Players determine the market. They voted with their wallet.
This is the US thinking. And you got Trump. So your thinking is obviously wrong. Your wallet cannot vote. The money has not voting power. You does not choose a product because it is the best product, but because of many factors - emotional, rational, information, relations, behavior, accessibility of the product - so the price, the location, the time needed to get it and etc. And most of that factors can be manipulated from the marketing specialists. Specially for the games the players do not determine the market. The publishers do it. Your choice is delusional.
Is the iPhone the best smart phone? No. Do you have one? Probably yes. And if you have iPhone there is a high chance to have iMac, and iPad, as you are involved in a special "ecosystem" of products. The same with Android. So why do you think WoW does not determine your customer's behavior?
I don't even know where to begin with you. Money has a great amount of voting power. Not just 1 individuals money no, but consumers as a whole. I don't know if the Iphone is the best phone but it sure as fuck isn't the worst. It's a top tier phone, a lot of people use them for its simplicity. It just works. The reason people who have iphones tend to have iMacs and iPads is again because of simplicity. You can share all the data between them all seamlessly and without effort.
That's a completely side tracked discussion compared to what we were talking about before however. I really don't know how else to explain it to you. If people do not spend money on your product, it will be a failure. If you don't understand this simple fact then i don't really see the point in continuing back and forth.
Like i said before, there is a very obvious reason why you see "WoW clones" popping up and not "UO clones". One is more likely to make money, this is an irrefutable fact. That money comes from the PLAYERS which is essentially them VOTING with their wallet. That is what devs are chasing after. Most devs, i'll amend myself. Some devs don't do it for the money, they do it for the passion.....until they run out of money and have to find a backer which is doing it for the money which is when shit goes south usually. Just like now, there's a very obvious reason why you're seeing a ridiculous amount of mobile mmo's popping up over PC mmo's...one is more likely to make more money.
WoW doesn't determine customer behavior, the customer's behavior determines what WoW turns into. People complain it takes too long to level up? Make leveling faster. People complain raiding is too hard and they can't complete the content? Make LFR. People say LFR is too easy but the next step up is too hard? Make Normal/Heroic/Mythic. WoW has consistently changed it's structure of the game over the years due to its players outcries, sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. Sometimes they managed to hit the mark, others they were so far off as to be blind.
Everything revolves around money. And what any of this has to do with Trump...i'm not even gonna touch that.
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?
The largest percentage of players are casual players who don't log in every day and take far longer to hit max level than the tiny number of super enthusiasts who do what you're describing.
This makes everything else you said basically wrong, but aside from that it was a very well-thought out post.
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."
its not just those things, although if they had smellovision in theaters i can see how it could be adapted
yes immersion, but more the kinetic energy and movement when you explore, the tactile sensation of opening a door and you have no way of knowing what is on the other side, you feel how heavy the door is, the weight of your gear, having to go through movements to fire a weapon or have your avatar be a more clear representation of you and moving in sync with your speaking, there is no typed chat channels, you reach to your belt to see what is inside of that bag, you dont click a UI to open a bunch of bags on your screen
in essence, there is no UI, no mods to download, its just you and your character.
present VR technology in no way represents what i think it could be, nor is it even remotely close to what I describe. it is still in its infancy, sort of like how archaic an atari 2600 graphics compare to current games on this gen of consoles...
Players determine the market. They voted with their wallet.
This is the US thinking. And you got Trump. So your thinking is obviously wrong. Your wallet cannot vote. The money has not voting power. You does not choose a product because it is the best product, but because of many factors - emotional, rational, information, relations, behavior, accessibility of the product - so the price, the location, the time needed to get it and etc. And most of that factors can be manipulated from the marketing specialists. Specially for the games the players do not determine the market. The publishers do it. Your choice is delusional.
Is the iPhone the best smart phone? No. Do you have one? Probably yes. And if you have iPhone there is a high chance to have iMac, and iPad, as you are involved in a special "ecosystem" of products. The same with Android. So why do you think WoW does not determine your customer's behavior?
I don't know what planet you are from, but money is the number one voting tool in the world, bar none. Why do publisher choose a certain style of game? Because its sells. It makes them money.
Why do all cell phone companies make smartphones? Because when the iPhone came out they all KNEW without a doubt they wouldn't be able to sell their flip phones as long as Apple had the iPhone. In order to make money they had to adjust and sell the proper product.
Are there still companies that sell flip phones? For sure, but they are a niche. Are there companies still trying to sell PVP and full loot MMOs? Yes, but they are a niche.
Just like the iPhone is the WoW of cell phones, the flip phone is the Rise of Agon. There are people interested, but it's not enough to lure in the AAA companies to create.
Barring tech like VR, AR or being plugged in... what do you think could be the biggest game changer?
I think having fluid, player reactive content would change how we play. A system developing stories on it's own based on player action.
I'd like to see more complex A.I. for NPCs. Like the LoTRs nemesis system. NPCs that also level and if you have favor with them if you get into a fight around them they will actually help you out. I like how The Division 2, will allow you to send up a flare so the locals will run in to help you.
I'd also like to see a class that specializes in law enforcement as an actual detailed career path.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
I think going back to creating depth would be a good start. I don't think it would be wildly popular, but it would definitely be a breath of fresh air for me. EQ had a very deep faction system that most people probably didn't even realize existed.
The cooking system in botw is a good one to put onto Mmorpgs and even expand on it.
Every MMORPG player doesn't play anymore then someone makes something different. Like a 2nd person game (from the monsters point of view) Then 200 people start playing again.
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.
A lot of people will be surprised, but this is actually the future? How? Because content demands are becoming extreme. It's expensive to create content. Each new generation of MMORPG is expected to put out more. This demand on content makers is driving costs too high. The result will be increasing value placed on procedural content, or computer generated content. This will start out with simpler things like terrain generation or texturing, and we've already been at this stage for some time. It's slowly building itself up to more complicated things. Eventually it'll find itself to entire cities, lore, NPCs and quests. These virtual worlds will be so immense it just won't be possible for people to handcraft every single detail. So content makers will increasingly "zoom out", so to speak, from what they're making--and the algorithms will handle the details.
The idea isn't to recreate reality, but instead to create a functional fantasy world for players to inhabit. In principle, however, the idea is similar conceptually. It's essentially simulating the various interacting pieces to create an acceptable level of immersion, whereas presently these things are handcrafted by content makers. It's "simulated" by the people making it. It's similar to what happens when a writer constructs a world in his/her imagination. But when software does it, it's no longer something locked away in the unknown of the human mind. The work on Dwarf Fortress by Tam Adams is a good example of what I'm getting at. He simulates the entire history of the game, up to the present time, and then he gives it to the player. Everytime the player starts a new game, a new history is generated.
Maybe it'll be some sort of pattern recognition algorithm intead? Feed it a bunch of historic RPG worlds and it'll spit out countless altered reimaginings. The more it's fed, and the better able it's to recognize the patterns, the more impressive its creations will be. In this case it's less like a simulation.
Barring tech like VR, AR or being plugged in... what do you think could be the biggest game changer?
I think having fluid, player reactive content would change how we play. A system developing stories on it's own based on player action.
I'd like to see more complex A.I. for NPCs. Like the LoTRs nemesis system. NPCs that also level and if you have favor with them if you get into a fight around them they will actually help you out. I like how The Division 2, will allow you to send up a flare so the locals will run in to help you.
I'd also like to see a class that specializes in law enforcement as an actual detailed career path.
Me2. The problem has always been how do you also make engaging gameplay for plaeyrs? Everquest devs liked to say they created some AI but when they tested it? Healers would heal and tanks would tank and CC would CC--and so on. Guess what? The fights were too long and the experience for players too painful. The devs dumbed down the AI because they felt it would be too hard to make it engaging. Personally I don't think they really tried. I'm not sure anybody has. It's not easy to do, so eveyrbody is falling back on what has always "worked".
In MMORPGs, I've heard of AI being used in Mortal Online and Darkfall, but I wasn't impressed. I remeber also reading about herd AI in Ryzom, but again I never much noticed it. Some links about Darkfall AI below.
Barring tech like VR, AR or being plugged in... what do you think could be the biggest game changer?
I think having fluid, player reactive content would change how we play. A system developing stories on it's own based on player action.
Like a procedurally generated story? Infinite possibilities. Well, not really I mean most thing generally end with: Saving the day, or death but the parts leading to that could be really exciting.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
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."
its not just those things, although if they had smellovision in theaters i can see how it could be adapted
yes immersion, but more the kinetic energy and movement when you explore, the tactile sensation of opening a door and you have no way of knowing what is on the other side, you feel how heavy the door is, the weight of your gear, having to go through movements to fire a weapon or have your avatar be a more clear representation of you and moving in sync with your speaking, there is no typed chat channels, you reach to your belt to see what is inside of that bag, you dont click a UI to open a bunch of bags on your screen
in essence, there is no UI, no mods to download, its just you and your character.
present VR technology in no way represents what i think it could be, nor is it even remotely close to what I describe. it is still in its infancy, sort of like how archaic an atari 2600 graphics compare to current games on this gen of consoles...
You know, I need to apologize. It was I who misunderstood the thread title, not the VR folks. "HOW MMORPGS will be Played" I believe that VR is a very radical way in which games are/will be played. I was thinking how MMORPGs are designed, not played.
- 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
Barring tech like VR, AR or being plugged in... what do you think could be the biggest game changer?
I think having fluid, player reactive content would change how we play. A system developing stories on it's own based on player action.
I'd like to see more complex A.I. for NPCs. Like the LoTRs nemesis system. NPCs that also level and if you have favor with them if you get into a fight around them they will actually help you out. I like how The Division 2, will allow you to send up a flare so the locals will run in to help you.
I'd also like to see a class that specializes in law enforcement as an actual detailed career path.
As far as npcs that help you you out if you get into a fight so long as you build reputation up with them, that isn't anything new. WoW had that since vanilla and i remember people abusing it in Mists of Pandaria to get others killed. Granted this mostly only extended towards guards so an expansion of such a system is definitely warranted.
As far as a class that specializes in law enforcement...i mean that automatically limits what type of game you're playing. There is no law enforcement in WoW's world for instance like most other fantasy mmos. Though i could see it being a thing in a game like Secret World's setting though.
I am yet to see a movie that is as repetitive and so dreadfully boring as an average mmorpg.
Groundhogs Day is repetitive but far more entertaining.
How about movie series? Or remakes? Or Reboots?
Rocky had quite a number in the original series and now the remake/continuation is on #2. They're pretty much all the same story in different wrappings
- 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
Uh no. We need developers make actual MMORPGs. Massive, heavily themed worlds are needed with the production tools to make such games.
When the large developers continue to use their current tool set to make their entire game line, you just end up a limited or just plain crap MMOs... hence the direction to battle royal. The scope of an MMORPG doesn't fit within their quarterly report schedule.
This is why small, indie companies are taking ALL the risk. CTE took 2 years to build a new engine because nothing on the market could accomplish their goals. Visionary Realms is building their game around the concept the launched the MMORPG industry and built the original large fanbase ... yet EA and Activision won't do it because it doesn't fall within their cash shop and gambling scams.
What radical things are need to change the MMORPG industry? You need to back the developers actually trying to make real MMORPGs, and stop hanging off the tit of the industry that has systematically destroyed niche market genres within this hobby. I feel some may need to also reconsider what RPG means.
Until that time, you will get your clones of clones of clones, all entirely supported by RMT practices. So, more of the same.
The key to the MMORPG was the first M. This is the factor that has slowly been eroding over the years, and is the thing that makes players long for the old days. Over time, games have been optimized for more tighly knit groups, and less for the zerg. This has led to first guild based gaming, then as the groups got smaller, to just friends gaming together. Sure, you may be part of a larger world, but the 'best' experience is optimized to a recurring group of players experiencing the content together.
What is needed is for players to not only need each other on the small scale, but for them to need each other in large numbers... and not in a highly skilled fashion. PUG's need to be a highly desirable goal, with players WANTING to interact, rather than only doing so occasionally. Once there is a reasonable desire for players to interact on a Massive scale, then games will change back to what was once a norm.
The key to the MMORPG was the first M. This is the factor that has slowly been eroding over the years, and is the thing that makes players long for the old days. Over time, games have been optimized for more tighly knit groups, and less for the zerg. This has led to first guild based gaming, then as the groups got smaller, to just friends gaming together. Sure, you may be part of a larger world, but the 'best' experience is optimized to a recurring group of players experiencing the content together.
What is needed is for players to not only need each other on the small scale, but for them to need each other in large numbers... and not in a highly skilled fashion. PUG's need to be a highly desirable goal, with players WANTING to interact, rather than only doing so occasionally. Once there is a reasonable desire for players to interact on a Massive scale, then games will change back to what was once a norm.
While "zerg" was a race in Starcraft in 1998, zerg as a tactic didn't really appear in MMORPGS until at least six years later. In Everquest the mega raid to kill a 'Dragon' was a highly structured affair and not a zerg at all.
Not having any levels, if you wanted you could start straight at endgame. That would force the devs to make proper endgame content. It would also solve the problem with not having quests at endgame and so on.
You had to then come up with new ways to keep the players busy.
The key to the MMORPG was the first M. This is the factor that has slowly been eroding over the years, and is the thing that makes players long for the old days. Over time, games have been optimized for more tighly knit groups, and less for the zerg. This has led to first guild based gaming, then as the groups got smaller, to just friends gaming together. Sure, you may be part of a larger world, but the 'best' experience is optimized to a recurring group of players experiencing the content together.
What is needed is for players to not only need each other on the small scale, but for them to need each other in large numbers... and not in a highly skilled fashion. PUG's need to be a highly desirable goal, with players WANTING to interact, rather than only doing so occasionally. Once there is a reasonable desire for players to interact on a Massive scale, then games will change back to what was once a norm.
While "zerg" was a race in Starcraft in 1998, zerg as a tactic didn't really appear in MMORPGS until at least six years later. In Everquest the mega raid to kill a 'Dragon' was a highly structured affair and not a zerg at all.
The key to the MMORPG was the first M. This is the factor that has slowly been eroding over the years, and is the thing that makes players long for the old days. Over time, games have been optimized for more tighly knit groups, and less for the zerg. This has led to first guild based gaming, then as the groups got smaller, to just friends gaming together. Sure, you may be part of a larger world, but the 'best' experience is optimized to a recurring group of players experiencing the content together.
What is needed is for players to not only need each other on the small scale, but for them to need each other in large numbers... and not in a highly skilled fashion. PUG's need to be a highly desirable goal, with players WANTING to interact, rather than only doing so occasionally. Once there is a reasonable desire for players to interact on a Massive scale, then games will change back to what was once a norm.
While "zerg" was a race in Starcraft in 1998, zerg as a tactic didn't really appear in MMORPGS until at least six years later. In Everquest the mega raid to kill a 'Dragon' was a highly structured affair and not a zerg at all.
There were zergs in UO.Beta test.
So you are telling me there were zergs in UO before the word was coined as the name of a swarming alien race in Starcraft?
Well as I never played UO (an aversion to all things 'Lord British') I will have to take your word for it. But tell me what did you call that behaviour at the time? Because it obviously wasn't "zerg" .
Which brings up an interesting cultural point. If, as you say, that tactic was prevalent as far back as UO beta, what did people call it? And as that behaviour, masses of players engaging one target, is so much more like todays 'zerg' than zerglings, why did the name change?
The key to the MMORPG was the first M. This is the factor that has slowly been eroding over the years, and is the thing that makes players long for the old days. Over time, games have been optimized for more tighly knit groups, and less for the zerg. This has led to first guild based gaming, then as the groups got smaller, to just friends gaming together. Sure, you may be part of a larger world, but the 'best' experience is optimized to a recurring group of players experiencing the content together.
What is needed is for players to not only need each other on the small scale, but for them to need each other in large numbers... and not in a highly skilled fashion. PUG's need to be a highly desirable goal, with players WANTING to interact, rather than only doing so occasionally. Once there is a reasonable desire for players to interact on a Massive scale, then games will change back to what was once a norm.
While "zerg" was a race in Starcraft in 1998, zerg as a tactic didn't really appear in MMORPGS until at least six years later. In Everquest the mega raid to kill a 'Dragon' was a highly structured affair and not a zerg at all.
There were zergs in UO.Beta test.
So you are telling me there were zergs in UO before the word was coined as the name of a swarming alien race in Starcraft?
Well as I never played UO (an aversion to all things 'Lord British') I will have to take your word for it. But tell me what did you call that behaviour at the time? Because it obviously wasn't "zerg" .
Which brings up an interesting cultural point. If, as you say, that tactic was prevalent as far back as UO beta, what did people call it? And as that behaviour, masses of players engaging one target, is so much more like todays 'zerg' than zerglings, why did the name change?
The key to the MMORPG was the first M. This is the factor that has slowly been eroding over the years, and is the thing that makes players long for the old days. Over time, games have been optimized for more tighly knit groups, and less for the zerg. This has led to first guild based gaming, then as the groups got smaller, to just friends gaming together. Sure, you may be part of a larger world, but the 'best' experience is optimized to a recurring group of players experiencing the content together.
What is needed is for players to not only need each other on the small scale, but for them to need each other in large numbers... and not in a highly skilled fashion. PUG's need to be a highly desirable goal, with players WANTING to interact, rather than only doing so occasionally. Once there is a reasonable desire for players to interact on a Massive scale, then games will change back to what was once a norm.
While "zerg" was a race in Starcraft in 1998, zerg as a tactic didn't really appear in MMORPGS until at least six years later. In Everquest the mega raid to kill a 'Dragon' was a highly structured affair and not a zerg at all.
There were zergs in UO.Beta test.
So you are telling me there were zergs in UO before the word was coined as the name of a swarming alien race in Starcraft?
Well as I never played UO (an aversion to all things 'Lord British') I will have to take your word for it. But tell me what did you call that behaviour at the time? Because it obviously wasn't "zerg" .
Which brings up an interesting cultural point. If, as you say, that tactic was prevalent as far back as UO beta, what did people call it? And as that behaviour, masses of players engaging one target, is so much more like todays 'zerg' than zerglings, why did the name change?
Does the answer to your question really matter?
Yes, because if, as I suspect, the behaviour in UO was not actually 'zerg' like it negates @Vermillion_Raventhal 's point.
The key to the MMORPG was the first M. This is the factor that has slowly been eroding over the years, and is the thing that makes players long for the old days. Over time, games have been optimized for more tighly knit groups, and less for the zerg. This has led to first guild based gaming, then as the groups got smaller, to just friends gaming together. Sure, you may be part of a larger world, but the 'best' experience is optimized to a recurring group of players experiencing the content together.
What is needed is for players to not only need each other on the small scale, but for them to need each other in large numbers... and not in a highly skilled fashion. PUG's need to be a highly desirable goal, with players WANTING to interact, rather than only doing so occasionally. Once there is a reasonable desire for players to interact on a Massive scale, then games will change back to what was once a norm.
While "zerg" was a race in Starcraft in 1998, zerg as a tactic didn't really appear in MMORPGS until at least six years later. In Everquest the mega raid to kill a 'Dragon' was a highly structured affair and not a zerg at all.
There were zergs in UO.Beta test.
So you are telling me there were zergs in UO before the word was coined as the name of a swarming alien race in Starcraft?
Well as I never played UO (an aversion to all things 'Lord British') I will have to take your word for it. But tell me what did you call that behaviour at the time? Because it obviously wasn't "zerg" .
Which brings up an interesting cultural point. If, as you say, that tactic was prevalent as far back as UO beta, what did people call it? And as that behaviour, masses of players engaging one target, is so much more like todays 'zerg' than zerglings, why did the name change?
Does the answer to your question really matter?
Yes, because if, as I suspect, the behaviour in UO was not actually 'zerg' like it negates @Vermillion_Raventhal 's point.
Never played UO, but I’ve also never played an open world pvp game that didn’t end up with zergs. Few people, myself and my small group of gaming friends included, enjoy the small wolf pack type gameplay and the rest will swarm in huge numbers (by comparison) to ensure safety or winning.
The key to the MMORPG was the first M. This is the factor that has slowly been eroding over the years, and is the thing that makes players long for the old days. Over time, games have been optimized for more tighly knit groups, and less for the zerg. This has led to first guild based gaming, then as the groups got smaller, to just friends gaming together. Sure, you may be part of a larger world, but the 'best' experience is optimized to a recurring group of players experiencing the content together.
What is needed is for players to not only need each other on the small scale, but for them to need each other in large numbers... and not in a highly skilled fashion. PUG's need to be a highly desirable goal, with players WANTING to interact, rather than only doing so occasionally. Once there is a reasonable desire for players to interact on a Massive scale, then games will change back to what was once a norm.
While "zerg" was a race in Starcraft in 1998, zerg as a tactic didn't really appear in MMORPGS until at least six years later. In Everquest the mega raid to kill a 'Dragon' was a highly structured affair and not a zerg at all.
There were zergs in UO.Beta test.
So you are telling me there were zergs in UO before the word was coined as the name of a swarming alien race in Starcraft?
Well as I never played UO (an aversion to all things 'Lord British') I will have to take your word for it. But tell me what did you call that behaviour at the time? Because it obviously wasn't "zerg" .
Which brings up an interesting cultural point. If, as you say, that tactic was prevalent as far back as UO beta, what did people call it? And as that behaviour, masses of players engaging one target, is so much more like todays 'zerg' than zerglings, why did the name change?
Does the answer to your question really matter?
Yes, because if, as I suspect, the behaviour in UO was not actually 'zerg' like it negates @Vermillion_Raventhal 's point.
Never played UO, but I’ve also never played an open world pvp game that didn’t end up with zergs. Few people, myself and my small group of gaming friends included, enjoy the small wolf pack type gameplay and the rest will swarm in huge numbers (by comparison) to ensure safety or winning.
Yes, in open world PvP games after, say, 2003 it has been a standard practice. But the original comment was that it was present in PvE in Everquest in 1998, I disputed that and then UO beta was raised.
Saying it is now standard PvP practice is one thing (a point I agree with) saying it was a standard practice before Starcraft zerglings, particularly in a PvE setting is quite another.
I'm sure the idea of everyone rushing a Target to kill it is as old as mankind itself. Therefore I'm sure it was very first tactic that was ever thought of in PvP.
You're disputing that it was a standard practice way back in early days. I'm telling you it likely was because the practice is as old as mankind.
Post edited by VengeSunsoar on
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Comments
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
This makes everything else you said basically wrong, but aside from that it was a very well-thought out post.
I'd also like to see a class that specializes in law enforcement as an actual detailed career path.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
The cooking system in botw is a good one to put onto Mmorpgs and even expand on it.
This isn't a signature, you just think it is.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
- 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
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
Rocky had quite a number in the original series and now the remake/continuation is on #2. They're pretty much all the same story in different wrappings
- 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
Uh no. We need developers make actual MMORPGs. Massive, heavily themed worlds are needed with the production tools to make such games.
When the large developers continue to use their current tool set to make their entire game line, you just end up a limited or just plain crap MMOs... hence the direction to battle royal. The scope of an MMORPG doesn't fit within their quarterly report schedule.
This is why small, indie companies are taking ALL the risk. CTE took 2 years to build a new engine because nothing on the market could accomplish their goals. Visionary Realms is building their game around the concept the launched the MMORPG industry and built the original large fanbase ... yet EA and Activision won't do it because it doesn't fall within their cash shop and gambling scams.
What radical things are need to change the MMORPG industry? You need to back the developers actually trying to make real MMORPGs, and stop hanging off the tit of the industry that has systematically destroyed niche market genres within this hobby. I feel some may need to also reconsider what RPG means.
Until that time, you will get your clones of clones of clones, all entirely supported by RMT practices. So, more of the same.
You stay sassy!
What is needed is for players to not only need each other on the small scale, but for them to need each other in large numbers... and not in a highly skilled fashion. PUG's need to be a highly desirable goal, with players WANTING to interact, rather than only doing so occasionally. Once there is a reasonable desire for players to interact on a Massive scale, then games will change back to what was once a norm.
You had to then come up with new ways to keep the players busy.
Well as I never played UO (an aversion to all things 'Lord British') I will have to take your word for it. But tell me what did you call that behaviour at the time? Because it obviously wasn't "zerg" .
Which brings up an interesting cultural point. If, as you say, that tactic was prevalent as far back as UO beta, what did people call it? And as that behaviour, masses of players engaging one target, is so much more like todays 'zerg' than zerglings, why did the name change?
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
Saying it is now standard PvP practice is one thing (a point I agree with) saying it was a standard practice before Starcraft zerglings, particularly in a PvE setting is quite another.
You're disputing that it was a standard practice way back in early days. I'm telling you it likely was because the practice is as old as mankind.