Elden Ring sold 20 million copies and that would be considered a huge success for that type of game. But how many people really finished it or even thought it was worth finishing?
Exactly right, you are proving my point here. Elden Ring is exactly what this game should be doing. They are growing their playerbase, and should continue pumping out games doing exactly what they have been doing. This is really what success looks like, and they figured it out. That is how you appeal to a niche market. Doesnt matter if people all finish it or not, they are coming away with a good feeling about the game, and will buy the next one. Good for this game, players are happy and the devs are rich, thats the right model.
Of course developers (and any company) want a lot of people. No one is saying that they are thinking "20k people is enough and we hope we don't get more."
But they could be saying "we need 20k people and are satisfied we were able to make that benchmark.
This attitude right here is why the MMORPG market is so weak right now. Where are the dreamers? Satified with 20k, LOL what a completely slack outlook. When you think subpar you get subpar. If this attitude is what the majority of dev teams have, no wonder this MMORPG market is so lackluster.
When we get some MMORPG dev teams that actually have a success attitude maybe we will see some successes.
Your previous example of Elden Ring showed 20m+ is doable for even a niche game. MMORPG devs need to stop thinking 20k and start thinking 20m+. Then we might see some games where the customers are actually reviewing it favorably. Elden ring has a 91% favorable rating with almost 500k reviews on steam. Show me a recent MMO with those numbers?
Elden Ring sold 20 million copies and that would be considered a huge success for that type of game. But how many people really finished it or even thought it was worth finishing?
Exactly right, you are proving my point here. Elden Ring is exactly what this game should be doing. They are growing their playerbase, and should continue pumping out games doing exactly what they have been doing. This is really what success looks like, and they figured it out. That is how you appeal to a niche market. Doesnt matter if people all finish it or not, they are coming away with a good feeling about the game, and will buy the next one. Good for this game, players are happy and the devs are rich, thats the right model.
Of course developers (and any company) want a lot of people. No one is saying that they are thinking "20k people is enough and we hope we don't get more."
But they could be saying "we need 20k people and are satisfied we were able to make that benchmark.
This attitude right here is why the MMORPG market is so weak right now. Where are the dreamers? Satified with 20k, LOL what a completely slack outlook. When you think subpar you get subpar. If this attitude is what the majority of dev teams have, no wonder this MMORPG market is so lackluster.
When we get some MMORPG dev teams that actually have a success attitude maybe we will see some successes.
Your previous example of Elden Ring showed 20m+ is doable for even a niche game. MMORPG devs need to stop thinking 20k and start thinking 20m+. Then we might see some games where the customers are actually reviewing it favorably. Elden ring has a 91% favorable rating with almost 500k reviews on steam. Show me a recent MMO with those numbers?
I would offer that you are looking at the wrong thing. Not developing to get "numbers" but developing to make a great game.
I think Gloria Victus is a great example of people who are developing to make a great game, at least as much as they can given their money and abilities.
I'm sure they would love to have more people but they are making the game they want so they are just going to have less people.
As far as the Elden Ring example, "sort of?" 20 million copies sold as opposed to 1 or 2 million for Demons' Souls/Dark Souls.
But is that because of hype/marketing/just a beautiful game or because it really is so much better and more accessible?
It's sort of more accessible but I do know people who played it and put it down because it just got too hard.
So of that 20 million how many will really finish it let alone even liked it? Probably more than Dark Souls but then again, it touts an "open world" and there are players that love open worlds.
Especially if they came from Skyrim and are expecting more like that.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
As far as the Elden Ring example, "sort of?" 20 million copies sold as opposed to 1 or 2 million for Demons' Souls/Dark Souls.
But is that because of hype/marketing/just a beautiful game or because it really is so much better and more accessible?
It's sort of more accessible but I do know people who played it and put it down because it just got too hard.
So of that 20 million how many will really finish it let alone even liked it? Probably more than Dark Souls but then again, it touts an "open world" and there are players that love open worlds.
Especially if they came from Skyrim and are expecting more like that.
It doesnt have to appeal to everyone, it just needs to appeal to a big core, and do it well. It obviously appeals to people or it wouldnt be rated at 91% on steam. So its attracting many more people than its turning away. It doesnt matter if people finish or not, some people never finish. It only matters if the large majority feel it was worth it and will buy the next one.
Elden ring got so much fame, I wouldnt be surprised if the next one is even bigger. This is what happens when you continue to make a solid games.
I dont agree with your Gloria Victis making a great game, it has mixed reviews on steam, which tells me its not great. I havent played it, so I cannot say for certain. Most people on the edges like me dont want to play games that cant even appeal to a decent sized core. Mixed reviews already tells me I wont be interested in this game, its quality is not good enough.
It doesnt have to appeal to everyone, it just needs to appeal to a big core, and do it well. It obviously appeals to people or it wouldnt be rated at 91% on steam. So its attracting many more people than its turning away. It doesnt matter if people finish or not, some people never finish. It only matters if the large majority feel it was worth it and will buy the next one.
Elden ring got so much fame, I wouldnt be surprised if the next one is even bigger. This is what happens when you continue to make a solid games.
I dont agree with your Gloria Victis making a great game, it has mixed reviews on steam, which tells me its not great. I havent played it, so I cannot say for certain. Most people on the edges like me dont want to play games that cant even appeal to a decent sized core. Mixed reviews already tells me I wont be interested in this game, its quality is not good enough.
you are honing in on the wrong things.
"big core" is what? That's seems like some mythical mass of people who are BIG but still small enough to not be considered "masses."
I think every game has it's financial "this is how many we really need" group. So how many is "big core?" really?
The developers of Gloria Vicits are not striving to make a bad game or even a mediocre game. They are striving to make something they want to make and that's awesome.
Whether they have the ability or enough funding or even knowledge is another thing entirely.
"Elden ring got so much fame, I wouldnt be surprised if the next one is
even bigger. This is what happens when you continue to make a solid
games."
Tell that to the Mass Effect Series or Dragon Age, or even the Assassin's Creed games where it seems that many like the newer games but there is a lot of disappointment from original fans that feel the games have become something else entirely.
Bigger is definitely not better.
Heck, World of Warcraft is still "big" but I don't think it is better.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I don't think that really solved for the concerns presented in the quoted statement. You're arguing mechanical game solutions to problems of human nature.
Those problems of human nature are based on opportunities, and in this case limited. Remove those opportunities, or the limits, and you remove the problems, no?
It doesnt have to appeal to everyone, it just needs to appeal to a big core, and do it well. It obviously appeals to people or it wouldnt be rated at 91% on steam. So its attracting many more people than its turning away. It doesnt matter if people finish or not, some people never finish. It only matters if the large majority feel it was worth it and will buy the next one.
Elden ring got so much fame, I wouldnt be surprised if the next one is even bigger. This is what happens when you continue to make a solid games.
I dont agree with your Gloria Victis making a great game, it has mixed reviews on steam, which tells me its not great. I havent played it, so I cannot say for certain. Most people on the edges like me dont want to play games that cant even appeal to a decent sized core. Mixed reviews already tells me I wont be interested in this game, its quality is not good enough.
you are honing in on the wrong things.
"big core" is what? That's seems like some mythical mass of people who are BIG but still small enough to not be considered "masses."
I think every game has it's financial "this is how many we really need" group. So how many is "big core?" really?
The developers of Gloria Vicits are not striving to make a bad game or even a mediocre game. They are striving to make something they want to make and that's awesome.
Whether they have the ability or enough funding or even knowledge is another thing entirely.
"Elden ring got so much fame, I wouldnt be surprised if the next one is
even bigger. This is what happens when you continue to make a solid
games."
Tell that to the Mass Effect Series or Dragon Age, or even the Assassin's Creed games where it seems that many like the newer games but there is a lot of disappointment from original fans that feel the games have become something else entirely.
Bigger is definitely not better.
Heck, World of Warcraft is still "big" but I don't think it is better.
I dont get it, Do you think the devs are trying to make a game for themselves or for players? Few thousand players or less is clearly not very big, maybe they just dont know how to make a game that people want to play. Devs dont set out to fail on purpose.
So Gloria Victis has both a bad rating and low population, clearly what they are doing is not working. If you really want to make trash games, why not make some amazing game that is extremely successful then you can make all the trash you want. Kind of like Steven Spielberg that does documentaries now.
Nah they devs havent proved anything, all we see is another subpar product that most people dont like. The reason being is the devs do not have the skills or competency to make a game that actually appeals to their population. Otherwise their population would be playing it and rating it highly.
It doesnt have to appeal to everyone, it just needs to appeal to a big core, and do it well. It obviously appeals to people or it wouldnt be rated at 91% on steam. So its attracting many more people than its turning away. It doesnt matter if people finish or not, some people never finish. It only matters if the large majority feel it was worth it and will buy the next one.
Elden ring got so much fame, I wouldnt be surprised if the next one is even bigger. This is what happens when you continue to make a solid games.
I dont agree with your Gloria Victis making a great game, it has mixed reviews on steam, which tells me its not great. I havent played it, so I cannot say for certain. Most people on the edges like me dont want to play games that cant even appeal to a decent sized core. Mixed reviews already tells me I wont be interested in this game, its quality is not good enough.
you are honing in on the wrong things.
"big core" is what? That's seems like some mythical mass of people who are BIG but still small enough to not be considered "masses."
I think every game has it's financial "this is how many we really need" group. So how many is "big core?" really?
The developers of Gloria Vicits are not striving to make a bad game or even a mediocre game. They are striving to make something they want to make and that's awesome.
Whether they have the ability or enough funding or even knowledge is another thing entirely.
"Elden ring got so much fame, I wouldnt be surprised if the next one is
even bigger. This is what happens when you continue to make a solid
games."
Tell that to the Mass Effect Series or Dragon Age, or even the Assassin's Creed games where it seems that many like the newer games but there is a lot of disappointment from original fans that feel the games have become something else entirely.
Bigger is definitely not better.
Heck, World of Warcraft is still "big" but I don't think it is better.
Devs dont set out to fail on purpose.
I dunno, watching the development of CU the past 10 years not sure I can agree.
They had the talent, some resources, a clear vision yet have accomplished almost nothing notable, heck they have less to show for their efforts than the Embers team does.
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 don't think that really solved for the concerns presented in the quoted statement. You're arguing mechanical game solutions to problems of human nature.
Those problems of human nature are based on opportunities, and in this case limited. Remove those opportunities, or the limits, and you remove the problems, no?
In theory.
In practice, people look for new opportunities.
People also have this habit of using rationality to justify the irrational.
This is the thing with talking about instances versus server shards for example. If one is not talking about having a game world large enough to accommodate all players, then you're already fragmenting them across servers/shards. What's the justification that defines where the cutoff between that and more granular instancing of content is? What's the argument that says one is good while the other is bad, that doesn't have crossover implications?
It's justification of preferred or familiar conditions, more than an actual rational division and assessment, for just about anyone.
Or like the fast travel thing. On one end, is a one-time travel penalty really a solution to making things work, or does it still end up diminishing any reason for having a large game world? If it's justified by exploration, how quickly before that becomes an Ubisoft "collect all the nodes" type of experience where people feel compelled to do simple repetitive tasks to fill out achievement checklists in hopes of some reward?
If no reward, then how well will exploration actually compel players or justify said open world?
As for the human nature thing.
This was addressed in part by my point on how players would rank things too. Just because there is a dungeon with the same drop table as another, perhaps is even a carbon copy as another, does not mean it will be assessed as the same value as another. Placement in the game world for ease of access matters, how heavily it gets camped by others matters, even almost entirely superficial elements like distance to preferred hub cities and what-not matters.
Consider as well the statement from my post you originally quoted;
"Resource denial is as important as resource gain for PvP scenarios."
Even ignoring expressly PvP scenarios, guilds competing against one another in any manner have a motive for denying other guilds and other players access to resources. When that happens, it's not about locking down one dungeon or one boss, but whatever ones that allow the perceived competition from gaining.
Fast travel to any sort ends up being a threat as much as a benefit in such situations, because if members of a guild or alliance are able to just warp over and occupy any dungeon after unlocking them, then it's not really solving the more basic problem at play.
Big problem here is thus-far, there is no perfect solution. They all come with problems and the resulting choice is what type of game experience do you want to build for what kind of audience. Everything is a compromise.
It doesnt have to appeal to everyone, it just needs to appeal to a big core, and do it well. It obviously appeals to people or it wouldnt be rated at 91% on steam. So its attracting many more people than its turning away. It doesnt matter if people finish or not, some people never finish. It only matters if the large majority feel it was worth it and will buy the next one.
Elden ring got so much fame, I wouldnt be surprised if the next one is even bigger. This is what happens when you continue to make a solid games.
I dont agree with your Gloria Victis making a great game, it has mixed reviews on steam, which tells me its not great. I havent played it, so I cannot say for certain. Most people on the edges like me dont want to play games that cant even appeal to a decent sized core. Mixed reviews already tells me I wont be interested in this game, its quality is not good enough.
you are honing in on the wrong things.
"big core" is what? That's seems like some mythical mass of people who are BIG but still small enough to not be considered "masses."
I think every game has it's financial "this is how many we really need" group. So how many is "big core?" really?
The developers of Gloria Vicits are not striving to make a bad game or even a mediocre game. They are striving to make something they want to make and that's awesome.
Whether they have the ability or enough funding or even knowledge is another thing entirely.
"Elden ring got so much fame, I wouldnt be surprised if the next one is
even bigger. This is what happens when you continue to make a solid
games."
Tell that to the Mass Effect Series or Dragon Age, or even the Assassin's Creed games where it seems that many like the newer games but there is a lot of disappointment from original fans that feel the games have become something else entirely.
Bigger is definitely not better.
Heck, World of Warcraft is still "big" but I don't think it is better.
Devs dont set out to fail on purpose.
I dunno, watching the development of CU the past 10 years not sure I can agree.
They had the talent, some resources, a clear vision yet have accomplished almost nothing notable, heck they have less to show for their efforts than the Embers team does.
I will make an exception for CU devs, I mean look at Ragnarok last stand they made. I hope they made that to fail, because if they didnt, my goodness they are terrible.
I don't think that really solved for the concerns presented in the quoted statement. You're arguing mechanical game solutions to problems of human nature.
Those problems of human nature are based on opportunities, and in this case limited. Remove those opportunities, or the limits, and you remove the problems, no?
In theory.
In practice, people look for new opportunities.
People also have this habit of using rationality to justify the irrational.
This is the thing with talking about instances versus server shards for example. If one is not talking about having a game world large enough to accommodate all players, then you're already fragmenting them across servers/shards. What's the justification that defines where the cutoff between that and more granular instancing of content is? What's the argument that says one is good while the other is bad, that doesn't have crossover implications?
It's justification of preferred or familiar conditions, more than an actual rational division and assessment, for just about anyone.
Or like the fast travel thing. On one end, is a one-time travel penalty really a solution to making things work, or does it still end up diminishing any reason for having a large game world? If it's justified by exploration, how quickly before that becomes an Ubisoft "collect all the nodes" type of experience where people feel compelled to do simple repetitive tasks to fill out achievement checklists in hopes of some reward?
If no reward, then how well will exploration actually compel players or justify said open world?
As for the human nature thing.
This was addressed in part by my point on how players would rank things too. Just because there is a dungeon with the same drop table as another, perhaps is even a carbon copy as another, does not mean it will be assessed as the same value as another. Placement in the game world for ease of access matters, how heavily it gets camped by others matters, even almost entirely superficial elements like distance to preferred hub cities and what-not matters.
Consider as well the statement from my post you originally quoted;
"Resource denial is as important as resource gain for PvP scenarios."
Even ignoring expressly PvP scenarios, guilds competing against one another in any manner have a motive for denying other guilds and other players access to resources. When that happens, it's not about locking down one dungeon or one boss, but whatever ones that allow the perceived competition from gaining.
Fast travel to any sort ends up being a threat as much as a benefit in such situations, because if members of a guild or alliance are able to just warp over and occupy any dungeon after unlocking them, then it's not really solving the more basic problem at play.
Big problem here is thus-far, there is no perfect solution. They all come with problems and the resulting choice is what type of game experience do you want to build for what kind of audience. Everything is a compromise.
Per your last comment, if that's true, then what's your argument against my comments?
But the reality is that there are answers. And if they don't work in one place, you have this whole huge world to find another place. You say that the big guilds will follow you just to deny resources to other players. Ok. So how do they know where those other players went? Huge world, remember?
You state that they'll have a list of the best places. But what if there's plenty of small places, far down said list, that offer just as much reward per player in a small group?
UO had an answer to this, in large part, too. Loot was divided by overall damage done, it lasted for 2 minutes or so, then whatever wasn't claimed dropped into the community loot for anyone to take. The only issue there, according to your pointed situation, is if the offending guild targets any MOB anyone else is going for and does, overall, the vast majority of damage. That's a good time to go to another spot. Or, if there are as many "other players" as there are in that big guild, it's a wash. No problem.
Then again, there's always another day too.
What you are doing is using the fact that nothing is perfect to argue that our desires won't ever work. That's just not the case.
It's time for a change and you can't change that, no matter what you say, anyways. If change doesn't happen, you can expect to watch the decline continue, snowballing faster as it goes.
You state that they'll have a list of the best places. But what if there's plenty of small places, far down said list, that offer just as much reward per player in a small group?
UO had an answer to this, in large part, too. Loot was divided by overall damage done, it lasted for 2 minutes or so, then whatever wasn't claimed dropped into the community loot for anyone to take. The only issue there, according to your pointed situation, is if the offending guild targets any MOB anyone else is going for and does, overall, the vast majority of damage. That's a good time to go to another spot. Or, if there are as many "other players" as there are in that big guild, it's a wash. No problem.
Your solutions do not solve the problems at all. If anything they are just forcing concessions from lower tiered players.
Why should a B tier group of players have to just give up their bosses to all the S tier players, even if the B tier can easily defeat those bosses.
People dont want to be run off of their bosses. Lower tiered players want good loot just like everyone else. Most of these people dont want to play survival of the fittest. Many casuals just want to log in and have some fun and log out. They dont want to spend their entire play sessions trying to find something to do because they keep getting run off their content.
None of your solutions are solving problems, they are just creating more problems. What does allow lower tiered players opportunities to experience similar content is instances. That is the solution to the problem you are dancing around.
What you have completely ignored is that separate servers are the same as instances. Seems hypocritical to say you are fine with one and not the other. Even UO has a PVE instance and a PVP instance.
What you need is a good mix of instances for most of the best content and open worlds. Open worlds only has serious negatives you seem to not understand.
You state that they'll have a list of the best places. But what if there's plenty of small places, far down said list, that offer just as much reward per player in a small group?
UO had an answer to this, in large part, too. Loot was divided by overall damage done, it lasted for 2 minutes or so, then whatever wasn't claimed dropped into the community loot for anyone to take. The only issue there, according to your pointed situation, is if the offending guild targets any MOB anyone else is going for and does, overall, the vast majority of damage. That's a good time to go to another spot. Or, if there are as many "other players" as there are in that big guild, it's a wash. No problem.
Your solutions do not solve the problems at all. If anything they are just forcing concessions from lower tiered players.
Why should a B tier group of players have to just give up their bosses to all the S tier players, even if the B tier can easily defeat those bosses.
People dont want to be run off of their bosses. Lower tiered players want good loot just like everyone else. Most of these people dont want to play survival of the fittest. Many casuals just want to log in and have some fun and log out. They dont want to spend their entire play sessions trying to find something to do because they keep getting run off their content.
None of your solutions are solving problems, they are just creating more problems. What does allow lower tiered players opportunities to experience similar content is instances. That is the solution to the problem you are dancing around.
What you have completely ignored is that separate servers are the same as instances. Seems hypocritical to say you are fine with one and not the other. Even UO has a PVE instance and a PVP instance.
What you need is a good mix of instances for most of the best content and open worlds. Open worlds only has serious negatives you seem to not understand.
You're thinking the wrong way around. Each server is a World. Instances inside that world are what they are, separate instances broken away from that server World.
What makes you think a "B tier" group has to give up Bosses? Why can't Bosses be all over the place in a Huge World full of Dungeons, Ruins, Cave systems small and large, Ancient Temples, Underworld entrances, secret Covens, small lakes, mystical glens, valleys, etc., etc. A huge World full of exploration and excitement and plenty to do for all.
Why can't we have wandering MOBs, and even wandering Bosses from time to time? Why can't we have randomness and simulated "realism"? (In a Fantasy or Sci-Fi setting.)
Why are you restricting games based on "New" and "Worldly" with the gaminess of tired old things? Why can't we have Worlds instead of "just games"? Why can't it truly be PvW?
The only issue there, according to your pointed situation, is if the offending guild targets any MOB anyone else is going for and does, overall, the vast majority of damage. That's a good time to go to another spot.
What makes you think a "B tier" group has to give up Bosses?
You are the one that suggested moving as an acceptable solution to people coming in and taking peoples content away.
This is a 2000 problem that is already understood and adapted for. Your idea that there are bosses everywhere. If everything is a boss than nothing is a boss.
There has to be special rare content or it wont feel special. If there is rare content then people will steal it in an open world through various means.
Some people are greedy, some people are dbags whatever, no reason to stick your head in the sand and ignore it. Trying to pretend its 2000 again and forget these problems exist with completely open worlds wont work either. None of your solutions solve these simple identified problems that cause massive havoc in games if left unsolved.
PVP is the solution to kill steals, but has its own HUGE problems associated, instances are the solution for normies. If you can come up with a real solution that lets normies play unmolested thats fine, but I havent heard or seen it yet other than instances for at least priority dungeons, raid, and world bosses. Instances allow people to work together at their own pace, in peace and not have to deal with the jerks of the world that ruin their experience.
Elden Ring sold 20 million copies and that would be considered a huge success for that type of game. But how many people really finished it or even thought it was worth finishing?
Exactly right, you are proving my point here. Elden Ring is exactly what this game should be doing. They are growing their playerbase, and should continue pumping out games doing exactly what they have been doing. This is really what success looks like, and they figured it out. That is how you appeal to a niche market. Doesnt matter if people all finish it or not, they are coming away with a good feeling about the game, and will buy the next one. Good for this game, players are happy and the devs are rich, thats the right model.
Of course developers (and any company) want a lot of people. No one is saying that they are thinking "20k people is enough and we hope we don't get more."
But they could be saying "we need 20k people and are satisfied we were able to make that benchmark.
This attitude right here is why the MMORPG market is so weak right now. Where are the dreamers? Satified with 20k, LOL what a completely slack outlook. When you think subpar you get subpar. If this attitude is what the majority of dev teams have, no wonder this MMORPG market is so lackluster.
When we get some MMORPG dev teams that actually have a success attitude maybe we will see some successes.
Your previous example of Elden Ring showed 20m+ is doable for even a niche game. MMORPG devs need to stop thinking 20k and start thinking 20m+. Then we might see some games where the customers are actually reviewing it favorably. Elden ring has a 91% favorable rating with almost 500k reviews on steam. Show me a recent MMO with those numbers?
Steam charts only have 67,000 players playing elden ring and it is one of the most popular games. But that is only steam.
Most popular game on steam have 1.3 million players right now. There are only 7 games with over 200k players now.
The only issue there, according to your pointed situation, is if the offending guild targets any MOB anyone else is going for and does, overall, the vast majority of damage. That's a good time to go to another spot.
What makes you think a "B tier" group has to give up Bosses?
You are the one that suggested moving as an acceptable solution to people coming in and taking peoples content away.
This is a 2000 problem that is already understood and adapted for. Your idea that there are bosses everywhere. If everything is a boss than nothing is a boss.
There has to be special rare content or it wont feel special. If there is rare content then people will steal it in an open world through various means.
Some people are greedy, some people are dbags whatever, no reason to stick your head in the sand and ignore it. Trying to pretend its 2000 again and forget these problems exist with completely open worlds wont work either. None of your solutions solve these simple identified problems that cause massive havoc in games if left unsolved.
PVP is the solution to kill steals, but has its own HUGE problems associated, instances are the solution for normies. If you can come up with a real solution that lets normies play unmolested thats fine, but I havent heard or seen it yet other than instances for at least priority dungeons, raid, and world bosses. Instances allow people to work together at their own pace, in peace and not have to deal with the jerks of the world that ruin their experience.
Where did I say that "everything's a Boss"? Play fair, forum warrior.
You know, when Walmart opens checkout line 3, people move there.
Yeah, I know that PvP is a solution to many social jerk-problems. But PvPers refuse to accept real solutions (for everyone else), and they've killed any acceptance of PvP at all. At least for the here-and-now. Live with it.
I want an open world too, I like open worlds. I am not even a casual player. I was a GM of a server first guild, I know how toxic it can be, not on purpose mind you like some might think. We took kills to be competitive, if we didnt get that loot, maybe a #2 guild would eventually spring past us. Its a toxic atmosphere that doesnt lead to cooperation. As I got older I seen the toxicity even more.
I realize these games need casuals to succeed. Casuals need a good place to go when things pass their toxic threshold. So I understand that casuals need instances to avoid being harassed while just having fun, especially on the most important part of their gameplay.
Open worlds allow people to meet, cooperate and get to know others, I think this is extremely valuable to MMO's. This is why I want a mix. Instances for the top end stuff, open world for everything else.
I want an open world too, I like open worlds. I am not even a casual player. I was a GM of a server first guild, I know how toxic it can be, not on purpose mind you like some might think. We took kills to be competitive, if we didnt get that loot, maybe a #2 guild would eventually spring past us. Its a toxic atmosphere that doesnt lead to cooperation. As I got older I seen the toxicity even more.
I realize these games need casuals to succeed. Casuals need a good place to go when things pass their toxic threshold. So I understand that casuals need instances to avoid being harassed while just having fun, especially on the most important part of their gameplay.
Open worlds allow people to meet, cooperate and get to know others, I think this is extremely valuable to MMO's. This is why I want a mix. Instances for the top end stuff, open world for everything else.
Instances are artificial barriers with fixed content. Gamers are leaving that old and boring design. It's not a "World", it's Lobbies and SP/MP stuff. The whole meaning of "Massively" in a "World" goes out the door. Socialness goes with it. Meaning goes with it. Excitement goes with it.
Instances do not themselves define content as fixed any more than static spawn nodes in an open world/dungeon does. Applying randomization of content to one scenario can just as easily be applied to another.
It seems to me from the number of posts on this thread that we don't want it but we want something and we are not getting it.
Exactly what though? I am not a fan of instances, but they solve problems like dungeon waiting, sometimes you just have to except that good gameplay comes before good open world.
It seems to me from the number of posts on this thread that we don't want it but we want something and we are not getting it.
Exactly what though? I am not a fan of instances, but they solve problems like dungeon waiting, sometimes you just have to except that good gameplay comes before good open world.
I'd actually prefer a game to be designed in a way to minimise dungeon/boss waiting (eg. spreading similar loot among multiple areas, not having such unique items that makes people want to camp, having a large enough world relative to population, etc etc etc) over implementing instances.
Instances break the entire concept of role playing a character within a world to me. It no longer becomes a "world that you are to immerse yourself into", it becomes a "game" to me, and I think there are many who would agree.
This is one reason I like a few games in the survival genre currently. The worlds are tiny, but no instances etc, none of these "work-arounds" implemented just because it allows scaling of content and adding on content easily. It works with some games because they have designed it around instancing in the first place, it lends itself to it, and sure instancing gives some benefits and solves some problems well for that type of game. The problem is just to re-iterate, for some, it is one of those systems that moves towards creating a "game to play" not a "world to get immersed in".
This all relates to how earlier in the thread I was saying many of these games nowadays are like "arcade games". There are tons of features added these days that "show" to the player that what you are doing, is obviously playing a game, not immersing yourself into a world.
So, in my opinion, basically everything in the way you are designing your "world" (if this is the style of game you choose of course) and its systems (if you want to have an immersive rpg world) is to absolutely prioritise keeping onto the immsersive world aspect of the game. This means basically this is the most important thing, it is the priority, so something like instancing is a no no.
Started playing mmorpg's in 1996 and have been hooked ever since. It began with Kingdom of Drakkar, Ultima Online, Everquest, DAoC, WoW...
EVE Online ..... None of those are considered to be "problems," they are sanctioned game play....
Maybe not problems for a few people. But how many have left because of this reason. I will bet most of the people had this in their list of grievances. Getting ganked while trying to do their content then stealing the kill, top guilds dominating the main content etc... yeah I dont play Eve but I know just by its design this is a problem. This is probably the #1 reason the game doesnt get the numbers like the top PVE instanced MMO's.
Sure maybe the devs want this in there to facilitate PVP, but its still a problem for the larger player base that doesnt want it.
well "good." The game is able to continue running as it is patronized by people who want this type of game play. Perfect. That's the way it should be.
No game should have to cater to large groups if it means changing what the developers want.
They dont have to cater to large groups, but normally people that own companies want to get as many people as possible.
So looking at the numbers, are you saying that only 20k or less people concurrent want a game like this? Is this the maximum cap for this type of Sci-fi MMO. If No, then why isnt this game reaching its potential. Smarter devs would figure out the formula to capture their entire market base and build towards that.
Whats more likely, is the dev team is out of ideas on how to do that. This is the entire problem, dev teams are clueless about what the playerbases really want and cant make good enough games to capture that target customer.
I have said many times, games can be both niche and popular at the same time by caputuring their entire niche with a great product.
I am not advocating that games have to appeal to every customer. I am just saying make a game that is really good and continues to grow. People are born everyday, more people have internet access, these games should be growing by default yet they are all shrinking to incredibly small numbers.
You do realize that "niche" and "popular" are two opposing terms? A game can NEVER be both.
Niche: appealing to very few.
Popular: appealing to the masses.
Google (I think) defines a generation as 25 years. How many 25 year old games do you plat today? UO and EQ struggle getting new players today, if they get any at all. Technology changes too fast. How we interact with technology changes too fast. Looking at babies born today as "future customers" is bad business for games. Of course, I'm not a millionaire business game making tycoon, so I may just be wrong. I certainly would look at those born today as future gaming customers, but NOT for a game I make today. I'd be looking at them for future games.
- 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
It doesnt have to appeal to everyone, it just needs to appeal to a big core, and do it well. It obviously appeals to people or it wouldnt be rated at 91% on steam.
How many of those 20+ million left a rating?
90%?
75%?
50%?
Less than that? (I didn't check.)
How many players who gave up took the time to leave a "review?"
Stats are wonderful thing. People will use the exact stats to prove two sides of an argument
Just asking
- 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 don't think that really solved for the concerns presented in the quoted statement. You're arguing mechanical game solutions to problems of human nature.
Those problems of human nature are based on opportunities, and in this case limited. Remove those opportunities, or the limits, and you remove the problems, no?
In theory.
In practice, people look for new opportunities.
People also have this habit of using rationality to justify the irrational.
This is the thing with talking about instances versus server shards for example. If one is not talking about having a game world large enough to accommodate all players, then you're already fragmenting them across servers/shards. What's the justification that defines where the cutoff between that and more granular instancing of content is? What's the argument that says one is good while the other is bad, that doesn't have crossover implications?
It's justification of preferred or familiar conditions, more than an actual rational division and assessment, for just about anyone.
Or like the fast travel thing. On one end, is a one-time travel penalty really a solution to making things work, or does it still end up diminishing any reason for having a large game world? If it's justified by exploration, how quickly before that becomes an Ubisoft "collect all the nodes" type of experience where people feel compelled to do simple repetitive tasks to fill out achievement checklists in hopes of some reward?
If no reward, then how well will exploration actually compel players or justify said open world?
As for the human nature thing.
This was addressed in part by my point on how players would rank things too. Just because there is a dungeon with the same drop table as another, perhaps is even a carbon copy as another, does not mean it will be assessed as the same value as another. Placement in the game world for ease of access matters, how heavily it gets camped by others matters, even almost entirely superficial elements like distance to preferred hub cities and what-not matters.
Consider as well the statement from my post you originally quoted;
"Resource denial is as important as resource gain for PvP scenarios."
Even ignoring expressly PvP scenarios, guilds competing against one another in any manner have a motive for denying other guilds and other players access to resources. When that happens, it's not about locking down one dungeon or one boss, but whatever ones that allow the perceived competition from gaining.
Fast travel to any sort ends up being a threat as much as a benefit in such situations, because if members of a guild or alliance are able to just warp over and occupy any dungeon after unlocking them, then it's not really solving the more basic problem at play.
Big problem here is thus-far, there is no perfect solution. They all come with problems and the resulting choice is what type of game experience do you want to build for what kind of audience. Everything is a compromise.
Per your last comment, if that's true, then what's your argument against my comments?
But the reality is that there are answers. And if they don't work in one place, you have this whole huge world to find another place. You say that the big guilds will follow you just to deny resources to other players. Ok. So how do they know where those other players went? Huge world, remember?
You state that they'll have a list of the best places. But what if there's plenty of small places, far down said list, that offer just as much reward per player in a small group?
UO had an answer to this, in large part, too. Loot was divided by overall damage done, it lasted for 2 minutes or so, then whatever wasn't claimed dropped into the community loot for anyone to take. The only issue there, according to your pointed situation, is if the offending guild targets any MOB anyone else is going for and does, overall, the vast majority of damage. That's a good time to go to another spot. Or, if there are as many "other players" as there are in that big guild, it's a wash. No problem.
Then again, there's always another day too.
What you are doing is using the fact that nothing is perfect to argue that our desires won't ever work. That's just not the case.
It's time for a change and you can't change that, no matter what you say, anyways. If change doesn't happen, you can expect to watch the decline continue, snowballing faster as it goes.
I read your posts and think, "This person seeks "Utopia." You do NOT factor in human activity. Your answers is trying to "control" other players. Killed by a PvP player? other players will come to your aid and reek vengeance. What if all the humans playing decide they are too busy playing their OWN game?
There are TWO sides to every coin. Game making IS a series of compromises. You will only get "your Utopia" only if YOU make the game from scratch including only the aspects YOU find fun. It will be YOUR perfect game and no one else's.
I'm NOT attacking you. It is your ideas and dreams of your "Utopia."
I truly hope you find a game (MMORPG) that meets enough of your criteria. I'd love for you to find happiness in your gaming. EVERY player should be able find games that help them to be happy.
I'm NOT attacking you personally and DO like many of your ideas. But my practical/cynical side wants you to understand that every rule can be broken. Do laws stop murders? Nope. Murder still happens today. Same with theft and every other law ever created. Rules can, and will, be broken. Even a "hard coding" be worked "cheated" around.
I mean this in all sincerity: Never give up hope
- 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
It seems to me from the number of posts on this thread that we don't want it but we want something and we are not getting it.
Exactly what though? I am not a fan of instances, but they solve problems like dungeon waiting, sometimes you just have to except that good gameplay comes before good open world.
I think it still comes down to different people wanting different games, and those games are probably not popular with game companies.
It costs a decent amount to make these things and no company wants to risk everything on some niche product.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
It doesnt have to appeal to everyone, it just needs to appeal to a big core, and do it well. It obviously appeals to people or it wouldnt be rated at 91% on steam.
How many of those 20+ million left a rating?
90%?
75%?
50%?
Less than that? (I didn't check.)
How many players who gave up took the time to leave a "review?"
Stats are wonderful thing. People will use the exact stats to prove two sides of an argument
Just asking
That's the thing, I would bet dollars to donuts that a LOT of people bought the game thinking "harder skyrim" and instead got more difficulty than they imagined.
I'm thinking it's the marketing that drove those sales.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Comments
Exactly right, you are proving my point here. Elden Ring is exactly what this game should be doing. They are growing their playerbase, and should continue pumping out games doing exactly what they have been doing. This is really what success looks like, and they figured it out. That is how you appeal to a niche market. Doesnt matter if people all finish it or not, they are coming away with a good feeling about the game, and will buy the next one. Good for this game, players are happy and the devs are rich, thats the right model.
This attitude right here is why the MMORPG market is so weak right now. Where are the dreamers? Satified with 20k, LOL what a completely slack outlook. When you think subpar you get subpar. If this attitude is what the majority of dev teams have, no wonder this MMORPG market is so lackluster.
When we get some MMORPG dev teams that actually have a success attitude maybe we will see some successes.
Your previous example of Elden Ring showed 20m+ is doable for even a niche game. MMORPG devs need to stop thinking 20k and start thinking 20m+. Then we might see some games where the customers are actually reviewing it favorably. Elden ring has a 91% favorable rating with almost 500k reviews on steam. Show me a recent MMO with those numbers?
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
It doesnt have to appeal to everyone, it just needs to appeal to a big core, and do it well. It obviously appeals to people or it wouldnt be rated at 91% on steam. So its attracting many more people than its turning away. It doesnt matter if people finish or not, some people never finish. It only matters if the large majority feel it was worth it and will buy the next one.
Elden ring got so much fame, I wouldnt be surprised if the next one is even bigger. This is what happens when you continue to make a solid games.
I dont agree with your Gloria Victis making a great game, it has mixed reviews on steam, which tells me its not great. I havent played it, so I cannot say for certain. Most people on the edges like me dont want to play games that cant even appeal to a decent sized core. Mixed reviews already tells me I wont be interested in this game, its quality is not good enough.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Once upon a time....
So Gloria Victis has both a bad rating and low population, clearly what they are doing is not working. If you really want to make trash games, why not make some amazing game that is extremely successful then you can make all the trash you want. Kind of like Steven Spielberg that does documentaries now.
Nah they devs havent proved anything, all we see is another subpar product that most people dont like. The reason being is the devs do not have the skills or competency to make a game that actually appeals to their population. Otherwise their population would be playing it and rating it highly.
They had the talent, some resources, a clear vision yet have accomplished almost nothing notable, heck they have less to show for their efforts than the Embers team does.
"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
In practice, people look for new opportunities.
People also have this habit of using rationality to justify the irrational.
This is the thing with talking about instances versus server shards for example. If one is not talking about having a game world large enough to accommodate all players, then you're already fragmenting them across servers/shards. What's the justification that defines where the cutoff between that and more granular instancing of content is? What's the argument that says one is good while the other is bad, that doesn't have crossover implications?
It's justification of preferred or familiar conditions, more than an actual rational division and assessment, for just about anyone.
Or like the fast travel thing. On one end, is a one-time travel penalty really a solution to making things work, or does it still end up diminishing any reason for having a large game world? If it's justified by exploration, how quickly before that becomes an Ubisoft "collect all the nodes" type of experience where people feel compelled to do simple repetitive tasks to fill out achievement checklists in hopes of some reward?
If no reward, then how well will exploration actually compel players or justify said open world?
As for the human nature thing.
This was addressed in part by my point on how players would rank things too. Just because there is a dungeon with the same drop table as another, perhaps is even a carbon copy as another, does not mean it will be assessed as the same value as another. Placement in the game world for ease of access matters, how heavily it gets camped by others matters, even almost entirely superficial elements like distance to preferred hub cities and what-not matters.
Consider as well the statement from my post you originally quoted;
"Resource denial is as important as resource gain for PvP scenarios."
Even ignoring expressly PvP scenarios, guilds competing against one another in any manner have a motive for denying other guilds and other players access to resources. When that happens, it's not about locking down one dungeon or one boss, but whatever ones that allow the perceived competition from gaining.
Fast travel to any sort ends up being a threat as much as a benefit in such situations, because if members of a guild or alliance are able to just warp over and occupy any dungeon after unlocking them, then it's not really solving the more basic problem at play.
Big problem here is thus-far, there is no perfect solution. They all come with problems and the resulting choice is what type of game experience do you want to build for what kind of audience. Everything is a compromise.
But the reality is that there are answers. And if they don't work in one place, you have this whole huge world to find another place.
You say that the big guilds will follow you just to deny resources to other players.
Ok. So how do they know where those other players went? Huge world, remember?
You state that they'll have a list of the best places. But what if there's plenty of small places, far down said list, that offer just as much reward per player in a small group?
UO had an answer to this, in large part, too. Loot was divided by overall damage done, it lasted for 2 minutes or so, then whatever wasn't claimed dropped into the community loot for anyone to take. The only issue there, according to your pointed situation, is if the offending guild targets any MOB anyone else is going for and does, overall, the vast majority of damage.
That's a good time to go to another spot. Or, if there are as many "other players" as there are in that big guild, it's a wash. No problem.
Then again, there's always another day too.
What you are doing is using the fact that nothing is perfect to argue that our desires won't ever work. That's just not the case.
It's time for a change and you can't change that, no matter what you say, anyways.
If change doesn't happen, you can expect to watch the decline continue, snowballing faster as it goes.
Once upon a time....
Your solutions do not solve the problems at all. If anything they are just forcing concessions from lower tiered players.
Why should a B tier group of players have to just give up their bosses to all the S tier players, even if the B tier can easily defeat those bosses.
People dont want to be run off of their bosses. Lower tiered players want good loot just like everyone else. Most of these people dont want to play survival of the fittest. Many casuals just want to log in and have some fun and log out. They dont want to spend their entire play sessions trying to find something to do because they keep getting run off their content.
None of your solutions are solving problems, they are just creating more problems. What does allow lower tiered players opportunities to experience similar content is instances. That is the solution to the problem you are dancing around.
What you have completely ignored is that separate servers are the same as instances. Seems hypocritical to say you are fine with one and not the other. Even UO has a PVE instance and a PVP instance.
What you need is a good mix of instances for most of the best content and open worlds. Open worlds only has serious negatives you seem to not understand.
Each server is a World. Instances inside that world are what they are, separate instances broken away from that server World.
What makes you think a "B tier" group has to give up Bosses? Why can't Bosses be all over the place in a Huge World full of Dungeons, Ruins, Cave systems small and large, Ancient Temples, Underworld entrances, secret Covens, small lakes, mystical glens, valleys, etc., etc. A huge World full of exploration and excitement and plenty to do for all.
Why can't we have wandering MOBs, and even wandering Bosses from time to time?
Why can't we have randomness and simulated "realism"? (In a Fantasy or Sci-Fi setting.)
Why are you restricting games based on "New" and "Worldly" with the gaminess of tired old things?
Why can't we have Worlds instead of "just games"?
Why can't it truly be PvW?
Once upon a time....
This is a 2000 problem that is already understood and adapted for. Your idea that there are bosses everywhere. If everything is a boss than nothing is a boss.
There has to be special rare content or it wont feel special. If there is rare content then people will steal it in an open world through various means.
Some people are greedy, some people are dbags whatever, no reason to stick your head in the sand and ignore it. Trying to pretend its 2000 again and forget these problems exist with completely open worlds wont work either. None of your solutions solve these simple identified problems that cause massive havoc in games if left unsolved.
PVP is the solution to kill steals, but has its own HUGE problems associated, instances are the solution for normies. If you can come up with a real solution that lets normies play unmolested thats fine, but I havent heard or seen it yet other than instances for at least priority dungeons, raid, and world bosses. Instances allow people to work together at their own pace, in peace and not have to deal with the jerks of the world that ruin their experience.
Steam charts only have 67,000 players playing elden ring and it is one of the most popular games. But that is only steam.
Most popular game on steam have 1.3 million players right now. There are only 7 games with over 200k players now.
Play fair, forum warrior.
You know, when Walmart opens checkout line 3, people move there.
Yeah, I know that PvP is a solution to many social jerk-problems.
But PvPers refuse to accept real solutions (for everyone else), and they've killed any acceptance of PvP at all. At least for the here-and-now.
Live with it.
Once upon a time....
I realize these games need casuals to succeed. Casuals need a good place to go when things pass their toxic threshold. So I understand that casuals need instances to avoid being harassed while just having fun, especially on the most important part of their gameplay.
Open worlds allow people to meet, cooperate and get to know others, I think this is extremely valuable to MMO's. This is why I want a mix. Instances for the top end stuff, open world for everything else.
Gamers are leaving that old and boring design.
It's not a "World", it's Lobbies and SP/MP stuff.
The whole meaning of "Massively" in a "World" goes out the door.
Socialness goes with it.
Meaning goes with it.
Excitement goes with it.
Once upon a time....
Exactly what though? I am not a fan of instances, but they solve problems like dungeon waiting, sometimes you just have to except that good gameplay comes before good open world.
- 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
- 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
- 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
It costs a decent amount to make these things and no company wants to risk everything on some niche product.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I'm thinking it's the marketing that drove those sales.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo