I've become a mighty hero in a few mmorpgs now. Tried many, but only cared to get to max level in three games so far. Presently, I am not excited to play any mmorpg out there.
MMORPGs hold the promise of being shared, persistent virtual worlds that thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions of players can interact (cooperate or compete) in. But most of these are far from being virtual worlds. I believe that divorcing mmorpgs from realism was a mistake.
Humans require food, water, shelter, and clothing. Our characters in mmorpgs, for the most part, do not. They may wear clothing or armor, but they only need their outfits for fighting really. But if we want to build virtual worlds, I think we need to build them with basic human needs in mind. And make them actually necessary to our characters' survival.
In order to provide humans or demi-humans with these needs we have:
Those will also provide us with some tools, and we can move on toward developing society further with things like Mining, Smelting, and Forging, etc.
I'm not saying I want an mmorpg where we build society from the ground up. I'm saying that if we have a more realistic society and world where more realistic needs require more realistic activities, then we can begin to build a virtual world that is about much more than increasing characters stats and fighting harder mobs. We can still have realistic character progression, adventuring, dungeon delving, and combat, but we can have so much more.
If land, wealth, and resources in the world are limited, then we can build more realistic communities, cultures, and societies. We can have politics, diplomacy, and economics that matter. Our characters could be able to progress (and even regress) in their political, social, and economic status by their choices, words, and deeds. We can even have kingdoms and empires that rise and fall due to player actions and interactions.
I don't know about you, but I usually find that I have more fun in the beginning of an mmorpg. The later expansions in Everquest 2 were not as fun as for me as the original first fifty levels, for example. And really, I was doing basically the same things for the remaining levels. Just in different places with different npcs and mobs. Then there is the repetitious endgame gear grind that we find in most games (daily quests, daily dungeons, skirmishes, campaigns, heroic or epic dungeons, and raids). And maybe some PVP thrown in that doesn't really matter and doesn't effect anything in the game world except the particular players involved. But what else are we going to do with characters that don't need to eat or sleep or most anything else that real humans do?
Post edited by Brald_Ironheart on
Roleplayinn.com - New forum for people who love role-playing of all kinds - tabletop/pencil & paper, live-action, and role-playing in mmorpgs.
I want to go from overworked farm boy to punching gods in the face. . .
. . .oh and all in 5 minutes too, I ain't got the attention span for anything longer.
See that's the thing. I don't need to punch gods in the face to enjoy my character. I'm ok from going from knight's squire to a highly accomplished veteran knight. Getting more powerful is ok I guess but I feel no need to play a game in which my character at the start of my progression and at the end of my progression would never realistically share the same battlefield. Maybe I'm just a common foot soldier in the start and I'm the one leading the army at the the end, but arrows and swords shouldn't just bounce off of me like wet noodles.
@cameltosis Yeah guess you are right, there is a definition. I fail to see why some things fall into one or the other kind of progression, especially why gear progression is called vertical and skills are not.
The thing is with power increase progression which some is defined as horizontal and other as vertical (through levels, skills, gear, stats, resists, etc) you have more freedom within the world because the designers are not bound by the unlocking (and possible restriction of paths). Afaicansee pure skill unlocking without power increase is much harder to make into a long lasting game (mmo) and especially one where players get the feeling of accomplishment, because it is hard to make the player feel they are gaining power and therefore will loose interest faster. Power increase progression can play on so many different simultaneous progression systems, and therefore easier to build a world around and also easier for the player to feel they are actually progressing because it shows directly in their ability to do harder things - You can even throw away levels, as long as your character is gaining power in other ways. And when I say power I don't mean a standard number derived from level+gear, powers are of all kinds (examples resists, chance to hit, increased damage against mobs/with attack type, faster casting, and the list goes on forever) and these powers can be gotten in many different ways other than gearing, but instead by doing quests that require effort or other things you earn in the world (character progression).
I guess my point is I feel 100 skills to choose from is of no value to me unless I see my character gaining in power from unlocking them.. and there I would much prefer an advanced power increasing progression system - which is as I understand is a mix of horizontal and vertical - which I just call character progression.
Thanks for the clarification.
First, lets clear something up: if power is increasing, that means it is vertical progression. Whether that power progression comes from increased stats, gear, skills or anything else doesn't matter - if your overall power gets better, it is vertical progression.
Second, I agree that horizontal progression is much harder to design and make compelling, this is why we basically never see it. That said, I believe horizontal progression is actually essential for making a long term MMO.
The benefits of a horizontal progression system:
1) You never outlevel content
Because your relative power stays the same, all content remains relevant. The first monster you killed when you started the game will still be the same difficulty one year later (well, you should have gotten better in terms of player skill...). Expansions will not make old content redundant either. This is a big problem with vertical progression.
2) You can group up with everyone.
Massively multiplayer.....this whole genre is predicated upon playing with other people, it is the whole reason for it's existence. Yet, power gaps segregate the community. A newbie can't play with a vet in any meaningful way. A freshly capped player can't raid without first grinding gear. A new pvper has to get stomped for days/weeks/months before being competitive. Vertical progression is just inherently anti-social.
3) Easier to find your play style
Horizontal progression is all about customisation / specialisation. So, in theory, this means there should be many more options for how you build and play your character compared to a vertical game. There will always be cookie-cutter builds for each class of course, but a well designed system will have more options/variety.
4) Better PvP
With overall power being the same, PvP should be much more balanced. Of course, with the specialisms available it will become a never ending rock-paper-scissors balance scenario, but in theory a new character should, overall, not get stomped and still have fun. There is no massive grind to become competitive, you can be competitive instantly. Being more balanced should mean more players enjoy it so bigger / healthier pvp community.
5) More exploration / choice
As power is the same, you could (if designed properly) go anywhere in the world and be able to complete content. There is no need to do content in a specific order as defined by the devs, so it would be more like Morrowind / Skyrim - I can choose to start quest lines in whatever order I want, depending on how I feel that day. Some content may still be "locked" because you haven't unlocked specific skills/builds that allow you to complete it, but overall far more content is open to you from day 1.
There are, of course, challenges to overcome in a horizontal progression system. The main one is that of motivation - getting better gear and better skills and more levels is a very good carrot that encourages people to keep playing. With horizontal, sure, there are specialisms to unlock, but only some of them will be needed to complete content so the motivation for some people is less. For example, if you are a melee brawler who loves big numbers, you might unlock a 2h crit-focused build early on that you love, so have no desire to unlock other specialisms.
In my opinion, this is actually a really good problem to have to overcome. Chasing numbers (vertical) doesn't feel like a real goal to me.
So, I believe if we remove that motivation, it will force the devs to come up with new motivations. Perhaps we might finally get good story lines in our games? Maybe the worlds will actually be exciting to explore in their own right? Maybe we'll get some awesome pvp that we love doing for it's own sake? Maybe there will be content that genuinely requires a really high skill level and can't be overcome with better gear? Maybe the devs will have to invent new mechanics / features for MMOs to keep us motivated and entertained? Perhaps simply the ability to play with anyone we want to, in a massive world where all content is relevant, will be enough for a thriving community to be created and that will be enough of a motivation to want to play?
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
@cameltosis well we gone full circle I guess, and I still regard horizontal progression as maybe not no progression but somewhat pointless or directionless. There might be a reason there aren't any very horizontal mmos, and I completely disagree that a pure horizontal system can have lasting appeal for a pve mmo (Note. I recognize its power in other type of games, for example LOL). What I think is very much missing in horizontal progression is rewarding the player and giving the player a purpose for staying long term in a mmo (and I mean not 400 hours, but actual long term). A horizontal progression game must put all its efford into fun gameplay, and that has to be entertaining constantly without breaks, with no room for slowing down the pace, or players will start loosing interest fast - This is because the only rewarding system is the actual play. In my opinion this is a fragile concept thing to base a mmo on. A mmo needs to be alot of things and very advanced, and making every little part and subsystem of it interesting at all times without rewarding the player with power seem like an impossible task. Simpler games can get away with this but in my opinion a mmo should be 100 times more advanced than for example Skyrim you mentioned or LOL as another example.
The idea of character progression as the driving concept of an MMO is something that is already a dead concept. It just hasn't been declared dead yet. That's the past of MMOs, but it has no future as the constantly dwindling MMO numbers are showing us.
I think the concept that's taken a backseat to progression that needs to carry MMOs forward is a concept of community. This is at least what had me invest multiple thousand hours into Freelancer even though I got to a point I could max my vertical progression within 4 hours of starting a new character.
In all MMOs I have played for more than 2-3 months consecutively I can attribute it to being hooked into the community. In most instances when I leave those games I can attribute it to a breakdown of the community I was part of.
If there is a community I feel a sense of belonging and loyalty to, I will log in to cut bricks and help them build their city walls, defend their borders, expand their economy, or even just to talk. If there is a community I truly hate, I will log on to kill their members, destroy their assets and bring ruin to their plans.
I don't need to watch levels go *ding* to become deeply invested in a game. To me the beauty of an MMO is the social connections. I could grind in a single player game.
The idea of character progression as the driving concept of an MMO is something that is already a dead concept. It just hasn't been declared dead yet. That's the past of MMOs, but it has no future as the constantly dwindling MMO numbers are showing us.
I think the concept that's taken a backseat to progression that needs to carry MMOs forward is a concept of community. This is at least what had me invest multiple thousand hours into Freelancer even though I got to a point I could max my vertical progression within 4 hours of starting a new character.
In all MMOs I have played for more than 2-3 months consecutively I can attribute it to being hooked into the community. In most instances when I leave those games I can attribute it to a breakdown of the community I was part of.
If there is a community I feel a sense of belonging and loyalty to, I will log in to cut bricks and help them build their city walls, defend their borders, expand their economy, or even just to talk. If there is a community I truly hate, I will log on to kill their members, destroy their assets and bring ruin to their plans.
I don't need to watch levels go *ding* to become deeply invested in a game. To me the beauty of an MMO is the social connections. I could grind in a single player game.
You might be right (even though hear progression still motivates many) but the games don't gives us many other goals today.
Sure, you could make a game without progression set in a persistent world but then you need to figure out motives for us to stay in it. Right now it seems the majority of players start a new game, play as long as there is tangible progression and then jump to the next game.
More then a few singleplayer and FPS games have done that with good results but it is hard to translate that into a full MMO.
So how would you motivate players to stay years in the same game without progression? Yeah, that is the problem with modern MMOs since we both know that anything besides a bit of gear progression stops anyways after a short while but taking it away altogether will make the lack of motivation even clearer.
I don't think I heard a really good answer to that question from anyone and I think game developers either need to figure it out or go back to the slow progression of the early games. Something to keep the players interested long term.
As I've said. I've put thousands of hours into a game where the entire progression only takes four hours. It's the social aspects. It's getting people invested in the community.
Think on your absolute favorite MMO experiences and the games you have played the longest. My guess is in most of those experiences you're also recalling the people you shared them with or were fighting against and in all of your longest times playing a single MMO you can remember a group / groups of people you played with.
I know that's certainly the case for me.
I know that not a single one of my favorite MMO experiences revolves around reaching the next level or getting a certain piece of gear though. And if it was, I assume it would be more about the fight leading up to the gear drop than the actual gear drop. I mean as far as dungeons/raids go I do remember some of flashpoints I ran in SWTOR, fellowships in SWTOR, and dungeons/krackens in Darkfall. I remember how good the team I was with and how much fun it was to fight alongside them. I couldn't tell what dropped, or if it was even a good drop. Replace a piece of uber gear with gold and materials I can use to help advance a guild city and I'm still having just as much fun.
I think the main thing that MMOs need to do is have a way to meaningfully progress forever. Progression is at the heart of the MMO experience. Once you stop getting stronger, the game becomes boring.
As I've said. I've put thousands of hours into a game where the entire progression only takes four hours. It's the social aspects. It's getting people invested in the community.
Think on your absolute favorite MMO experiences and the games you have played the longest. My guess is in most of those experiences you're also recalling the people you shared them with or were fighting against and in all of your longest times playing a single MMO you can remember a group / groups of people you played with.
I know that's certainly the case for me.
I know that not a single one of my favorite MMO experiences revolves around reaching the next level or getting a certain piece of gear though. And if it was, I assume it would be more about the fight leading up to the gear drop than the actual gear drop. I mean as far as dungeons/raids go I do remember some of flashpoints I ran in SWTOR, fellowships in SWTOR, and dungeons/krackens in Darkfall. I remember how good the team I was with and how much fun it was to fight alongside them. I couldn't tell what dropped, or if it was even a good drop. Replace a piece of uber gear with gold and materials I can use to help advance a guild city and I'm still having just as much fun.
I am with you there but how should the game getting people more invested in the community?
Because it clearly isn't working well right now. In fact does more then a few modern MMOs put less focus on social interaction and more about running around doing FEDEX and pest control quests then we ever seen before.
As I said earlier, I believe in some progress as you play but with a low powergap. The community aspect do however makes sense since it is the one thing only a MMO can do.
But the community needs to interact and work together for common goals or the whole thing wont work. Guild activities do help a bit but it isn't enough, and MMOs have cut down a lot of those as well the last 10 years.
Territorial control and city building are huge. That's why alliances and corporations are of so much more importance in games like EVE, Darkfall, and ArcheAge. When you are up against large groups of organized opponents you need to get organized as well. In Wurm where building is the most important aspect of PvP you see groups forming because of the need to work together to achieve anything on a grander scale. The types of defences and supplies they need would take one person an eternity to build alone but working together some really grand fortresses are made.
Of course on PvE there is the need to organize for dungeons and raids which is probably part of what has made WoW such an enduring game. Most anyone who has much positive to say about that game was in a raiding guild at one point it seems like.
Of course the WoW model is built upon a progression system. The EVE system really requires no form of permanent progression. I think this is why so many people associate progression so strongly with what keeps them playing MMOs. Raids and dungeons keep them playing because of the social aspects and raids and dungeons focus around progression.
I think though that if you were remove the shinies in the forms of gear with massive stat bonuses from dungeons and replace them with gold and resource rewards that could be used to do things like build guild villages, or more temporary power upgrades, people who love raids and dungeons would discover they still love raids and dungeons, and it wasn't the shinies driving them all along.
Perhaps some of my ideas are not yet possible with today's technology or price of technology. I'm just thinking and dreaming about what mmorpgs could be and what perhaps at least a few should strive to be in the future. Maybe some things are not yet possible, but I think it's fairly certain that we won't innovate unless we dream and think outside the box.
I agree with Eldurian about the importance of the communal and social aspects of mmorpgs though. If our objectives in mmorpgs are solely or even largely based and focused on personal achievement and desire (and/or greed) for personal wealth and power, then our chances of building a true community within the game are slim. Especially when we can gain that wealth and power by ourselves or with complete strangers just as easily as we can with friends. Why form bonds with people on the internet if we don't need to? Why take the time to socialize and get to know people in a game if we don't share any common goals or objectives that benefit the entire group or community? The reasons people in the real world originally formed communities were for survival, to protect themselves from outsiders, and to achieve goals more easily. Strength in numbers. (Being related to each other was also a factor, but families and extended families sometimes fought and warred with each other as well.)
Why stay in the community if there is no real danger or risk to our characters if they leave the community?
Roleplayinn.com - New forum for people who love role-playing of all kinds - tabletop/pencil & paper, live-action, and role-playing in mmorpgs.
This has been an interesting discussion. I am not convinced a horizontal progression mmo (with no/minimal vertical) is a viable concept, but you guys did move me a little.
If you want to improve your reasoning with die hard vertical progression lovers like me, I think you need to acknowledge that power increase rewards are a powerful driving factor (possible the main reason most keep playing), and give solid reasons and examples to what could replace that in a pure/more horizontal progression based mmo. Interesting challenge ?
Also we need to realize we are probably playing mmos for different reasons and what drives us and make a mmo interesting might be opposite. For example I have zero interest in EVE or most pvp mmos, and I am pretty sure die hard pvp mmo players have very little interest in a Everquest type of game. It is not that I don't enjoy pvp in other types of games, but because to me pvp is fun in small chunks like a few hours at a time and usually for a period of a week or two, then I need my pvp games to be easy accessible. And therefore a pvp based mmo will not be able to keep my interest, unless it has substantial other things to do (which none has, and probably never will, besides the old problem with trying to please two different player types in one game has always failed to this date).
This has been an interesting discussion. I am not convinced a horizontal progression mmo (with no/minimal vertical) is a viable concept, but you guys did move me a little.
If you want to improve your reasoning with die hard vertical progression lovers like me, I think you need to acknowledge that power increase rewards are a powerful driving factor (possible the main reason most keep playing), and give solid reasons and examples to what could replace that in a pure/more horizontal progression based mmo. Interesting challenge ?
Also we need to realize we are probably playing mmos for different reasons and what drives us and make a mmo interesting might be opposite. For example I have zero interest in EVE or most pvp mmos, and I am pretty sure die hard pvp mmo players have very little interest in a Everquest type of game. It is not that I don't enjoy pvp in other types of games, but because to me pvp is fun in small chunks like a few hours at a time and usually for a period of a week or two, then I need my pvp games to be easy accessible. And therefore a pvp based mmo will not be able to keep my interest, unless it has substantial other things to do (which none has, and probably never will, besides the old problem with trying to please two different player types in one game has always failed to this date).
I have a feeling that if we get a game close to what we discussed it will be a compromise anyways, with some vertical progression but more like Guildwars: Prophesies then Wow. In GW you started out with 50 or so HP and kinda moved up to 500-1000 (or so I remember it at least, was years ago but the difference was not so huge). You did level up (not so fast originally but when factions came out they messed things up and you maxed out in days and spent the rest to gain new skills and get gear with little stat improvement).
And yes, if a game want both PvP and PvE players they need to have equal fun as they play and that is not easy unless you have PvE only servers or instance the PvP. But it can be done, it just takes work. It is far from always worth it since if you mess up you will spend a lot of content on people who wont play but if you start from the beginning and make good mechanics that is as fun in both playstyles you have the potential to get both. I fear though that the trinity mechanics wont work since it makes the 2 playstyles differ so much from eachother and making them equal that way is almost impossible.
This will never happen again because of a game company needing deep pockets Blizzard could but won't. Redoing EQ or Vanguard with updated graphics but keeping the game play as is. I would gladly buy a and pay a monthly fee a year at a time. Sadley Day Break Games can not even finish H1Z1 just survive let along upgrade EQ, EQ2, bring back Vanguard. If they did all the Devs would become rich. But current day suit-coats do not see down the road far enough.
" Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Those Who Would Threaten It " MAGA
This will never happen again because of a game company needing deep pockets Blizzard could but won't. Redoing EQ or Vanguard with updated graphics but keeping the game play as is. I would gladly buy a and pay a monthly fee a year at a time. Sadley Day Break Games can not even finish H1Z1 just survive let along upgrade EQ, EQ2, bring back Vanguard. If they did all the Devs would become rich. But current day suit-coats do not see down the road far enough.
EQs top number was something like 450 000 players, or so wikipedia say. A remake with changed engine might get half those players back and maybe a few new but I don't believe it will get more players then the original game.
Vanguard started off with something like 220K (or so I remember, it could be more) and went fast downward since. I have no clue about EQ2 but it was not a huge success.
So if you want to remake a MMO and become rich your best bet would be vanilla Wow, yeah, not what you want to hear but true anyways. Remaking the others make no sense with Pantheon in development.
EQ is at least feasible since it would probably earn money but it wont make Daybreak rich. I would not put any money on the other 2 even if I played both and enjoyed them way back.
This will never happen again because of a game company needing deep pockets Blizzard could but won't. Redoing EQ or Vanguard with updated graphics but keeping the game play as is. I would gladly buy a and pay a monthly fee a year at a time. Sadley Day Break Games can not even finish H1Z1 just survive let along upgrade EQ, EQ2, bring back Vanguard. If they did all the Devs would become rich. But current day suit-coats do not see down the road far enough.
EQs top number was something like 450 000 players, or so wikipedia say. A remake with changed engine might get half those players back and maybe a few new but I don't believe it will get more players then the original game.
Vanguard started off with something like 220K (or so I remember, it could be more) and went fast downward since. I have no clue about EQ2 but it was not a huge success.
So if you want to remake a MMO and become rich your best bet would be vanilla Wow, yeah, not what you want to hear but true anyways. Remaking the others make no sense with Pantheon in development.
EQ is at least feasible since it would probably earn money but it wont make Daybreak rich. I would not put any money on the other 2 even if I played both and enjoyed them way back.
Your probably right and its ashame.
" Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Those Who Would Threaten It " MAGA
Agreed. I only see 3 MMOs or related games that have a high earning potential for a remake: Wow, Lineage and Guildwars. Wow and Lineage are the 2 top P2P MMOs ever and GW2 did sell 8.5M copies which isn't bad for a low budget game, it would be way cheaper to remake with a new engine then the other 2.
A few others would earn some money but few companies would fork up the sum needed for a modest earning, you could possible make it if you use crowdfunding but you would have to make it a low budget game then.
With Everquest it is not totally unlikely that they make a mobile version, or at least a mobile game based on the IP. It was after all the EQ IP the buyer wanted when they bought out Sony (or so I read) so it makes sense they would make something out of it at least.
This will never happen again because of a game company needing deep pockets Blizzard could but won't. Redoing EQ or Vanguard with updated graphics but keeping the game play as is. I would gladly buy a and pay a monthly fee a year at a time. Sadley Day Break Games can not even finish H1Z1 just survive let along upgrade EQ, EQ2, bring back Vanguard. If they did all the Devs would become rich. But current day suit-coats do not see down the road far enough.
EQs top number was something like 450 000 players, or so wikipedia say. A remake with changed engine might get half those players back and maybe a few new but I don't believe it will get more players then the original game.
Vanguard started off with something like 220K (or so I remember, it could be more) and went fast downward since. I have no clue about EQ2 but it was not a huge success.
So if you want to remake a MMO and become rich your best bet would be vanilla Wow, yeah, not what you want to hear but true anyways. Remaking the others make no sense with Pantheon in development.
EQ is at least feasible since it would probably earn money but it wont make Daybreak rich. I would not put any money on the other 2 even if I played both and enjoyed them way back.
i both agree and disagree with this
i think remakes could be a commercial success. remember at EQs peak its been estimated that there were only about 3 million mmo gamers in the market....meaning EQ had about ~1/6 the market share. The market is significantly bigger today and it should be feasible to get a sustainable(not that level of market share obviously) player base.
Vanguard mostly flopped because of office drama, being rushed to release, having a release date very close to a WoW expansion, and lack of advertising.
im more in agreement with elsa in regards to it not happening simply because of not having "deep pockets". its the upfront cost and lack of interested investors that are the limiting factor....not the brand popularity.
build a remake with unique art assets(not just free assets from the unity store), updated QoL changes, playable mechanics, and then dump a ton of money into marketing....you'll get your player base.
i think remakes could be a commercial success. remember at EQs peak its been estimated that there were only about 3 million mmo gamers in the market....meaning EQ had about ~1/6 the market share. The market is significantly bigger today and it should be feasible to get a sustainable(not that level of market share obviously) player base.
Vanguard mostly flopped because of office drama, being rushed to release, having a release date very close to a WoW expansion, and lack of advertising.
im more in agreement with elsa in regards to it not happening simply because of not having "deep pockets". its the upfront cost and lack of interested investors that are the limiting factor....not the brand popularity.
build a remake with unique art assets(not just free assets from the unity store), updated QoL changes, playable mechanics, and then dump a ton of money into marketing....you'll get your player base.
Even if it had 1/6 of the market (which can be discussed as it didn't were near those numbers until 2001-2003 and by then Lineage was far larger, in fact Lineage released '99 as well but just in south Korea back then but it still had more players even then and it actually have 3M P2P subscribers as of last winter when I last heard numbers) for a time that does not mean a new version would get 1/6 of the market today.
What you would get would be a percentage of the original fans and some people who heard of and want to try. Yes, I think they would earn money on a new version but I bet Pantheon will earn more unless Brad screws the pooch (and Daybreak could do the same).
As for Vanguard and EQ2, their crappy engines and loads of bugs did cost them a lot, I personally think it cost EQ2 even more the VG since it was what everyone expected to be the next big MMO back in mid '04 and actually guessing how either game would have done with good engines and coding is rather impossible besides "better".
But while Vanguard has a name on this site (I thought it was pretty well besides the engine after 2 years myself) I don't think the average gamer remembers it fondly.
So I expect to see you guys around in Pantheon, it does have many ideas from both EQ and VG while having some new interesting things and not being a sequel or remake have advantages, we don't have the same expectations as we would have for EQ3.
As long as Pantheon doesn't suck I don't see any reason for a EQ or VG remake, it has the same basic ideas and the same lead designer. If it sucks or don't release I guess a remake of EQ at least could get 250K oldschool gamers but if it goes against Pantheon the best option would be a split of the potential players between those games, you don't play any other MMO at the same time as EQ unless you have way more spare time then me.
If you truly want to be rich by remaking a MMO I think Lineage would earn even more then Wow but both would earn loads even if Wow would beat it. EQ could earn back it's cost and a bit more but that is it.
And yes, if a game want both PvP and PvE players they need to have equal fun as they play and that is not easy unless you have PvE only servers or instance the PvP. But it can be done, it just takes work. It is far from always worth it since if you mess up you will spend a lot of content on people who wont play but if you start from the beginning and make good mechanics that is as fun in both playstyles you have the potential to get both. I fear though that the trinity mechanics wont work since it makes the 2 playstyles differ so much from eachother and making them equal that way is almost impossible.
I think EVE came exceptionally close to the perfect balance of PvP and PvE and then smashed it. In EVE the vast majority of the universe is completely lawless and there is nowhere that you are completely safe however there is an attempt at a gradual system from more dangerous areas to safer areas with solid reasons to go into the dangerous areas for people who are PvP tolerant and like the thrill of getting better rewards for more risky endeavors.
The issue is that EVE very much treats non-PvPers as second class citizens. They give griefers the tools to attack them even in the "safe" areas, they make the vast majority of the map 100% PvP areas (And the majority of that map is barely inhabited because of it. I heard a statistic from CCP themselves that something like 90% of all EVE players live in high sec.) and the focus on PvE content is minimal at best.
I think creating a game that strikes the balance more perfectly means creating a game that puts a lot of focus on making PvE content good, safe areas actually safe, and making the sandbox content more available to PvEers. But then with PvP you need to give PvPers what they actually want. Real rewards for victory and consequences for defeat. Real reasons to go into the PvP zones. And a whole lot of possibility for mayhem and bloodshed in those zones.
What PvPers are offered in most games is a slap in the face. What PvEers are offered in most games is everything they want (as long as they want nothing but dungeon/quest/level grinding and a crafting system that offers nothing in the way of innovation or complexity). Offer PvEers something new and different with an emphasis on them proportional to their population in the community and offer the PvPers something other than arenas and the satisfaction of killing people with no tangible rewards and you'll get their attention too.
@Eldurian That sounds about right, yes. As I said earlier, a game with both types of gameplay need to be equally fun and all MMOs I tried failed there (even Eve, it certainly ain't even if PvEers are second class citizens as you say, and I agree with you about that).
Most modern MMOs are giving the PvEers far more fun but others the other way around. I don't see why a game far better for the other type would attract many who gets the bad deal. Just slapping in a little PvP at the last moment makes a terrible PvP experience and adding a little PvE to a PvP game will not attract a large group of PvEers.
In most cases I just wonder why they bother, they take away valuable resources from the good gameplay to add some poor content that is more in hope of selling a few more initial copies then making a good game. It makes the game worse, not better.
If you make things right from the start it is another matter but you need to be very careful so both sides get as good and fun content without making the game far less fun for the other side. More then a few MMO fans even doubt that you can succeed with this at all but while it is hard I think it certainly is possible.
I think the first Guildwars actually did a pretty good job even though it hadn't an open world, but it did have both fun PvE and PvP. It is easier with an instanced CORPG then an actual MMO. And Eve for that matter did a good try at least even though it didn't reach all the way. DaoC needs a mention as well. Neither of the games succeeded 100% though and things need an improvement if we want a open world MMO with none instanced PvP.
Safe zones and faction based PvP certainly makes it easier as well, just as a low powergap makes PvP more fun but you need to balance it so there still is progression. You need a very good team to pull this off.
And for that matter do both PvP and PvE gets more fun if the game actually have motivations for the characters besides loot and XP, most games tend to forget that or add a mainly instanced story that motivates you a short time but it rather fast to complete. It is way more fun when you try to defend your way of life instead of just killing random people to take their stuff. To quoth Sex Pistols "Your future dream is a shopping screens", motivation like that just work short term and while risking too loose your stuff might get the adrenaline flowing it isn't a good motivator.
I disagree that factional PvP is a good thing. Factional PvP is a very fast way to get me to turn my nose up at the PvP in a game. I want to choose my enemies and allies, not have them chosen for me.
Here are some ideas I've had on a blended game setting. Essentially if you go over my game notes I describe a MMO where all territory is contested and everyone takes part in that fight. The difference between a zone designed for non-PvPers and PvPers though is that in a zone designed with non-PvPers in mind the fight for territory is done peacefully and democratically while in full PvP areas the fight is done through mortal combat. Many areas fall somewhere in-between so while no Open World PvP is possible in the safest areas and the more dangerous areas are full Open World PvP with no consequences, some areas have limited types or consequences for certain types.
Also I think it's important we draw a distinction between PvEers and non-PvPers (Or carebears). I enjoy gathering resources, trading, and running missions / questing in dangerous zones if the rewards are proportional to the threat. I also don't mind just chilling in safezones crafting and PvEing if I feel like relaxing or I'm at a stage where the game's power disparity kind of cuts me off from PvP zones. Non-PvPers are distinct in that they are intolerant of PvP or at least Open World PvP. Most PvPers enjoy varying levels of PvE though.
Hmmm, I certainly like you idea about the goblin camp and have pitched not that different ideas myself earlier but I still prefer if you would lock yourself to a specific faction (and change if so needed). That way you do belong to a greater thing (like the kings men or the rebels).
But then I am more a RvR type of PvPer then a FFA one. I do think that RvR have higher potential to recruit new players then FFA, safe areas or not. Also, the PvEers can see if you are an enemy or not earlier forcing small enemy units to use tactics to capture them instead of just pretending to be friendly and then jump the players.
That said, the game you described do sound like something I could see myself playing if it's well made but I think you still would need more ideas to be able to attract PvE only fans to it.
I am playing secret world legends now and really enjoying it. I think the amount of progression it has is amazing. The vertical progression is never ending and always useful as things keep getting harder the farther I go.
And when I get tired of vertical progression I can take a break and unlock/learn new weapon/magic types. Going for horizontal progression and redoing old zones with a fresh approach to them.
Comments
MMORPGs hold the promise of being shared, persistent virtual worlds that thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions of players can interact (cooperate or compete) in. But most of these are far from being virtual worlds. I believe that divorcing mmorpgs from realism was a mistake.
Humans require food, water, shelter, and clothing. Our characters in mmorpgs, for the most part, do not. They may wear clothing or armor, but they only need their outfits for fighting really. But if we want to build virtual worlds, I think we need to build them with basic human needs in mind. And make them actually necessary to our characters' survival.
In order to provide humans or demi-humans with these needs we have:
Hunting & Gathering
Fishing
Agriculture - Gardening, Farming, Milling, and Animal Husbandry
Textiles, Tanning, Tailoring & Leatherworking
Woodcutting, Stone-cutting, Carpentry, Masonry
Those will also provide us with some tools, and we can move on toward developing society further with things like Mining, Smelting, and Forging, etc.
I'm not saying I want an mmorpg where we build society from the ground up. I'm saying that if we have a more realistic society and world where more realistic needs require more realistic activities, then we can begin to build a virtual world that is about much more than increasing characters stats and fighting harder mobs. We can still have realistic character progression, adventuring, dungeon delving, and combat, but we can have so much more.
If land, wealth, and resources in the world are limited, then we can build more realistic communities, cultures, and societies. We can have politics, diplomacy, and economics that matter. Our characters could be able to progress (and even regress) in their political, social, and economic status by their choices, words, and deeds. We can even have kingdoms and empires that rise and fall due to player actions and interactions.
I don't know about you, but I usually find that I have more fun in the beginning of an mmorpg. The later expansions in Everquest 2 were not as fun as for me as the original first fifty levels, for example. And really, I was doing basically the same things for the remaining levels. Just in different places with different npcs and mobs. Then there is the repetitious endgame gear grind that we find in most games (daily quests, daily dungeons, skirmishes, campaigns, heroic or epic dungeons, and raids). And maybe some PVP thrown in that doesn't really matter and doesn't effect anything in the game world except the particular players involved. But what else are we going to do with characters that don't need to eat or sleep or most anything else that real humans do?
. . .oh and all in 5 minutes too, I ain't got the attention span for anything longer.
First, lets clear something up: if power is increasing, that means it is vertical progression. Whether that power progression comes from increased stats, gear, skills or anything else doesn't matter - if your overall power gets better, it is vertical progression.
Second, I agree that horizontal progression is much harder to design and make compelling, this is why we basically never see it. That said, I believe horizontal progression is actually essential for making a long term MMO.
The benefits of a horizontal progression system:
1) You never outlevel content
Because your relative power stays the same, all content remains relevant. The first monster you killed when you started the game will still be the same difficulty one year later (well, you should have gotten better in terms of player skill...). Expansions will not make old content redundant either. This is a big problem with vertical progression.
2) You can group up with everyone.
Massively multiplayer.....this whole genre is predicated upon playing with other people, it is the whole reason for it's existence. Yet, power gaps segregate the community. A newbie can't play with a vet in any meaningful way. A freshly capped player can't raid without first grinding gear. A new pvper has to get stomped for days/weeks/months before being competitive. Vertical progression is just inherently anti-social.
3) Easier to find your play style
Horizontal progression is all about customisation / specialisation. So, in theory, this means there should be many more options for how you build and play your character compared to a vertical game. There will always be cookie-cutter builds for each class of course, but a well designed system will have more options/variety.
4) Better PvP
With overall power being the same, PvP should be much more balanced. Of course, with the specialisms available it will become a never ending rock-paper-scissors balance scenario, but in theory a new character should, overall, not get stomped and still have fun. There is no massive grind to become competitive, you can be competitive instantly. Being more balanced should mean more players enjoy it so bigger / healthier pvp community.
5) More exploration / choice
As power is the same, you could (if designed properly) go anywhere in the world and be able to complete content. There is no need to do content in a specific order as defined by the devs, so it would be more like Morrowind / Skyrim - I can choose to start quest lines in whatever order I want, depending on how I feel that day. Some content may still be "locked" because you haven't unlocked specific skills/builds that allow you to complete it, but overall far more content is open to you from day 1.
There are, of course, challenges to overcome in a horizontal progression system. The main one is that of motivation - getting better gear and better skills and more levels is a very good carrot that encourages people to keep playing. With horizontal, sure, there are specialisms to unlock, but only some of them will be needed to complete content so the motivation for some people is less. For example, if you are a melee brawler who loves big numbers, you might unlock a 2h crit-focused build early on that you love, so have no desire to unlock other specialisms.
In my opinion, this is actually a really good problem to have to overcome. Chasing numbers (vertical) doesn't feel like a real goal to me.
So, I believe if we remove that motivation, it will force the devs to come up with new motivations. Perhaps we might finally get good story lines in our games? Maybe the worlds will actually be exciting to explore in their own right? Maybe we'll get some awesome pvp that we love doing for it's own sake? Maybe there will be content that genuinely requires a really high skill level and can't be overcome with better gear? Maybe the devs will have to invent new mechanics / features for MMOs to keep us motivated and entertained? Perhaps simply the ability to play with anyone we want to, in a massive world where all content is relevant, will be enough for a thriving community to be created and that will be enough of a motivation to want to play?
What I think is very much missing in horizontal progression is rewarding the player and giving the player a purpose for staying long term in a mmo (and I mean not 400 hours, but actual long term). A horizontal progression game must put all its efford into fun gameplay, and that has to be entertaining constantly without breaks, with no room for slowing down the pace, or players will start loosing interest fast - This is because the only rewarding system is the actual play.
In my opinion this is a fragile concept thing to base a mmo on. A mmo needs to be alot of things and very advanced, and making every little part and subsystem of it interesting at all times without rewarding the player with power seem like an impossible task. Simpler games can get away with this but in my opinion a mmo should be 100 times more advanced than for example Skyrim you mentioned or LOL as another example.
"I am my connectome" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7GwKXfJB0
The idea of character progression as the driving concept of an MMO is something that is already a dead concept. It just hasn't been declared dead yet. That's the past of MMOs, but it has no future as the constantly dwindling MMO numbers are showing us.
I think the concept that's taken a backseat to progression that needs to carry MMOs forward is a concept of community. This is at least what had me invest multiple thousand hours into Freelancer even though I got to a point I could max my vertical progression within 4 hours of starting a new character.
In all MMOs I have played for more than 2-3 months consecutively I can attribute it to being hooked into the community. In most instances when I leave those games I can attribute it to a breakdown of the community I was part of.
If there is a community I feel a sense of belonging and loyalty to, I will log in to cut bricks and help them build their city walls, defend their borders, expand their economy, or even just to talk. If there is a community I truly hate, I will log on to kill their members, destroy their assets and bring ruin to their plans.
I don't need to watch levels go *ding* to become deeply invested in a game. To me the beauty of an MMO is the social connections. I could grind in a single player game.
Sure, you could make a game without progression set in a persistent world but then you need to figure out motives for us to stay in it. Right now it seems the majority of players start a new game, play as long as there is tangible progression and then jump to the next game.
More then a few singleplayer and FPS games have done that with good results but it is hard to translate that into a full MMO.
So how would you motivate players to stay years in the same game without progression?
Yeah, that is the problem with modern MMOs since we both know that anything besides a bit of gear progression stops anyways after a short while but taking it away altogether will make the lack of motivation even clearer.
I don't think I heard a really good answer to that question from anyone and I think game developers either need to figure it out or go back to the slow progression of the early games. Something to keep the players interested long term.
Think on your absolute favorite MMO experiences and the games you have played the longest. My guess is in most of those experiences you're also recalling the people you shared them with or were fighting against and in all of your longest times playing a single MMO you can remember a group / groups of people you played with.
I know that's certainly the case for me.
I know that not a single one of my favorite MMO experiences revolves around reaching the next level or getting a certain piece of gear though. And if it was, I assume it would be more about the fight leading up to the gear drop than the actual gear drop. I mean as far as dungeons/raids go I do remember some of flashpoints I ran in SWTOR, fellowships in SWTOR, and dungeons/krackens in Darkfall. I remember how good the team I was with and how much fun it was to fight alongside them. I couldn't tell what dropped, or if it was even a good drop. Replace a piece of uber gear with gold and materials I can use to help advance a guild city and I'm still having just as much fun.
Because it clearly isn't working well right now. In fact does more then a few modern MMOs put less focus on social interaction and more about running around doing FEDEX and pest control quests then we ever seen before.
As I said earlier, I believe in some progress as you play but with a low powergap. The community aspect do however makes sense since it is the one thing only a MMO can do.
But the community needs to interact and work together for common goals or the whole thing wont work. Guild activities do help a bit but it isn't enough, and MMOs have cut down a lot of those as well the last 10 years.
Of course on PvE there is the need to organize for dungeons and raids which is probably part of what has made WoW such an enduring game. Most anyone who has much positive to say about that game was in a raiding guild at one point it seems like.
Of course the WoW model is built upon a progression system. The EVE system really requires no form of permanent progression. I think this is why so many people associate progression so strongly with what keeps them playing MMOs. Raids and dungeons keep them playing because of the social aspects and raids and dungeons focus around progression.
I think though that if you were remove the shinies in the forms of gear with massive stat bonuses from dungeons and replace them with gold and resource rewards that could be used to do things like build guild villages, or more temporary power upgrades, people who love raids and dungeons would discover they still love raids and dungeons, and it wasn't the shinies driving them all along.
I agree with Eldurian about the importance of the communal and social aspects of mmorpgs though. If our objectives in mmorpgs are solely or even largely based and focused on personal achievement and desire (and/or greed) for personal wealth and power, then our chances of building a true community within the game are slim. Especially when we can gain that wealth and power by ourselves or with complete strangers just as easily as we can with friends. Why form bonds with people on the internet if we don't need to? Why take the time to socialize and get to know people in a game if we don't share any common goals or objectives that benefit the entire group or community? The reasons people in the real world originally formed communities were for survival, to protect themselves from outsiders, and to achieve goals more easily. Strength in numbers. (Being related to each other was also a factor, but families and extended families sometimes fought and warred with each other as well.)
Why stay in the community if there is no real danger or risk to our characters if they leave the community?
If you want to improve your reasoning with die hard vertical progression lovers like me, I think you need to acknowledge that power increase rewards are a powerful driving factor (possible the main reason most keep playing), and give solid reasons and examples to what could replace that in a pure/more horizontal progression based mmo. Interesting challenge
Also we need to realize we are probably playing mmos for different reasons and what drives us and make a mmo interesting might be opposite. For example I have zero interest in EVE or most pvp mmos, and I am pretty sure die hard pvp mmo players have very little interest in a Everquest type of game. It is not that I don't enjoy pvp in other types of games, but because to me pvp is fun in small chunks like a few hours at a time and usually for a period of a week or two, then I need my pvp games to be easy accessible. And therefore a pvp based mmo will not be able to keep my interest, unless it has substantial other things to do (which none has, and probably never will, besides the old problem with trying to please two different player types in one game has always failed to this date).
"I am my connectome" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7GwKXfJB0
And yes, if a game want both PvP and PvE players they need to have equal fun as they play and that is not easy unless you have PvE only servers or instance the PvP. But it can be done, it just takes work. It is far from always worth it since if you mess up you will spend a lot of content on people who wont play but if you start from the beginning and make good mechanics that is as fun in both playstyles you have the potential to get both. I fear though that the trinity mechanics wont work since it makes the 2 playstyles differ so much from eachother and making them equal that way is almost impossible.
MAGA
Vanguard started off with something like 220K (or so I remember, it could be more) and went fast downward since. I have no clue about EQ2 but it was not a huge success.
So if you want to remake a MMO and become rich your best bet would be vanilla Wow, yeah, not what you want to hear but true anyways. Remaking the others make no sense with Pantheon in development.
EQ is at least feasible since it would probably earn money but it wont make Daybreak rich. I would not put any money on the other 2 even if I played both and enjoyed them way back.
Your probably right and its ashame.
MAGA
I only see 3 MMOs or related games that have a high earning potential for a remake: Wow, Lineage and Guildwars. Wow and Lineage are the 2 top P2P MMOs ever and GW2 did sell 8.5M copies which isn't bad for a low budget game, it would be way cheaper to remake with a new engine then the other 2.
A few others would earn some money but few companies would fork up the sum needed for a modest earning, you could possible make it if you use crowdfunding but you would have to make it a low budget game then.
With Everquest it is not totally unlikely that they make a mobile version, or at least a mobile game based on the IP. It was after all the EQ IP the buyer wanted when they bought out Sony (or so I read) so it makes sense they would make something out of it at least.
i think remakes could be a commercial success. remember at EQs peak its been estimated that there were only about 3 million mmo gamers in the market....meaning EQ had about ~1/6 the market share. The market is significantly bigger today and it should be feasible to get a sustainable(not that level of market share obviously) player base.
Vanguard mostly flopped because of office drama, being rushed to release, having a release date very close to a WoW expansion, and lack of advertising.
im more in agreement with elsa in regards to it not happening simply because of not having "deep pockets". its the upfront cost and lack of interested investors that are the limiting factor....not the brand popularity.
build a remake with unique art assets(not just free assets from the unity store), updated QoL changes, playable mechanics, and then dump a ton of money into marketing....you'll get your player base.
What you would get would be a percentage of the original fans and some people who heard of and want to try. Yes, I think they would earn money on a new version but I bet Pantheon will earn more unless Brad screws the pooch (and Daybreak could do the same).
As for Vanguard and EQ2, their crappy engines and loads of bugs did cost them a lot, I personally think it cost EQ2 even more the VG since it was what everyone expected to be the next big MMO back in mid '04 and actually guessing how either game would have done with good engines and coding is rather impossible besides "better".
But while Vanguard has a name on this site (I thought it was pretty well besides the engine after 2 years myself) I don't think the average gamer remembers it fondly.
So I expect to see you guys around in Pantheon, it does have many ideas from both EQ and VG while having some new interesting things and not being a sequel or remake have advantages, we don't have the same expectations as we would have for EQ3.
As long as Pantheon doesn't suck I don't see any reason for a EQ or VG remake, it has the same basic ideas and the same lead designer. If it sucks or don't release I guess a remake of EQ at least could get 250K oldschool gamers but if it goes against Pantheon the best option would be a split of the potential players between those games, you don't play any other MMO at the same time as EQ unless you have way more spare time then me.
If you truly want to be rich by remaking a MMO I think Lineage would earn even more then Wow but both would earn loads even if Wow would beat it. EQ could earn back it's cost and a bit more but that is it.
The issue is that EVE very much treats non-PvPers as second class citizens. They give griefers the tools to attack them even in the "safe" areas, they make the vast majority of the map 100% PvP areas (And the majority of that map is barely inhabited because of it. I heard a statistic from CCP themselves that something like 90% of all EVE players live in high sec.) and the focus on PvE content is minimal at best.
I think creating a game that strikes the balance more perfectly means creating a game that puts a lot of focus on making PvE content good, safe areas actually safe, and making the sandbox content more available to PvEers. But then with PvP you need to give PvPers what they actually want. Real rewards for victory and consequences for defeat. Real reasons to go into the PvP zones. And a whole lot of possibility for mayhem and bloodshed in those zones.
What PvPers are offered in most games is a slap in the face. What PvEers are offered in most games is everything they want (as long as they want nothing but dungeon/quest/level grinding and a crafting system that offers nothing in the way of innovation or complexity). Offer PvEers something new and different with an emphasis on them proportional to their population in the community and offer the PvPers something other than arenas and the satisfaction of killing people with no tangible rewards and you'll get their attention too.
That sounds about right, yes.
As I said earlier, a game with both types of gameplay need to be equally fun and all MMOs I tried failed there (even Eve, it certainly ain't even if PvEers are second class citizens as you say, and I agree with you about that).
Most modern MMOs are giving the PvEers far more fun but others the other way around. I don't see why a game far better for the other type would attract many who gets the bad deal. Just slapping in a little PvP at the last moment makes a terrible PvP experience and adding a little PvE to a PvP game will not attract a large group of PvEers.
In most cases I just wonder why they bother, they take away valuable resources from the good gameplay to add some poor content that is more in hope of selling a few more initial copies then making a good game. It makes the game worse, not better.
If you make things right from the start it is another matter but you need to be very careful so both sides get as good and fun content without making the game far less fun for the other side. More then a few MMO fans even doubt that you can succeed with this at all but while it is hard I think it certainly is possible.
I think the first Guildwars actually did a pretty good job even though it hadn't an open world, but it did have both fun PvE and PvP. It is easier with an instanced CORPG then an actual MMO. And Eve for that matter did a good try at least even though it didn't reach all the way. DaoC needs a mention as well. Neither of the games succeeded 100% though and things need an improvement if we want a open world MMO with none instanced PvP.
Safe zones and faction based PvP certainly makes it easier as well, just as a low powergap makes PvP more fun but you need to balance it so there still is progression. You need a very good team to pull this off.
And for that matter do both PvP and PvE gets more fun if the game actually have motivations for the characters besides loot and XP, most games tend to forget that or add a mainly instanced story that motivates you a short time but it rather fast to complete. It is way more fun when you try to defend your way of life instead of just killing random people to take their stuff. To quoth Sex Pistols "Your future dream is a shopping screens", motivation like that just work short term and while risking too loose your stuff might get the adrenaline flowing it isn't a good motivator.
Here are some ideas I've had on a blended game setting. Essentially if you go over my game notes I describe a MMO where all territory is contested and everyone takes part in that fight. The difference between a zone designed for non-PvPers and PvPers though is that in a zone designed with non-PvPers in mind the fight for territory is done peacefully and democratically while in full PvP areas the fight is done through mortal combat. Many areas fall somewhere in-between so while no Open World PvP is possible in the safest areas and the more dangerous areas are full Open World PvP with no consequences, some areas have limited types or consequences for certain types.
Also I think it's important we draw a distinction between PvEers and non-PvPers (Or carebears). I enjoy gathering resources, trading, and running missions / questing in dangerous zones if the rewards are proportional to the threat. I also don't mind just chilling in safezones crafting and PvEing if I feel like relaxing or I'm at a stage where the game's power disparity kind of cuts me off from PvP zones. Non-PvPers are distinct in that they are intolerant of PvP or at least Open World PvP. Most PvPers enjoy varying levels of PvE though.
But then I am more a RvR type of PvPer then a FFA one. I do think that RvR have higher potential to recruit new players then FFA, safe areas or not. Also, the PvEers can see if you are an enemy or not earlier forcing small enemy units to use tactics to capture them instead of just pretending to be friendly and then jump the players.
That said, the game you described do sound like something I could see myself playing if it's well made but I think you still would need more ideas to be able to attract PvE only fans to it.
And when I get tired of vertical progression I can take a break and unlock/learn new weapon/magic types. Going for horizontal progression and redoing old zones with a fresh approach to them.
It's really something, and I'm loving it.