honestly this is the only thing i would consider a game changer. anything else is something that has already been done rehashed with a new coat of paint
What people fail to realize is a lot of the fun(and on the other side grief) of playing mmorpgs comes from the people playing said mmorpg. So all these things that people try to come up with to drastically change how mmorpgs are played are in fact impossible and terrible things to do because player griefing makes them so.
Open world dungeons is but one example. If you have open world dungeons, a very small subset of people will get to experience them(this is even more so the case when talking about "end game dungeons") because the "elite few" will monopolize those areas.
It happened in EQ of old, it's happening in Project1999, it will happen in any game released today. Same way people farm valuable rare spawns in WoW and a regular player would have 0 chance of even ever seeing said rare spawn ever.(Time-lost Protodrake mob is one example).
Until the day people themselves change where they're okay with sharing, this problem will not go away and it automatically locks out a lot of different pathways that devs could take to freshen things up.
So for all the people who hate on instanced mmorpgs, there is a reason why almost every mmorpg releasing since years ago have made the switch to instanced over open world. To let everyone experience the content rather than just the powerful few.
What people fail to realize is a lot of the fun(and on the other side grief) of playing mmorpgs comes from the people playing said mmorpg. So all these things that people try to come up with to drastically change how mmorpgs are played are in fact impossible and terrible things to do because player griefing makes them so.
Open world dungeons is but one example. If you have open world dungeons, a very small subset of people will get to experience them(this is even more so the case when talking about "end game dungeons") because the "elite few" will monopolize those areas.
It happened in EQ of old, it's happening in Project1999, it will happen in any game released today. Same way people farm valuable rare spawns in WoW and a regular player would have 0 chance of even ever seeing said rare spawn ever.(Time-lost Protodrake mob is one example).
Until the day people themselves change where they're okay with sharing, this problem will not go away and it automatically locks out a lot of different pathways that devs could take to freshen things up.
So for all the people who hate on instanced mmorpgs, there is a reason why almost every mmorpg releasing since years ago have made the switch to instanced over open world. To let everyone experience the content rather than just the powerful few.
The problem isn't instancing, although many people seem to blame it. The problem stems from a linear design -- the only way to get item X is from killing mob Y. Instancing started as an attempt to counter or correct this limited design. It essentially puts killing mob Y on everyone's critical progression path, making a choke point. When games are new (without a lot of expansions), there are few (or infrequent) alternatives to item X.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
honestly this is the only thing i would consider a game changer. anything else is something that has already been done rehashed with a new coat of paint
I'm not trying to be contradictory here, but probably will come across as such
How exactly does VR "change a game?" Is the combat mechanics different? Is the story/quest/lore mechanics different? Does VR change exploration mechanics at all? I admit I am no fan of VR (I wear glasses for one), but I don't understand how it "changes a game."
When games went HD, did that "change the games" for you, too? VR is just presentation. If that's all it takes, is it truly "changing the game?"
I understand players' desire for the "immersion" that VR tries to bring, but when all is said and done, it just how the game is presented (sight). Without smell, taste, and touch, VR doesn't tell me which way the wind is blowing for that sniper shot. It doesn't tell me how that "special wine" smells or tastes. VR doesn't let me feel the blood spatter from the severed head I just took, or the shivering up the arms from blocking or landing a blow. I just don't get why VR is such a "game changer."
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Friendly fire would change drastically how many mmorpgs are played.
...it's called PVP, not particularly novelty idea ;-)
Are their really a lot of pvp games with friendly fire?
The moment you introduce friendly fire you open up the game for more exploits and more fringe cases. What happens when a “friend” attacks you in the back so the enemy can kill you? Now you introduce penalties like alignment, right? So what happens when you accidentally hit a friend and get penalized by the same rules that protected him from getting ganked by friendlies? Another one is purposefully jumping in front of friendly fire to intentionally trigger their penalties.
When end you really dig into friendly fire you understand why companies don’t bother. Its not worth the troubles.
The recurring theme that strikes me as most likely to be a real game-changer is game development emphasis that allows both players and NPCs to be much more realistic and have more persistent, less scripted effects on the game world.
Given the relatively large number of players who will cheerfully break systems just so they can jump up and down on the rubble, that emphasis is going to need to involve some very robust stabilizing mechanics that are still in their conceptual infancy. And it will take some real changes in how developers think about their creations and make changes to them--by tweaking the rules that define the system's evolution, rather than simply changing item X into item Y and calling it a day.
Yes, players will break all your systems, in any kind of game, and that will be a bigger problem in a more dynamic (persistant/realistic) world governed by AI. In my humble opinion there is not real solution to this. You can either embrace that breaking the game is part of the experience and do corrections, or (dumb it down) simplify systems to make them more robust which is obviously against the whole idea of dynamic worlds. My suggestion to this problem is a radical solution, that require a combination of stabilizing mechanics or rather tools, and then have real people monitor and correct/guide the game whenever it breaks and take a wrong direction. These people(employees) have to be able to react fast and be proactive with monitoring tendencies and watch in real time as the server changes... AND in order to do that, they need a constant development of tools (stabilizing mechanics). If you think you can automate stabilizing mechanics and keep a high level of depth you are mistaken, and that is why you need to have real people to make the decisions..of course tools to predict tendencies will emerge and to some degree can be automated but it will always need human judgement to not go out of control in some unforeseen way.
Friendly fire would change drastically how many mmorpgs are played.
...it's called PVP, not particularly novelty idea ;-)
Are their really a lot of pvp games with friendly fire?
The moment you introduce friendly fire you open up the game for more exploits and more fringe cases. What happens when a “friend” attacks you in the back so the enemy can kill you? Now you introduce penalties like alignment, right? So what happens when you accidentally hit a friend and get penalized by the same rules that protected him from getting ganked by friendlies? Another one is purposefully jumping in front of friendly fire to intentionally trigger their penalties.
When end you really dig into friendly fire you understand why companies don’t bother. Its not worth the troubles.
most of that only applies if the game has PvP, as I don't want to play a game with ANY PvP it is irrelevant.
Friendly fire would change drastically how many mmorpgs are played.
...it's called PVP, not particularly novelty idea ;-)
Are their really a lot of pvp games with friendly fire?
The moment you introduce friendly fire you open up the game for more exploits and more fringe cases. What happens when a “friend” attacks you in the back so the enemy can kill you? Now you introduce penalties like alignment, right? So what happens when you accidentally hit a friend and get penalized by the same rules that protected him from getting ganked by friendlies? Another one is purposefully jumping in front of friendly fire to intentionally trigger their penalties.
When end you really dig into friendly fire you understand why companies don’t bother. Its not worth the troubles.
most of that only applies if the game has PvP, as I don't want to play a game with ANY PvP it is irrelevant.
So let me get this straight, you want friendly fire in a PVE game and don’t think this will cause problems and, well, pvp?
You cannot radically change how MMORPG are played. All you can do is try to give players a different approach to gameplay, and hope they go with it. Example: Some players are content locusts, that do everything they can to reach "end game" as quick as possible. Regardless of the content you put in, regardless of the methods you employ to deliver content, and pace it out, they will always be content locusts, they will always rush to whatever the perceived "end game" is, they will not change.
It is a funny world we live in. We had Empires run by Emperors, we had Kingdoms run by Kings, now we have Countries...
Friendly fire would change drastically how many mmorpgs are played.
...it's called PVP, not particularly novelty idea ;-)
Are their really a lot of pvp games with friendly fire?
The moment you introduce friendly fire you open up the game for more exploits and more fringe cases. What happens when a “friend” attacks you in the back so the enemy can kill you? Now you introduce penalties like alignment, right? So what happens when you accidentally hit a friend and get penalized by the same rules that protected him from getting ganked by friendlies? Another one is purposefully jumping in front of friendly fire to intentionally trigger their penalties.
When end you really dig into friendly fire you understand why companies don’t bother. Its not worth the troubles.
most of that only applies if the game has PvP, as I don't want to play a game with ANY PvP it is irrelevant.
So let me get this straight, you want friendly fire in a PVE game and don’t think this will cause problems and, well, pvp?
Yep. You got it. What I hope it causes is more care about AoE placement. But you seem so stuck in a PvP mindset I don't expect you to agree.
honestly this is the only thing i would consider a game changer. anything else is something that has already been done rehashed with a new coat of paint
I'm not trying to be contradictory here, but probably will come across as such
How exactly does VR "change a game?" Is the combat mechanics different? Is the story/quest/lore mechanics different? Does VR change exploration mechanics at all? I admit I am no fan of VR (I wear glasses for one), but I don't understand how it "changes a game."
When games went HD, did that "change the games" for you, too? VR is just presentation. If that's all it takes, is it truly "changing the game?"
I understand players' desire for the "immersion" that VR tries to bring, but when all is said and done, it just how the game is presented (sight). Without smell, taste, and touch, VR doesn't tell me which way the wind is blowing for that sniper shot. It doesn't tell me how that "special wine" smells or tastes. VR doesn't let me feel the blood spatter from the severed head I just took, or the shivering up the arms from blocking or landing a blow. I just don't get why VR is such a "game changer."
I see what you are saying, but consider the difference between a text based mmo and a 2d mmo. Now jump to a 3d version like EQ where the world materializes around you more and you can tell even more of pa difference. You are right, it’s just presentation, but its also potential.
The imagination of how things taste, feel, and smell is something people experience without being told in books and movies, as well as current 3d video games, so that is hardly grounds to dismiss VR as the game changer. Im no VR activist, but I do see massive potential beyond what a 3d screen can provide when talking about games that are largely about building worlds and immersing oneself within.
Post edited by Palebane on
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
I enjoy reading LitRPG. Make it like that, a meaningful world, real unique adventures, and NPCs with a real life. Use the most advanced AI to simulate a huge world, where players only sqeeze themselves inbetween. With every chance to get crushed by huge NPC driven decicions and politics.
Friendly fire would change drastically how many mmorpgs are played.
...it's called PVP, not particularly novelty idea ;-)
Are their really a lot of pvp games with friendly fire?
The moment you introduce friendly fire you open up the game for more exploits and more fringe cases. What happens when a “friend” attacks you in the back so the enemy can kill you? Now you introduce penalties like alignment, right? So what happens when you accidentally hit a friend and get penalized by the same rules that protected him from getting ganked by friendlies? Another one is purposefully jumping in front of friendly fire to intentionally trigger their penalties.
When end you really dig into friendly fire you understand why companies don’t bother. Its not worth the troubles.
most of that only applies if the game has PvP, as I don't want to play a game with ANY PvP it is irrelevant.
So let me get this straight, you want friendly fire in a PVE game and don’t think this will cause problems and, well, pvp?
Yep. You got it. What I hope it causes is more care about AoE placement. But you seem so stuck in a PvP mindset I don't expect you to agree.
Im neither agreeing or disagreeing, I pointed out the problems with friendly fire in a pvp game. Those would still apply, and be even more of a problem, in a pve game. You and I are running around together killing rats. I decide i don’t want to share loot with you so I intentionally “friendly fire” and kill you. What now?
I totally get where you are coming from, it’s just not really ideal.
Friendly fire would change drastically how many mmorpgs are played.
...it's called PVP, not particularly novelty idea ;-)
Are their really a lot of pvp games with friendly fire?
The moment you introduce friendly fire you open up the game for more exploits and more fringe cases. What happens when a “friend” attacks you in the back so the enemy can kill you? Now you introduce penalties like alignment, right? So what happens when you accidentally hit a friend and get penalized by the same rules that protected him from getting ganked by friendlies? Another one is purposefully jumping in front of friendly fire to intentionally trigger their penalties.
When end you really dig into friendly fire you understand why companies don’t bother. Its not worth the troubles.
It's true that friendly fire will make a game more susceptible to exploits, but for an immersive world it is a must imo. The simplest way to counter the exploit(s) are factions, guilds and groups.
Talking about games where thousands of players exist simultaneously in a single instance and mechanics related to such games.
Ruthlessly eliminate tab targeting and strictly implement a dynamic combo system. Think Conan Exiles, or even better, KingdomComeDeliverance.
Games like this already exist.
Some, but not many. I can think of the Darkfall games and that's about it on the MMORPG side of things. ESO, Tera and games like that are not the same. They are more of a soft aim targeting system where putting your crosshair on, or in some cases just near, the target is the same as 'tabbing' it and in my opinion that isn't the same. For others I'm sure that's good enough.
I enjoy reading LitRPG. Make it like that, a meaningful world, real unique adventures, and NPCs with a real life. Use the most advanced AI to simulate a huge world, where players only sqeeze themselves inbetween. With every chance to get crushed by huge NPC driven decicions and politics.
Our AI isn't there yet. I read a lot of LitRPGs too and that's really the only change that would radically change how mmorpgs are played. If AI could get to the level or near the level of AI in those LitRPGs, then that would be game/world changing.
We would actually get what Metzen was promising for EQN. Sadly though, we're not even close to getting that yet.
Actually they do not. Most players prefer open world games, but with clear goals determined.
Clear goals or direction? Linear in all other terms, to my ears. I really don't want to start an argument with anybody. Look, I am perfectly fine with people wanting what they want. My inclinations aren't better or worse. I don't think the games I've liked are better or worse. They're just what I like.
I'm going to say it. Modern MMORPGs transitioned away from forced grouping to forced content. That's what linear progression is. It's vastly successful because most players, whether they know it or not, like it that way. Open worlds with clear direction or goals are linear designs intended to be seen otherwise.
Even Everquest had some of that direction built in, albeit maybe at a lesser amount. Qeynos had level 1-5 mobs approximately for new players. It had 3-15 mobs in the sewers. It had 3-20 mobs nextdoor in Qeynos Hills. And adjacent to Qeynos Hills, there was West Karana, where mobs were about 10-35. Even without telling new players where to go, the design of the zones urged them in the appropriate direction.
Open world games don't NEED direction or goals, but most players who play them DO. And that's the difference. If there's actually something to do in the open world outside of the main plot or goals then it does still qualify as a non-linear game, despite it also qualifying as a linear game.
You cannot radically change how MMORPG are played. All you can do is try to give players a different approach to gameplay, and hope they go with it. Example: Some players are content locusts, that do everything they can to reach "end game" as quick as possible. Regardless of the content you put in, regardless of the methods you employ to deliver content, and pace it out, they will always be content locusts, they will always rush to whatever the perceived "end game" is, they will not change.
Players play the games they get. Here the product determines the market. Not you, but the developer, in fact the publisher. There are solo players, group players - but that behaviors are results from the games they played. I started with Lineage 2 and now most solo focused games look incredibly shallow and stupid to me. If you started with GW2 or WoW, you will not have such a problem. As if you started with LoL, a PvP MMORPG will be completely fine for you. The games are above all interaction, so playing a game really changes the way we play the games.
The players determines the market. All that stuff you came up with is just false, plain and simple. You know why mobile games are taking over? Because it's low cost and it's humungous returns. If people didn't spend hundreds and thousands on them, they wouldn't be popping up like locusts.
If millions of people were still playing EQ1/2, UO, etc, you'd see a ton of new mmorpgs trying to copy those games instead of trying to copy WoW. Devs go for what they think will be a success. A lot of the times they can't make the game they want to due to who they got the financial backing from. Because those financial backers go "Hey, you're making a sandbox game, that doesn't give me great confidence i'll get a good return on my money due to the history of games like this released, make a themepark instead."
Players determine the market. They voted with their wallet.
Players play the games they get. Here the product determines the market. Not you, but the developer, in fact the publisher. There are solo players, group players - but that behaviors are results from the games they played. I started with Lineage 2 and now most solo focused games look incredibly shallow and stupid to me. If you started with GW2 or WoW, you will not have such a problem. As if you started with LoL, a PvP MMORPG will be completely fine for you. The games are above all interaction, so playing a game really changes the way we play the games.
The players determines the market. All that stuff you came up with is just false, plain and simple. You know why mobile games are taking over? Because it's low cost and it's humungous returns. If people didn't spend hundreds and thousands on them, they wouldn't be popping up like locusts.
If millions of people were still playing EQ1/2, UO, etc, you'd see a ton of new mmorpgs trying to copy those games instead of trying to copy WoW. Devs go for what they think will be a success. A lot of the times they can't make the game they want to due to who they got the financial backing from. Because those financial backers go "Hey, you're making a sandbox game, that doesn't give me great confidence i'll get a good return on my money due to the history of games like this released, make a themepark instead."
Players determine the market. They voted with their wallet.
Publishers today bank on presales because people wear their desperation on their sleeves. People pay more for hype than for a great game. The market has come to accept that developers purposefully withhold content to sell as dlc, turning a $60 game into $100 for the season pass. It is worse than Disneyland right now where a bottle of water is $8 because at least I get a full bottle of real water right away.
An example of this was earlier this week on the boards here, someone was saying that they preordered Fallout76 but have yet to play it until all the bugs and kinks were worked out. Not only could that person have saved $20 by waiting, they told the publishers basically, “I will pay full price for this no matter how aweful and unfinished it is.” That is the video game market today. At least with crowdfunding people get to choose how much they donate (don’t they)?
Post edited by Palebane on
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
We vote with the money we spend on our games. We choose the way we play them. These two things are what drive game development. When was the last time the largest percentage of players did anything at all different in any game other than fly as quickly as possible to max level and then engage in endgame PVE/PVP content? What was the last game that the players went crazy over something else and spent a good percentage of their time happily engaged in? If you went out and looked at statistics about what part of games draws people in, would you have new and exciting ideas? We need to change how we play and how we spend our money if we want to drive change in the industry. The only alternative is to sit around an hope some money driven corporation comes up with a genius idea and manages not to ruin it with monetization, which is a really slim chance.
Comments
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
How exactly does VR "change a game?" Is the combat mechanics different? Is the story/quest/lore mechanics different? Does VR change exploration mechanics at all? I admit I am no fan of VR (I wear glasses for one), but I don't understand how it "changes a game."
When games went HD, did that "change the games" for you, too? VR is just presentation. If that's all it takes, is it truly "changing the game?"
I understand players' desire for the "immersion" that VR tries to bring, but when all is said and done, it just how the game is presented (sight). Without smell, taste, and touch, VR doesn't tell me which way the wind is blowing for that sniper shot. It doesn't tell me how that "special wine" smells or tastes. VR doesn't let me feel the blood spatter from the severed head I just took, or the shivering up the arms from blocking or landing a blow. I just don't get why VR is such a "game changer."
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
What happens when a “friend” attacks you in the back so the enemy can kill you? Now you introduce penalties like alignment, right? So what happens when you accidentally hit a friend and get penalized by the same rules that protected him from getting ganked by friendlies? Another one is purposefully jumping in front of friendly fire to intentionally trigger their penalties.
When end you really dig into friendly fire you understand why companies don’t bother. Its not worth the troubles.
In my humble opinion there is not real solution to this. You can either embrace that breaking the game is part of the experience and do corrections, or (dumb it down) simplify systems to make them more robust which is obviously against the whole idea of dynamic worlds.
My suggestion to this problem is a radical solution, that require a combination of stabilizing mechanics or rather tools, and then have real people monitor and correct/guide the game whenever it breaks and take a wrong direction. These people(employees) have to be able to react fast and be proactive with monitoring tendencies and watch in real time as the server changes... AND in order to do that, they need a constant development of tools (stabilizing mechanics). If you think you can automate stabilizing mechanics and keep a high level of depth you are mistaken, and that is why you need to have real people to make the decisions..of course tools to predict tendencies will emerge and to some degree can be automated but it will always need human judgement to not go out of control in some unforeseen way.
"I am my connectome" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7GwKXfJB0
Friendly fire is were (among other things) you cast an AOE ability and members of your own group within the area are also damaged.
All you can do is try to give players a different approach to gameplay, and hope they go with it.
Example:
Some players are content locusts, that do everything they can to reach "end game" as quick as possible.
Regardless of the content you put in, regardless of the methods you employ to deliver content, and pace it out, they will always be content locusts, they will always rush to whatever the perceived "end game" is, they will not change.
We had Empires run by Emperors, we had Kingdoms run by Kings, now we have Countries...
The imagination of how things taste, feel, and smell is something people experience without being told in books and movies, as well as current 3d video games, so that is hardly grounds to dismiss VR as the game changer. Im no VR activist, but I do see massive potential beyond what a 3d screen can provide when talking about games that are largely about building worlds and immersing oneself within.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
My answer is quite simple : Throw me into a large world to explore filled with other players and lots of dangers for us to overcome together.
- Stop making me the hero
- Stop trying to make everything an esport
- Stop trying to compete for twitch views
- Stop making games for shareholders
Looks like the simple answer is to go back to what made the genre great to begin with before it got too big for its own good.Use the most advanced AI to simulate a huge world, where players only sqeeze themselves inbetween. With every chance to get crushed by huge NPC driven decicions and politics.
I totally get where you are coming from, it’s just not really ideal.
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
An example of this was earlier this week on the boards here, someone was saying that they preordered Fallout76 but have yet to play it until all the bugs and kinks were worked out. Not only could that person have saved $20 by waiting, they told the publishers basically, “I will pay full price for this no matter how aweful and unfinished it is.” That is the video game market today. At least with crowdfunding people get to choose how much they donate (don’t they)?
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
E: 86% S: 53% A: 40% K: 20%