Well most of the MMOs I have seen you didnt need to bother crafting...It was usually a time and money sink and you could get better stuff spending an hour in an instanced dungeon.
I've long thought that a lot of RPGs, and especially MMORPGs, have moved too far towards a materialistic view of life. It's all about "having stuff", whether that stuff is more skills, more power or more gear.
Materialism is a very shallow way to view the world and is very unhealthy. Owning stuff isn't fun. Owning stuff doesnt make you happy.
Using stuff, well, that is where the fun lies!
Owning a boat sucks. Lots of money to purchase, more money to moor it, more money to maintain it. Using a boat, however, is pretty damn awesome! Going out for fishing trips, or sailing down the coast to a deserted beach, or just going for a swim off the side of the boat....those are all fun experiences, made possible via ownership.
I'd like to see RPGs move more in that direction. Lose the emphasis on materialism, increase the emphasis on experiences. Getting good gear should not be the end goal, the end goal should be the experiences you can now enjoy with that good gear. Owning a digital plot of land shouldn't be the goal, but being able to host parties or setup dueling competitions on that land should be.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
its nice to say that but if you put in 100000 stories most players will simply ignore them on their quest for phat l33t.
i mean this is the business model of elder scrolls online. They give you a new story every year. There is no vertical progression in equipment and while there is some vertical progression in your character its not the end factor in whether you can complete content or not. Your reflexes ( and sadly proximity to zos servers) are.
its nice to say that but if you put in 100000 stories most players will simply ignore them on their quest for phat l33t.
i mean this is the business model of elder scrolls online. They give you a new story every year. There is no vertical progression in equipment and while there is some vertical progression in your character its not the end factor in whether you can complete content or not. Your reflexes ( and sadly proximity to zos servers) are.
But what if we make a virtual fantasy world where everybody goes about their business?
One that has got something for everyone to do?
Does the technology exist? Does the human creativity exist?
I do believe that it is marketable.
You could even make a "WestWorld" styled game where you could have all kinds of different themes and playstyles.
I know what I'd want to create if I was a Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos etc. etc. etc.
its nice to say that but if you put in 100000 stories most players will simply ignore them on their quest for phat l33t.
i mean this is the business model of elder scrolls online. They give you a new story every year. There is no vertical progression in equipment and while there is some vertical progression in your character its not the end factor in whether you can complete content or not. Your reflexes ( and sadly proximity to zos servers) are.
But what if we make a virtual fantasy world where everybody goes about their business?
One that has got something for everyone to do?
Does the technology exist? Does the human creativity exist?
I do believe that it is marketable.
You could even make a "WestWorld" styled game where you could have all kinds of different themes and playstyles.
I know what I'd want to create if I was a Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos etc. etc. etc.
But maybe I'm more of a nerd
If a game isn't mostly about combat, then that works. In A Tale in the Desert, for example, different players are commonly trying to do different things, but not necessarily to level up as fast as possible. In Uncharted Waters Online, players commonly are trying to get stronger in some sense, but they do it by going about their business in wildly different ways.
Most MMORPGs are almost entirely about combat, however. To the extent that there are other activities at all, they're really just there to make you stronger at combat. You craft stuff to make you stronger in combat. You go exploring to find treasure that will make you stronger at combat. If everything in a game is focused on combat, then of course players will focus on doing whatever makes them stronger at it. In order to have a game where players just go about their business, you have to have business for players to go about rather than making everything focused on combat.
its nice to say that but if you put in 100000 stories most players will simply ignore them on their quest for phat l33t.
i mean this is the business model of elder scrolls online. They give you a new story every year. There is no vertical progression in equipment and while there is some vertical progression in your character its not the end factor in whether you can complete content or not. Your reflexes ( and sadly proximity to zos servers) are.
But what if we make a virtual fantasy world where everybody goes about their business?
One that has got something for everyone to do?
Does the technology exist? Does the human creativity exist?
I do believe that it is marketable.
You could even make a "WestWorld" styled game where you could have all kinds of different themes and playstyles.
I know what I'd want to create if I was a Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos etc. etc. etc.
But maybe I'm more of a nerd
If a game isn't mostly about combat, then that works. In A Tale in the Desert, for example, different players are commonly trying to do different things, but not necessarily to level up as fast as possible. In Uncharted Waters Online, players commonly are trying to get stronger in some sense, but they do it by going about their business in wildly different ways.
Most MMORPGs are almost entirely about combat, however. To the extent that there are other activities at all, they're really just there to make you stronger at combat. You craft stuff to make you stronger in combat. You go exploring to find treasure that will make you stronger at combat. If everything in a game is focused on combat, then of course players will focus on doing whatever makes them stronger at it. In order to have a game where players just go about their business, you have to have business for players to go about rather than making everything focused on combat.
Yep. Combat, Casting, Crafting. Those are usually the only goals in most every MMORPG. Where is religion, government, social events, military, leadership, etc.? The biggest problem with MMORPGs is the focus on combat.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
its nice to say that but if you put in 100000 stories most players will simply ignore them on their quest for phat l33t.
i mean this is the business model of elder scrolls online. They give you a new story every year. There is no vertical progression in equipment and while there is some vertical progression in your character its not the end factor in whether you can complete content or not. Your reflexes ( and sadly proximity to zos servers) are.
But what if we make a virtual fantasy world where everybody goes about their business?
One that has got something for everyone to do?
Does the technology exist? Does the human creativity exist?
I do believe that it is marketable.
You could even make a "WestWorld" styled game where you could have all kinds of different themes and playstyles.
I know what I'd want to create if I was a Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos etc. etc. etc.
But maybe I'm more of a nerd
If a game isn't mostly about combat, then that works. In A Tale in the Desert, for example, different players are commonly trying to do different things, but not necessarily to level up as fast as possible. In Uncharted Waters Online, players commonly are trying to get stronger in some sense, but they do it by going about their business in wildly different ways.
Most MMORPGs are almost entirely about combat, however. To the extent that there are other activities at all, they're really just there to make you stronger at combat. You craft stuff to make you stronger in combat. You go exploring to find treasure that will make you stronger at combat. If everything in a game is focused on combat, then of course players will focus on doing whatever makes them stronger at it. In order to have a game where players just go about their business, you have to have business for players to go about rather than making everything focused on combat.
Yep. Combat, Casting, Crafting. Those are usually the only goals in most every MMORPG. Where is religion, government, social events, military, leadership, etc.? The biggest problem with MMORPGs is the focus on combat.
A social game with social game play?
How on earth can you have fun without killing things?
its nice to say that but if you put in 100000 stories most players will simply ignore them on their quest for phat l33t.
i mean this is the business model of elder scrolls online. They give you a new story every year. There is no vertical progression in equipment and while there is some vertical progression in your character its not the end factor in whether you can complete content or not. Your reflexes ( and sadly proximity to zos servers) are.
But what if we make a virtual fantasy world where everybody goes about their business?
One that has got something for everyone to do?
Does the technology exist? Does the human creativity exist?
I do believe that it is marketable.
You could even make a "WestWorld" styled game where you could have all kinds of different themes and playstyles.
I know what I'd want to create if I was a Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos etc. etc. etc.
But maybe I'm more of a nerd
If a game isn't mostly about combat, then that works. In A Tale in the Desert, for example, different players are commonly trying to do different things, but not necessarily to level up as fast as possible. In Uncharted Waters Online, players commonly are trying to get stronger in some sense, but they do it by going about their business in wildly different ways.
Most MMORPGs are almost entirely about combat, however. To the extent that there are other activities at all, they're really just there to make you stronger at combat. You craft stuff to make you stronger in combat. You go exploring to find treasure that will make you stronger at combat. If everything in a game is focused on combat, then of course players will focus on doing whatever makes them stronger at it. In order to have a game where players just go about their business, you have to have business for players to go about rather than making everything focused on combat.
Yep. Combat, Casting, Crafting. Those are usually the only goals in most every MMORPG. Where is religion, government, social events, military, leadership, etc.? The biggest problem with MMORPGs is the focus on combat.
A social game with social game play?
How on earth can you have fun without killing things?
I'm obviously off my meds.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
This is why i think a three man group is the ideal group size.
... seriously ?
In any game which has tanks and healers you want an as large group size as possible so if you get your hands on at least one tank and at least one healer you can go with as many other classes you want.
Having only three characters and still tanks and healers in place means the urgency to play tank or healer would be completely maximized.
yes we have to get rid of the tank/dps/healer baggage.
It's not baggage.
it is baggage because everyone wants to play dps.
Nope.
All you really have to do - and Vanguard: Saga of Heroes did that, for almost all classes - is make tanks and healers viable solists.
BANG - plenty of people play tanks and healers.
The one exception was the Warrior, who couldnt solo much at all.
tanks and healers are viable soloers in eso. it doesn't increase their numbers. Nobody wants to tank in that game and action combat makes healers often useless/redundant.
the logical conclusion is to change the model if you have action combat.
Not quite. A dedicated tank won't solo well due to low damage, nor will a dedicated healer for the same reason. Both would have to be rebuilt to put out more damage than they normally would in group content.
With the Armory System now in place I expect many tanks and healers will now have an alternate DPS build to swap to when they want to solo effectively.
This is why i think a three man group is the ideal group size.
... seriously ?
In any game which has tanks and healers you want an as large group size as possible so if you get your hands on at least one tank and at least one healer you can go with as many other classes you want.
Having only three characters and still tanks and healers in place means the urgency to play tank or healer would be completely maximized.
yes we have to get rid of the tank/dps/healer baggage.
It's not baggage.
it is baggage because everyone wants to play dps.
Nope.
All you really have to do - and Vanguard: Saga of Heroes did that, for almost all classes - is make tanks and healers viable solists.
BANG - plenty of people play tanks and healers.
The one exception was the Warrior, who couldnt solo much at all.
tanks and healers are viable soloers in eso. it doesn't increase their numbers. Nobody wants to tank in that game and action combat makes healers often useless/redundant.
the logical conclusion is to change the model if you have action combat.
Not quite. A dedicated tank won't solo well due to low damage, nor will a dedicated healer for the same reason. Both would have to be rebuilt to put out more damage than they normally would in group content.
With the Armory System now in place I expect many tanks and healers will now have an alternate DPS build to swap to when they want to solo effectively.
yea but its not like it was ever a big deal. Slap on some different armor and change a few skills. There was never any expectation that you would have to do absolutely nothing. Even dps will change a few skills when soloing.
As soon as grouping becomes mandatory it is never friendly to the soloist.
While that's certainly true, game developers have to make choices in deciding who they'll cater to. Try to be all things to all people and you'll probably run way over budget to do a while lot of things badly and little to nothing well.
There are a whole lot of MMORPGs that cater heavily to soloers. There are essentially none that focus on making good group content outside of the endgame. The point of this thread was to say, if a game wanted to do the latter, here's how to make it work.
As soon as grouping becomes mandatory it is never friendly to the soloist.
While that's certainly true, game developers have to make choices in deciding who they'll cater to. Try to be all things to all people and you'll probably run way over budget to do a while lot of things badly and little to nothing well.
There are a whole lot of MMORPGs that cater heavily to soloers. There are essentially none that focus on making good group content outside of the endgame. The point of this thread was to say, if a game wanted to do the latter, here's how to make it work.
When trying to please everyone, you often please no one......
I think, just one point might be... "I played solo till endgame, now I need to group up or I'm f@cked!?"
Where do I stand on this, both sides... sometimes I don't want to put on a headset+mic and converse with a guildmaster's 21+- year old girlfriend (who doesn't even play and is under an influence). Or other BS discord chat.
But, I think if group play is the intention... introduce that from the start... not 50-200hrs into the game.
I was in my twenties when I joined a multi game (fps, mmorpg, and other) guild called The Old Timers... because they were wise and chill. I don't know if they exist anymore, but it was cool (no real life BS discussed... e.g. politics).
We all know most guilds are full of people trying to preach their individual crap... I login to be in a fantasy world, so.. no thanks.
(Ps I will not give up on guilds, but great Guildmasters can tell people... don't sow the seeds of discontent... )
This is why i think a three man group is the ideal group size.
... seriously ?
In any game which has tanks and healers you want an as large group size as possible so if you get your hands on at least one tank and at least one healer you can go with as many other classes you want.
Having only three characters and still tanks and healers in place means the urgency to play tank or healer would be completely maximized.
yes we have to get rid of the tank/dps/healer baggage.
It's not baggage.
it is baggage because everyone wants to play dps.
Nope.
All you really have to do - and Vanguard: Saga of Heroes did that, for almost all classes - is make tanks and healers viable solists.
BANG - plenty of people play tanks and healers.
The one exception was the Warrior, who couldnt solo much at all.
tanks and healers are viable soloers in eso. it doesn't increase their numbers. Nobody wants to tank in that game and action combat makes healers often useless/redundant.
the logical conclusion is to change the model if you have action combat.
Not quite. A dedicated tank won't solo well due to low damage, nor will a dedicated healer for the same reason. Both would have to be rebuilt to put out more damage than they normally would in group content.
With the Armory System now in place I expect many tanks and healers will now have an alternate DPS build to swap to when they want to solo effectively.
yea but its not like it was ever a big deal. Slap on some different armor and change a few skills. There was never any expectation that you would have to do absolutely nothing. Even dps will change a few skills when soloing.
Yes, it's not a big deal, especially now with different gear, skills, stat distribution, and CP distribution, essentially an entirely different character, a brief visit to your armory away.
That speaks to the flexibility of ESO's character design, not the ability of pure tanks, healers, or even DPS to adequately solo in the game.
As soon as grouping becomes mandatory it is never friendly to the soloist.
While that's certainly true, game developers have to make choices in deciding who they'll cater to. Try to be all things to all people and you'll probably run way over budget to do a while lot of things badly and little to nothing well.
There are a whole lot of MMORPGs that cater heavily to soloers. There are essentially none that focus on making good group content outside of the endgame. The point of this thread was to say, if a game wanted to do the latter, here's how to make it work.
There are many MMORPGs that cater heavily to solo players while accommodating grouped ones. To me a group-friendly game would do the opposite, cater heavily to grouped players while accommodating soloists. Mandatory grouping to advance through regular content isn't friendly to grouping but demanding of it.
As soon as grouping becomes mandatory it is never friendly to the soloist.
While that's certainly true, game developers have to make choices in deciding who they'll cater to. Try to be all things to all people and you'll probably run way over budget to do a while lot of things badly and little to nothing well.
There are a whole lot of MMORPGs that cater heavily to soloers. There are essentially none that focus on making good group content outside of the endgame. The point of this thread was to say, if a game wanted to do the latter, here's how to make it work.
There are many MMORPGs that cater heavily to solo players while accommodating grouped ones. To me a group-friendly game would do the opposite, cater heavily to grouped players while accommodating soloists. Mandatory grouping to advance through regular content isn't friendly to grouping but demanding of it.
if you get the groupsize right you can do both. Eso is proof of this but not the most efficient example.
with a 4 groupsize in eso you can solo and duo many dungeons whether vet or normal if you are a highly skilled player.
with a groupsize of three any content could be considered soloable assuming you had the skill to do so.
so there is a harmony number. People just dont want to accept it because they are used to a different number.
As soon as grouping becomes mandatory it is never friendly to the soloist.
While that's certainly true, game developers have to make choices in deciding who they'll cater to. Try to be all things to all people and you'll probably run way over budget to do a while lot of things badly and little to nothing well.
There are a whole lot of MMORPGs that cater heavily to soloers. There are essentially none that focus on making good group content outside of the endgame. The point of this thread was to say, if a game wanted to do the latter, here's how to make it work.
There are many MMORPGs that cater heavily to solo players while accommodating grouped ones. To me a group-friendly game would do the opposite, cater heavily to grouped players while accommodating soloists. Mandatory grouping to advance through regular content isn't friendly to grouping but demanding of it.
"There is some group content here and there, but it's garbage and no one does it" is not my idea of accommodating grouped players. See the original post of this thread. If you can cite a single MMORPG that doesn't hit one of those glaring problems with its group content, then I'd like to know about it.
Comments
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
We need to be enticed.
I would like to see that being tried in subliminal ways.
Like playing with one’s curiosity among other human traits.
A couple forum members brought up a survival game called “The Green Hell” and it’s an amazing immersion game.
Curiosity itself will keep me going in a well constructed world.
If there are reasons to naturally group up, I believe it will just happen.
People need to feel connection. With the group and with the world or your just going to have short term relationship.
Imho
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
i mean this is the business model of elder scrolls online. They give you a new story every year. There is no vertical progression in equipment and while there is some vertical progression in your character its not the end factor in whether you can complete content or not. Your reflexes ( and sadly proximity to zos servers) are.
One that has got something for everyone to do?
Does the technology exist? Does the human creativity exist?
I do believe that it is marketable.
You could even make a "WestWorld" styled game where you could have all kinds of different themes and playstyles.
I know what I'd want to create if I was a Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos etc. etc. etc.
But maybe I'm more of a nerd
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Most MMORPGs are almost entirely about combat, however. To the extent that there are other activities at all, they're really just there to make you stronger at combat. You craft stuff to make you stronger in combat. You go exploring to find treasure that will make you stronger at combat. If everything in a game is focused on combat, then of course players will focus on doing whatever makes them stronger at it. In order to have a game where players just go about their business, you have to have business for players to go about rather than making everything focused on combat.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
How on earth can you have fun without killing things?
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Not quite. A dedicated tank won't solo well due to low damage, nor will a dedicated healer for the same reason. Both would have to be rebuilt to put out more damage than they normally would in group content.
With the Armory System now in place I expect many tanks and healers will now have an alternate DPS build to swap to when they want to solo effectively.
There are a whole lot of MMORPGs that cater heavily to soloers. There are essentially none that focus on making good group content outside of the endgame. The point of this thread was to say, if a game wanted to do the latter, here's how to make it work.
When trying to please everyone, you often please no one......
Where do I stand on this, both sides... sometimes I don't want to put on a headset+mic and converse with a guildmaster's 21+- year old girlfriend (who doesn't even play and is under an influence). Or other BS discord chat.
But, I think if group play is the intention... introduce that from the start... not 50-200hrs into the game.
I was in my twenties when I joined a multi game (fps, mmorpg, and other) guild called The Old Timers... because they were wise and chill. I don't know if they exist anymore, but it was cool (no real life BS discussed... e.g. politics).
We all know most guilds are full of people trying to preach their individual crap... I login to be in a fantasy world, so.. no thanks.
(Ps I will not give up on guilds, but great Guildmasters can tell people... don't sow the seeds of discontent... )
That speaks to the flexibility of ESO's character design, not the ability of pure tanks, healers, or even DPS to adequately solo in the game.
There are many MMORPGs that cater heavily to solo players while accommodating grouped ones. To me a group-friendly game would do the opposite, cater heavily to grouped players while accommodating soloists. Mandatory grouping to advance through regular content isn't friendly to grouping but demanding of it.
with a 4 groupsize in eso you can solo and duo many dungeons whether vet or normal if you are a highly skilled player.
with a groupsize of three any content could be considered soloable assuming you had the skill to do so.
so there is a harmony number. People just dont want to accept it because they are used to a different number.