Provided levelling is not caused by 'killing' mobs or completing quests and then gaining EXP.
Stat increase is usually attributed to levelling so I'd want an MMO that will let me increase my STR if I lifted weights, increase my INT if I read some books from cover to cover, etc.
(Sounds more like real life except RL is P2W LOL )
yeah, I like games that emulate real life to some extent through their mechanics. that gets me immersed. the p2w i don't like because it's usually a kind of single-player out-of-character minigame attached to the main game.
Provided levelling is not caused by 'killing' mobs or completing quests and then gaining EXP.
Stat increase is usually attributed to levelling so I'd want an MMO that will let me increase my STR if I lifted weights, increase my INT if I read some books from cover to cover, etc.
(Sounds more like real life except RL is P2W LOL )
Real life really isn't "pay to win" for character improvement
Sit-ups, push-ups, and running cost nothing. Libraries are free to use, though supported by taxes. Jumping rope and juggling will improve dexterity.
I guess the Pay to Win part would be Charisma as the more money you spread about, the more popular you get?
On Topic: Really, though, I'd rather see separate games instead of separate servers. But that means losing players/money in any one game, or all of them.
I mean: - Why should player one get levels by questing, player two get levels by mob murdering, and player three level their skills as they use them?
- Why should player one pay to win, player two work to win, and player three just enjoy playing the game?
I like to play games where everyone is playing the same game. Maybe that's just me?
Ah for the "RL is P2W" part was more on RL Gear, Mounts (RL Mounts lol), and heck, even inventory space.
But yeah you're right, Charisma can be 'boosted' by money lol. Sometimes taking a bath, but most of the time having tons of money.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I just wished carebears didn't join PVP servers, instead of PVE servers, then complain about PVP, resulting in nerfs to PVP.
I missed this one previously, but in my own small experience, it's the PvP crowd that nerfs classes.
It's great fun to stun lock AI mobs but the most opposite of fun to BE stun locked. Nerf the stun lockers
Rogues (Rouges for the dyslexic ) with "inviso-sneak alpha attacks are awesome against AI mobs, yet they almost always get nerfed from the PvP side.
Also notice how PvP has very little crowd control? It's not fun to lose control of your character in a fight, yes?
Other's experiences I'm sure vary
- 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
I just wished carebears didn't join PVP servers, instead of PVE servers, then complain about PVP, resulting in nerfs to PVP.
I missed this one previously, but in my own small experience, it's the PvP crowd that nerfs classes.
Yep, my experience is the same, they do... both passively, example Neverwinter Mod16 - total class rework, stats altered/a few removed, powers changed, etc. backed up by Foss in the Q&A stream (as one of the reasons) with how much he loves pvp and the changes are for the better pvp experience. The only tiny little problem is, Neverwinter has almost no pvp scene...
And he wasn't joking, the next update, Mod17's largest part is around pvp too. The much larger playerbase just got a new trial, which was even bugged at start.
and actively too, example AoC - Fury (pvp server) is empty, so the handful of pvp players rather join Crom (PvE), then flamewar and troll the ingame chat about stupid carebears, the forums too about how the devs should add more pvp to Crom because they are players too and bored there. Go back to Fury? No, Fury is dead. The irony... and what do you think, why is it dead?
Provided levelling is not caused by 'killing' mobs or completing quests and then gaining EXP.
Stat increase is usually attributed to levelling so I'd want an MMO that will let me increase my STR if I lifted weights, increase my INT if I read some books from cover to cover, etc.
(Sounds more like real life except RL is P2W LOL )
Real life really isn't "pay to win" for character improvement
Sit-ups, push-ups, and running cost nothing. Libraries are free to use, though supported by taxes. Jumping rope and juggling will improve dexterity.
I guess the Pay to Win part would be Charisma as the more money you spread about, the more popular you get?
On Topic: Really, though, I'd rather see separate games instead of separate servers. But that means losing players/money in any one game, or all of them.
I mean: - Why should player one get levels by questing, player two get levels by mob murdering, and player three level their skills as they use them?
- Why should player one pay to win, player two work to win, and player three just enjoy playing the game?
I like to play games where everyone is playing the same game. Maybe that's just me?
I was thinking more in terms developers creating a mechanic and then creating a server where that mechanic is turned off to attract different types of players like WoW did in the past. Not creating different complex mechanics for different servers.
WoW is a good example. There is no permadeath. Permadeath servers would be an awesome addition to the game imo. Again when you kill another player in WoW you can't take his stuff. If you could take all of his stuff or some of his stuff, this would also create depth to gameplay imo. I don't think these mechanics would be too hard to implement into a game like WoW by experienced developers. I don't know the technical stuff too well. And if you make separate servers for these features they don't disrupt the "main game". This is just an example. Or creating a server without a cash shop.
I think developers are shooting themselves in the leg if they don't consider things like this when creating an mmorpg. I think it's a win-win for players, developers and for shareholders.
But business and work is always hectic and few people make the desions what types of games studios developed. We have seen many large studios make mmorpgs that have failed. I feel this is because they had no genuine passion to make a real mmorpg. They just wanted to cash on WoWs success and failed. They had no idea what an mmorpg is. And then came the cash shops to fund their so called mmorpgs, that lacked mechanics, depth and immersion. Of course there are exceptions to this.
A little rant there
Talking about games where thousands of players exist simultaneously in a single instance and mechanics related to such games.
Again when you kill another player in WoW you can't take his stuff. If you could take all of his stuff or some of his stuff, this would also create depth to gameplay imo. [...] I think developers are shooting themselves in the leg if they don't consider things like this when creating an mmorpg. I think it's a win-win for players, developers and for shareholders.
I don't think it's a win-win, since there's the segmentation... for player's side it's a win, more options is always better. For the devs/the game, especially on the long run, that's up to debate.
AoC is a good example again, they did your suggestion with the launch of B&G. It was a no limits, corpse loot, no guards in towns even, ffa pvp server. Naturally it didn't lure players from the PvE server, but split the already low population of Fury in two.
After a while (maybe less than two years) Funcom decided to close it, merging the players back to Fury, which still came out lower at the end.
So while it was a win for the (pvp) players on the short run, more game modes etc. on the longer run they started with a low but steady population on Fury, and ended with an even lower population on Fury.
Segmentation only works if it can bring in new players, who are staying too. AoC's first Saga server is a good example, the 3 months while it was active Crom had a noticeably lower population, but after the progression server ended and was merged back to Crom it was more active than prior the Saga.
It didn't work with the pvp Saga though, maybe because it only grabbed Fury players (and curious Crom players) or they didn't stay after the close.
Provided levelling is not caused by 'killing' mobs or completing quests and then gaining EXP.
Stat increase is usually attributed to levelling so I'd want an MMO that will let me increase my STR if I lifted weights, increase my INT if I read some books from cover to cover, etc.
(Sounds more like real life except RL is P2W LOL )
Real life really isn't "pay to win" for character improvement
Sit-ups, push-ups, and running cost nothing. Libraries are free to use, though supported by taxes. Jumping rope and juggling will improve dexterity.
I guess the Pay to Win part would be Charisma as the more money you spread about, the more popular you get?
On Topic: Really, though, I'd rather see separate games instead of separate servers. But that means losing players/money in any one game, or all of them.
I mean: - Why should player one get levels by questing, player two get levels by mob murdering, and player three level their skills as they use them?
- Why should player one pay to win, player two work to win, and player three just enjoy playing the game?
I like to play games where everyone is playing the same game. Maybe that's just me?
I was thinking more in terms developers creating a mechanic and then creating a server where that mechanic is turned off to attract different types of players like WoW did in the past. Not creating different complex mechanics for different servers.
WoW is a good example. There is no permadeath. Permadeath servers would be an awesome addition to the game imo. Again when you kill another player in WoW you can't take his stuff. If you could take all of his stuff or some of his stuff, this would also create depth to gameplay imo. I don't think these mechanics would be too hard to implement into a game like WoW by experienced developers. I don't know the technical stuff too well. And if you make separate servers for these features they don't disrupt the "main game". This is just an example. Or creating a server without a cash shop.
I think developers are shooting themselves in the leg if they don't consider things like this when creating an mmorpg. I think it's a win-win for players, developers and for shareholders.
But business and work is always hectic and few people make the desions what types of games studios developed. We have seen many large studios make mmorpgs that have failed. I feel this is because they had no genuine passion to make a real mmorpg. They just wanted to cash on WoWs success and failed. They had no idea what an mmorpg is. And then came the cash shops to fund their so called mmorpgs, that lacked mechanics, depth and immersion. Of course there are exceptions to this.
A little rant there
For me, the root of the whole problem is "the WoW expectation." We don't need ONE MMO for everyone. We did great pre-WoW with less than million players numbers. But WoW made their game and it took off. Big Time. Now, almost every damn publisher seeks old WoW numbers by making ONE MMO to please everyone. And we know how well that works out: Try to please everyone and you please almost no one
- 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
I really don't think the more server types an mmorpg has = the more sure it is to fail
I'm sure there are sweet spots for how many different server types and servers are feasible depending on what is the emphasis of the game. And if we are talking about role-playing games, it's just common sense that the emphasis is usually immersion or depth of gameplay. Some mechanics just don't work together and if the game is altogether shit it will fail anyway.
Talking about games where thousands of players exist simultaneously in a single instance and mechanics related to such games.
I really don't think the more server types an mmorpg has = the more sure it is to fail
I'm sure there are sweet spots for how many different server types and servers are feasible depending on what is the emphasis of the game. And if we are talking about role-playing games, it's just common sense that the emphasis is usually immersion or depth of gameplay. Some mechanics just don't work together and if the game is altogether shit it will fail anyway.
You are correct, of course. Many MMOs release and make loads of money from many players. They also have a big turn around as players come and go. But players seeking a "home" in an MMORPG will not stick around long for
"a compromise", especially one that attracts players seeking some feature
they do not want or like.
For me, if an MMORPG is not a game where I can find a "home", I'd rather play a single player game that does the features I enjoy better. Maybe other players' desires differ?
- 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
I really don't think the more server types an mmorpg has = the more sure it is to fail
I'm sure there are sweet spots for how many different server types and servers are feasible depending on what is the emphasis of the game. And if we are talking about role-playing games, it's just common sense that the emphasis is usually immersion or depth of gameplay. Some mechanics just don't work together and if the game is altogether shit it will fail anyway.
You are correct, of course. Many MMOs release and make loads of money from many players. They also have a big turn around as players come and go. But players seeking a "home" in an MMORPG will not stick around long for
"a compromise", especially one that attracts players seeking some feature
they do not want or like.
For me, if an MMORPG is not a game where I can find a "home", I'd rather play a single player game that does the features I enjoy better. Maybe other players' desires differ?
Exactly, but the thing about mmorpgs imo is that you can't cater to the people who won't stay even if their desires differ. Let's call them the quick fix crowd. Catering to those people who won't stay will almost surely result in a cash shop gameplay or a failure. So I feel an mmorpg needs to be mechanically rich and deep that it will keep players engaged for years and attract a dedicated crowd. And designing such a game is difficult as hell I guess.
Talking about games where thousands of players exist simultaneously in a single instance and mechanics related to such games.
The problem with pay to play MMOs is because you literally can't play unless you pay. And on top that they also sell expansions for that extra dough in the bank. Why can't more MMOs do it like EVE? Pay the game+sub and get free expansions. CCP is an indie company, yet can afford free expansions and updates? But a big company can't?
You know why companies HATE subscriptions? They limit the money spent by each and every player to $15/month. Cash shops open the river of gold. Add them together and you have corporate heaven. And games I avoid like the plague.
You know why I like subscriptions? Every player is equalized monetarily and the whole game was there, available to those that want to play the game for everything instead of buying things off of the shelf.
I do agree about the expansions, though. Too many cost as much, if not more than another video game. They can also alter the MMORPG too much for some players.
- 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
Comments
But yeah you're right, Charisma can be 'boosted' by money lol. Sometimes taking a bath, but most of the time having tons of money.
/off
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
It's great fun to stun lock AI mobs but the most opposite of fun to BE stun locked. Nerf the stun lockers
Rogues (Rouges for the dyslexic
Also notice how PvP has very little crowd control? It's not fun to lose control of your character in a fight, yes?
Other's experiences I'm sure vary
- 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
WoW is a good example. There is no permadeath. Permadeath servers would be an awesome addition to the game imo.
Again when you kill another player in WoW you can't take his stuff. If you could take all of his stuff or some of his stuff, this would also create depth to gameplay imo.
I don't think these mechanics would be too hard to implement into a game like WoW by experienced developers. I don't know the technical stuff too well. And if you make separate servers for these features they don't disrupt the "main game". This is just an example.
Or creating a server without a cash shop.
I think developers are shooting themselves in the leg if they don't consider things like this when creating an mmorpg. I think it's a win-win for players, developers and for shareholders.
But business and work is always hectic and few people make the desions what types of games studios developed. We have seen many large studios make mmorpgs that have failed. I feel this is because they had no genuine passion to make a real mmorpg. They just wanted to cash on WoWs success and failed. They had no idea what an mmorpg is. And then came the cash shops to fund their so called mmorpgs, that lacked mechanics, depth and immersion. Of course there are exceptions to this.
A little rant there
- 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
the more server types an mmorpg has = the more sure it is to fail
I'm sure there are sweet spots for how many different server types and servers are feasible depending on what is the emphasis of the game. And if we are talking about role-playing games, it's just common sense that the emphasis is usually immersion or depth of gameplay. Some mechanics just don't work together and if the game is altogether shit it will fail anyway.
- 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
You know why I like subscriptions? Every player is equalized monetarily and the whole game was there, available to those that want to play the game for everything instead of buying things off of the shelf.
I do agree about the expansions, though. Too many cost as much, if not more than another video game. They can also alter the MMORPG too much for some players.
- 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