who all do the same content together and thus level at roughly the same pace. In fact most DMs I know have everyone level together.
So things like not being able to do the same content together or drastic power disparity ruining PvP just isn't an issue.
It is in an MMO.
Here in the real world (a) there are always players at your progression level in an MMO and (b) a very significant portion of players' time is spent solo.
To justify reinventing the wheel, there would need to be some dire shortcoming caused by the current wheel. Due to (a) and (b), there isn't.
I mean you can patch up the one narrow niche case by adding City of Heroes style Sidekicking (allowing low level players to group with high level friends) but that's not reinventing the wheel (instead it's fixing the one edge case).
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Raids are over-rated IMO but here is my thought. Yes very few sandboxes have good small group content and raids. But is there any reason that they can't?
I think the answer to that is a pretty clear no. The word "instance" is often seen as a dirty word in the sandbox community but I don't think there is any reason it has to be.
Caves are like the closest thing to an instance as far as I've seen. But I kind of agree with you as long as its not the main focus of the mmo than yea, some instances are fine with me. 90 percent open world, 10 percent instanced, not a huge deal breaker.
Trinity isn't seen as a good thing in sandbox communities either.
I kind of agree with the trinity thing to some extent. I at least really hate the traditional tank roll of "I pull aggro and everything attacks me. So all I focus on is being able to take hits."
I think tanking needs to be taken in a new direction from pulling aggro to using abilities that help protect allies and hinder enemies but not taking all the incoming damage, and doing that will change the way people min-max their healer and DPS.
i like action combat where there is no pure tanker.
meaning tanker are less effective as tank, meaning he cant tank too long, he needs to pull back early and heal up. winning and losing depends on player dodging timing
I agree, Nerovergil. One of the most boring aspects in MMO's is the "do one thing" concept. It's beyond being best at one thing, and it limits what players can do to the point of boredom.
One of the things I loved about UO (Ultima Online) was the very wide variety of choices and options because of the game concept. This included dropping items on the ground and handing things off to others, as well as supply and carry weight limitations. Players often ran out of something like arrows or potions and called out that they were, so another player could hand off stuff to them to resupply them. Or sometimes because of the need to keep on the run, players would drop a bag of potions or magical reagents on the ground so another could run by and pick them up. Everybody could heal if they chose to by their skill sets. There was a difference though, magical heals/potions being instant but of different strengths, and healing bandages taking a few seconds to take effect thus creating a timing situation and requirement of maintaining nearness. Explosion potions mimicked magical fireballs, magical scrolls allowed for reduced magical spell casting by anyone, etc. Agro didn't fixate like today's designed encounters, and players could use that to draw off agro away from someone in trouble. And there was randomness in everything, meaning you had less predictability in it all. Even in the loot. And MOBs would loot fallen players (*gasp!*), making them sometimes more loot friendly to the victor while making defeat more desirable to avoid. While modern day "raids" are better designed in a fixed way, the UO style was far and away better in the ways of options and wild "think on your feet" way, when you had MOB combat that was challenging anyways.
I wish someone would take the UO concept and develop it even more. And even UO had too much "level" separation through the skill system so I wish that aspect would be reduced somewhat. THAT would be a great game, wilder, more unpredictable, where players who think fast are considered "better", and anything can happen good or bad.
Totally agree with the OP and it is why I'm a big fan of horizontal progression.
However, bear in mind that it's not everyone's cup of tea. Most people love vertical progression, it gives them a clear sense of progression and as the majority of people play solo and never pvp, the inherent problems of vertical progression just don't affect them.
The only problem that vertical progression causes that affects everyone is "completion", and thus retention. In a vertical progression game, eventually you reach the end - either max level, max traits, max gear rank or whatever. There is a definitive end to the progression and once reached, most people move on hence massive churn rate of players.
Horizontal progression would go a long way to solving that problem. There would be no golden build / gear / level to reach, everything would be viable, so the focus would lie squarely on the content. Horizontal progression is what you want in a game built for longevity and retention, as no content would ever become obsolete, all players could play together etc. Developers haven't been trying to create those sorts of games for a long time, but the change is coming. There is a massive wave of indie devs building MMOs built around longevity, community and thus retention (both pve and pvp mmos), and many of these are going to be using horizontal progression or at least very minimal vertical progression.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
But sometimes it is. The D&D system was not invented for a massively multiplayer format. It was designed for groups who all do the same content together and thus level at roughly the same pace. In fact most DMs I know have everyone level together.
So things like not being able to do the same content together or drastic power disparity ruining PvP just isn't an issue.
It is in an MMO.
Here in the real world (a) there are always players at your progression level in an MMO and (b) a very significant portion of players' time is spent solo.
To justify reinventing the wheel, there would need to be some dire shortcoming caused by the current wheel. Due to (a) and (b), there isn't.
I mean you can patch up the one narrow niche case by adding City of Heroes style Sidekicking (allowing low level players to group with high level friends) but that's not reinventing the wheel (instead it's fixing the one edge case).
Ah yes, because high churn rate of current titles isn't a shortcoming.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
When a large number of consumers of a product have a problem not met by any current models of those products on the market you refer to their collective problem as an opportunity or a market need.
Sure, the thing is, "the large number" is seen only by those who have a problem....
When a large number of consumers of a product have a problem not met by any current models of those products on the market you refer to their collective problem as an opportunity or a market need.
Sure, the thing is, "the large number" is seen only by those who have a problem....
It would be innovative if the gear, levels, and progression revelance would be removed which may even result in the genre being revitalized. With the longevity of the mmo relying on the community and the players keeping it enjoyable. I think this can be a good thing. The way I look at it even though some of the stuff I just don't agree with, the farther away we move away from WoW, the better. I find it boring to see WoW in every single MMO so I will accept any change at this point. I wouldn't mind seeing something different, all I've seen so far are, WoWs(oh its common alright...), SWGs(even though its really uncommon), Sandboxes(it doesn't exist), Sandparks(*looks at archeage*), Action-MMOs(*looks at final fantasy*).
All those parenthesis jokes aside...partial jokes at least...anyways.....
Something different may put more life in this genre
The acronym MMORPG use to mean Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game.
But the acronym MMMORPG now currently means Microscopic Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Kappa.
But sometimes it is. The D&D system was not invented for a massively multiplayer format. It was designed for groups who all do the same content together and thus level at roughly the same pace. In fact most DMs I know have everyone level together.
So things like not being able to do the same content together or drastic power disparity ruining PvP just isn't an issue.
It is in an MMO.
Because a level 1 fighter should beat a level 10 fighter in pvp? No, unless you have an Arduin Grimoire style crit system, the level 10 should win. Higher level means more powerful. lol
You wanting a different system doesn't mean dnd is flawed.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
Totally agree with the OP and it is why I'm a big fan of horizontal progression.
However, bear in mind that it's not everyone's cup of tea. Most people love vertical progression, it gives them a clear sense of progression and as the majority of people play solo and never pvp, the inherent problems of vertical progression just don't affect them.
The only problem that vertical progression causes that affects everyone is "completion", and thus retention. In a vertical progression game, eventually you reach the end - either max level, max traits, max gear rank or whatever. There is a definitive end to the progression and once reached, most people move on hence massive churn rate of players.
Horizontal progression would go a long way to solving that problem. There would be no golden build / gear / level to reach, everything would be viable, so the focus would lie squarely on the content. Horizontal progression is what you want in a game built for longevity and retention, as no content would ever become obsolete, all players could play together etc. Developers haven't been trying to create those sorts of games for a long time, but the change is coming. There is a massive wave of indie devs building MMOs built around longevity, community and thus retention (both pve and pvp mmos), and many of these are going to be using horizontal progression or at least very minimal vertical progression.
Horizontal progression is a misnomer. Horizontal progression is non-progression. Thinking it is really progression is a lie.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
But sometimes it is. The D&D system was not invented for a massively multiplayer format. It was designed for groups who all do the same content together and thus level at roughly the same pace. In fact most DMs I know have everyone level together.
So things like not being able to do the same content together or drastic power disparity ruining PvP just isn't an issue.
It is in an MMO.
Because a level 1 fighter should beat a level 10 fighter in pvp? No, unless you have an Arduin Grimoire style crit system, the level 10 should win. Higher level means more powerful. lol
You wanting a different system doesn't mean dnd is flawed.
Problem is a level 10 wizard with no melee training beats a melee fighter of lower level.
But at this point there is a dogmatic worship of progression even though it causes most of what people hate about MMORPG.
But sometimes it is. The D&D system was not invented for a massively multiplayer format. It was designed for groups who all do the same content together and thus level at roughly the same pace. In fact most DMs I know have everyone level together.
So things like not being able to do the same content together or drastic power disparity ruining PvP just isn't an issue.
It is in an MMO.
Because a level 1 fighter should beat a level 10 fighter in pvp? No, unless you have an Arduin Grimoire style crit system, the level 10 should win. Higher level means more powerful. lol
You wanting a different system doesn't mean dnd is flawed.
The point is that they shouldn't even have levels to begin with. Levels do not translate well anywhere outside single player RPGs and cooperative RPGs where you all level up as a group. Having instances where two players can meet up and every single attack from one to the other says *miss* *miss* *dodged* *blocked* *parried* *deflected* *1 damage* *miss* while a single attack from the other player means instant death is ridiculous. How is that fun for either side?
If there are levels then the power gap needs to be far drastically less pronounced. But there is no good reason it can't be removed altogether.
I realize that WoW is a drastically popular form of entertainment, and I realize that more people know who Honey-Boo-Boo is than Socrates or Thomas Jefferson but really... there is a demand for actual quality entertainment even if the demand for "Kill 10 Goblins" is greater.
Totally agree with the OP and it is why I'm a big fan of horizontal progression.
However, bear in mind that it's not everyone's cup of tea. Most people love vertical progression, it gives them a clear sense of progression and as the majority of people play solo and never pvp, the inherent problems of vertical progression just don't affect them.
The only problem that vertical progression causes that affects everyone is "completion", and thus retention. In a vertical progression game, eventually you reach the end - either max level, max traits, max gear rank or whatever. There is a definitive end to the progression and once reached, most people move on hence massive churn rate of players.
Horizontal progression would go a long way to solving that problem. There would be no golden build / gear / level to reach, everything would be viable, so the focus would lie squarely on the content. Horizontal progression is what you want in a game built for longevity and retention, as no content would ever become obsolete, all players could play together etc. Developers haven't been trying to create those sorts of games for a long time, but the change is coming. There is a massive wave of indie devs building MMOs built around longevity, community and thus retention (both pve and pvp mmos), and many of these are going to be using horizontal progression or at least very minimal vertical progression.
Horizontal progression is a misnomer. Horizontal progression is non-progression. Thinking it is really progression is a lie.
That is greatly misinformed. Progression is not simply about giving players "better" things, it's about giving the player's something "new". In another way you could simply state is as progression is earning something "more".
In the context of horizontal progression this is where stat re-balances, new abilities, items, etc all come into play and give the player "more" variety, but not necessarily "better". They still have access to "new" content to utilize, more customization and strategies they can employ, and possibly even perks on the prestige side of things to show off.
Much like, for example, the levels in most competitive shooter games that now exists. Or leveling in many MOBA titles. The curve in those creates minor if any vertical progression, but does things like unlocking new weapons, gear, and stat modifiers that takes the player away from the norm offered by the standard setup into specialized iterations for deeper play options and strategy.
IE, it has given the player "more", but at no point does it consequently have to make what the player's earn "better" in global value than the standard the rest of the game operates on.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
But sometimes it is. The D&D system was not invented for a massively multiplayer format. It was designed for groups who all do the same content together and thus level at roughly the same pace. In fact most DMs I know have everyone level together.
So things like not being able to do the same content together or drastic power disparity ruining PvP just isn't an issue.
It is in an MMO.
Because a level 1 fighter should beat a level 10 fighter in pvp? No, unless you have an Arduin Grimoire style crit system, the level 10 should win. Higher level means more powerful. lol
You wanting a different system doesn't mean dnd is flawed.
The point is that they shouldn't even have levels to begin with. Levels do not translate well anywhere outside single player RPGs and cooperative RPGs where you all level up as a group. Having instances where two players can meet up and every single attack from one to the other says *miss* *miss* *dodged* *blocked* *parried* *deflected* *1 damage* *miss* while a single attack from the other player means instant death is ridiculous. How is that fun for either side?
If there are levels then the power gap needs to be far drastically less pronounced. But there is no good reason it can't be removed altogether.
I realize that WoW is a drastically popular form of entertainment, and I realize that more people know who Honey-Boo-Boo is than Socrates or Thomas Jefferson but really... there is a demand for actual quality entertainment even if the demand for "Kill 10 Goblins" is greater.
I agree bro.
So this is my idea.
I suggest a free to play MMORPG. (Like dota 2, even dota 2 is not a mmo, but its very popular)
All players start at max stats, skill or level 100.
In a open world huge world like black desert online. player fight huge 200 v 200 pvp
Player can start a guild and capture resources all around the world, loot monsters and sell it for money
what money for? for crafting....crafting items like armor, weapon, food will give temporary small buff....just a small buff very small....just a motivation for player to do crafting.
ok crafting, you can have all crafting profession and all crafting profession has the highest tier called, legendary
example legendary weapon will give player +10% attack damage for 10 days. Means, after 10 days, player need to grind the legendary again and start making it from scratch (10 months grinds). This same for other legendary like armor, food, enchanted.
cash shop will only sells cosmetic items. no pay to win.
for grinder player, create an area full with easy mobs, so pve players can grind all they want. and create achievement systems like kill 1 millions mobs, kill 1 billion mobs and u unlock this title..
for pve players who like challenge, create an area of mobs where its hard for solo players, but easy if played 2-3...
and create an area that challenging for small group of 5
Totally agree with the OP and it is why I'm a big fan of horizontal progression.
However, bear in mind that it's not everyone's cup of tea. Most people love vertical progression, it gives them a clear sense of progression and as the majority of people play solo and never pvp, the inherent problems of vertical progression just don't affect them.
The only problem that vertical progression causes that affects everyone is "completion", and thus retention. In a vertical progression game, eventually you reach the end - either max level, max traits, max gear rank or whatever. There is a definitive end to the progression and once reached, most people move on hence massive churn rate of players.
Horizontal progression would go a long way to solving that problem. There would be no golden build / gear / level to reach, everything would be viable, so the focus would lie squarely on the content. Horizontal progression is what you want in a game built for longevity and retention, as no content would ever become obsolete, all players could play together etc. Developers haven't been trying to create those sorts of games for a long time, but the change is coming. There is a massive wave of indie devs building MMOs built around longevity, community and thus retention (both pve and pvp mmos), and many of these are going to be using horizontal progression or at least very minimal vertical progression.
Horizontal progression is a misnomer. Horizontal progression is non-progression. Thinking it is really progression is a lie.
We've had this arguement before and you're wrong in a big way, you're just limited by your own thinking.
I can provide you with a wealth of examples from actual games that have horizontal progression, or a wealth of examples from a theory point of view, but as I've done this for you a couple of times already I doubt you'll change your point of view.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
This topic makes me happy, and I find myself agreeing with the whole thing.
I've always been bothered by large "power gaps" between levels, and stats being the single most important factor in competing with game content. It throws any notion of player skill out the window and ultimately makes a game uninteresting for me, regardless of how interesting it's other mechanics might be.
Reading some of your replies OP, I'm getting the impression you've already delved into developing the concept for some kind of sandbox MMO. If so, I would LOVE to hear more of your ideas. Dabbling in theoretical game design is something I enjoy myself.
It wouldn't just be a game changer to themeparks, it would also be a game changer to sandboxes. Sandbox still has some kind of progression but its different than a themepark. Think of runescape's list of skills if you will but a much more advanced and larger scale.
In Sandbox, you create a character and name it, after that you go through a tutorial area that gives you options to pick different skills that you can level, you can level them all up but its up to you how you want to mix and match your abilities. And the gear progression is via crafters.
Its not the same leveling but leveling is leveling so therefore it would be a game changer to all kinds of MMOs.
The acronym MMORPG use to mean Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game.
But the acronym MMMORPG now currently means Microscopic Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Kappa.
This topic makes me happy, and I find myself agreeing with the whole thing.
I've always been bothered by large "power gaps" between levels, and stats being the single most important factor in competing with game content. It throws any notion of player skill out the window and ultimately makes a game uninteresting for me, regardless of how interesting it's other mechanics might be.
Reading some of your replies OP, I'm getting the impression you've already delved into developing the concept for some kind of sandbox MMO. If so, I would LOVE to hear more of your ideas. Dabbling in theoretical game design is something I enjoy myself.
Getting a good feel for my ideas would best be organized by an entire forums section with multiple topics for discussion. There are simply too many interwoven ideas for it all to be discussed as a single thread. Given you are the 2nd person to ask I'll consider setting something up on my guild forums.
This topic makes me happy, and I find myself agreeing with the whole thing.
I've always been bothered by large "power gaps" between levels, and stats being the single most important factor in competing with game content. It throws any notion of player skill out the window and ultimately makes a game uninteresting for me, regardless of how interesting it's other mechanics might be.
Reading some of your replies OP, I'm getting the impression you've already delved into developing the concept for some kind of sandbox MMO. If so, I would LOVE to hear more of your ideas. Dabbling in theoretical game design is something I enjoy myself.
Getting a good feel for my ideas would best be organized by an entire forums section with multiple topics for discussion. There are simply too many interwoven ideas for it all to be discussed as a single thread. Given you are the 2nd person to ask I'll consider setting something up on my guild forums.
IMHO, no power progression at all would be the true revolution.
explore a open persistent world, massively online, no increase in skills, stats, gear...a freshly started char has no handicap if playing with/ vs veterans, except for player skill both in pve and pvp.
why login and play if no growth? unlock more skills to fulfill new roles. new skins. titles. weapons. areas. gold to customize your home or guild or anything else. just not make a char increase power by ×10 ×100
IMHO, no power progression at all would be the true revolution.
explore a open persistent world, massively online, no increase in skills, stats, gear...a freshly started char has no handicap if playing with/ vs veterans, except for player skill both in pve and pvp.
why login and play if no growth? unlock more skills to fulfill new roles. new skins. titles. weapons. areas. gold to customize your home or guild or anything else. just not make a char increase power by ×10 ×100
IMHO, no power progression at all would be the true revolution.
explore a open persistent world, massively online, no increase in skills, stats, gear...a freshly started char has no handicap if playing with/ vs veterans, except for player skill both in pve and pvp.
why login and play if no growth? unlock more skills to fulfill new roles. new skins. titles. weapons. areas. gold to customize your home or guild or anything else. just not make a char increase power by ×10 ×100
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
Comments
Their problem
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
meaning tanker are less effective as tank, meaning he cant tank too long, he needs to pull back early and heal up. winning and losing depends on player dodging timing
Looking forward to: Crowfall / Lost Ark / Black Desert Mobile
To justify reinventing the wheel, there would need to be some dire shortcoming caused by the current wheel. Due to (a) and (b), there isn't.
I mean you can patch up the one narrow niche case by adding City of Heroes style Sidekicking (allowing low level players to group with high level friends) but that's not reinventing the wheel (instead it's fixing the one edge case).
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
One of the things I loved about UO (Ultima Online) was the very wide variety of choices and options because of the game concept. This included dropping items on the ground and handing things off to others, as well as supply and carry weight limitations.
Players often ran out of something like arrows or potions and called out that they were, so another player could hand off stuff to them to resupply them. Or sometimes because of the need to keep on the run, players would drop a bag of potions or magical reagents on the ground so another could run by and pick them up.
Everybody could heal if they chose to by their skill sets. There was a difference though, magical heals/potions being instant but of different strengths, and healing bandages taking a few seconds to take effect thus creating a timing situation and requirement of maintaining nearness.
Explosion potions mimicked magical fireballs, magical scrolls allowed for reduced magical spell casting by anyone, etc.
Agro didn't fixate like today's designed encounters, and players could use that to draw off agro away from someone in trouble.
And there was randomness in everything, meaning you had less predictability in it all. Even in the loot.
And MOBs would loot fallen players (*gasp!*), making them sometimes more loot friendly to the victor while making defeat more desirable to avoid.
While modern day "raids" are better designed in a fixed way, the UO style was far and away better in the ways of options and wild "think on your feet" way, when you had MOB combat that was challenging anyways.
I wish someone would take the UO concept and develop it even more. And even UO had too much "level" separation through the skill system so I wish that aspect would be reduced somewhat.
THAT would be a great game, wilder, more unpredictable, where players who think fast are considered "better", and anything can happen good or bad.
Once upon a time....
However, bear in mind that it's not everyone's cup of tea. Most people love vertical progression, it gives them a clear sense of progression and as the majority of people play solo and never pvp, the inherent problems of vertical progression just don't affect them.
The only problem that vertical progression causes that affects everyone is "completion", and thus retention. In a vertical progression game, eventually you reach the end - either max level, max traits, max gear rank or whatever. There is a definitive end to the progression and once reached, most people move on hence massive churn rate of players.
Horizontal progression would go a long way to solving that problem. There would be no golden build / gear / level to reach, everything would be viable, so the focus would lie squarely on the content. Horizontal progression is what you want in a game built for longevity and retention, as no content would ever become obsolete, all players could play together etc. Developers haven't been trying to create those sorts of games for a long time, but the change is coming. There is a massive wave of indie devs building MMOs built around longevity, community and thus retention (both pve and pvp mmos), and many of these are going to be using horizontal progression or at least very minimal vertical progression.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Once upon a time....
All those parenthesis jokes aside...partial jokes at least...anyways.....
Something different may put more life in this genre
But the acronym MMMORPG now currently means Microscopic Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Kappa.
Because a level 1 fighter should beat a level 10 fighter in pvp? No, unless you have an Arduin Grimoire style crit system, the level 10 should win. Higher level means more powerful. lol
You wanting a different system doesn't mean dnd is flawed.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
Horizontal progression is a misnomer. Horizontal progression is non-progression. Thinking it is really progression is a lie.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
But at this point there is a dogmatic worship of progression even though it causes most of what people hate about MMORPG.
The point is that they shouldn't even have levels to begin with. Levels do not translate well anywhere outside single player RPGs and cooperative RPGs where you all level up as a group. Having instances where two players can meet up and every single attack from one to the other says *miss* *miss* *dodged* *blocked* *parried* *deflected* *1 damage* *miss* while a single attack from the other player means instant death is ridiculous. How is that fun for either side?
If there are levels then the power gap needs to be far drastically less pronounced. But there is no good reason it can't be removed altogether.
I realize that WoW is a drastically popular form of entertainment, and I realize that more people know who Honey-Boo-Boo is than Socrates or Thomas Jefferson but really... there is a demand for actual quality entertainment even if the demand for "Kill 10 Goblins" is greater.
In the context of horizontal progression this is where stat re-balances, new abilities, items, etc all come into play and give the player "more" variety, but not necessarily "better". They still have access to "new" content to utilize, more customization and strategies they can employ, and possibly even perks on the prestige side of things to show off.
Much like, for example, the levels in most competitive shooter games that now exists. Or leveling in many MOBA titles. The curve in those creates minor if any vertical progression, but does things like unlocking new weapons, gear, and stat modifiers that takes the player away from the norm offered by the standard setup into specialized iterations for deeper play options and strategy.
IE, it has given the player "more", but at no point does it consequently have to make what the player's earn "better" in global value than the standard the rest of the game operates on.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
So this is my idea.
I suggest a free to play MMORPG. (Like dota 2, even dota 2 is not a mmo, but its very popular)
All players start at max stats, skill or level 100.
In a open world huge world like black desert online. player fight huge 200 v 200 pvp
Player can start a guild and capture resources all around the world, loot monsters and sell it for money
what money for? for crafting....crafting items like armor, weapon, food will give temporary small buff....just a small buff very small....just a motivation for player to do crafting.
ok crafting, you can have all crafting profession and all crafting profession has the highest tier called, legendary
example legendary weapon will give player +10% attack damage for 10 days. Means, after 10 days, player need to grind the legendary again and start making it from scratch (10 months grinds). This same for other legendary like armor, food, enchanted.
cash shop will only sells cosmetic items. no pay to win.
for grinder player, create an area full with easy mobs, so pve players can grind all they want. and create achievement systems like kill 1 millions mobs, kill 1 billion mobs and u unlock this title..
for pve players who like challenge, create an area of mobs where its hard for solo players, but easy if played 2-3...
and create an area that challenging for small group of 5
I can provide you with a wealth of examples from actual games that have horizontal progression, or a wealth of examples from a theory point of view, but as I've done this for you a couple of times already I doubt you'll change your point of view.
I've always been bothered by large "power gaps" between levels, and stats being the single most important factor in competing with game content. It throws any notion of player skill out the window and ultimately makes a game uninteresting for me, regardless of how interesting it's other mechanics might be.
Reading some of your replies OP, I'm getting the impression you've already delved into developing the concept for some kind of sandbox MMO. If so, I would LOVE to hear more of your ideas. Dabbling in theoretical game design is something I enjoy myself.
In Sandbox, you create a character and name it, after that you go through a tutorial area that gives you options to pick different skills that you can level, you can level them all up but its up to you how you want to mix and match your abilities. And the gear progression is via crafters.
Its not the same leveling but leveling is leveling so therefore it would be a game changer to all kinds of MMOs.
But the acronym MMMORPG now currently means Microscopic Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Kappa.
explore a open persistent world, massively online, no increase in skills, stats, gear...a freshly started char has no handicap if playing with/ vs veterans, except for player skill both in pve and pvp.
why login and play if no growth? unlock more skills to fulfill new roles. new skins. titles. weapons. areas. gold to customize your home or guild or anything else.
just not make a char increase power by ×10 ×100
You want a game other than a RPG. Go find it.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"