Yeah someone needs to come up with a way for larger groups of players with disparate gear scores and even levels to do the same content and get rewards appropriate for their current level/gs. Kinda like a raid level sidekick system from city of heroes or something. That way you don't fracture social groups along gear score or level lines which is a huge problem in most MMOs WoW in particular.
Yeah someone needs to come up with a way for larger groups of players with disparate gear scores and even levels to do the same content and get rewards appropriate for their current level/gs. Kinda like a raid level sidekick system from city of heroes or something. That way you don't fracture social groups along gear score or level lines which is a huge problem in most MMOs WoW in particular.
To a certain extent guilds can do this, you can take along one sub par guy and still do the dungeon if he is not too far behind. 'Gatekeeping by gear' raids at the top, but the 'smaller' dungeons should certainly allow for more flexibility.
Yeah someone needs to come up with a way for larger groups of players with disparate gear scores and even levels to do the same content and get rewards appropriate for their current level/gs. Kinda like a raid level sidekick system from city of heroes or something. That way you don't fracture social groups along gear score or level lines which is a huge problem in most MMOs WoW in particular.
To a certain extent guilds can do this, you can take along one sub par guy and still do the dungeon if he is not too far behind. 'Gatekeeping by gear' raids at the top, but the 'smaller' dungeons should certainly allow for more flexibility.
Right but I'm referring to a larger scale like up to a quarter or maybe even half your raid group could be below optimal GS but they get scaled up to the GS of the highest GS in the raid or something. Not just that the raid is OP for the content so they can afford to carry one or two individuals. And maybe there's content that doesn't allow this in the same game and some content that does. There could be difficulty modes you could toggle or something. There would be details to work out. I'd leave that to the game designers. Not going to hash that out here.
Point being it would solve a lot of the current social issues in modern MMOs if you could log on and go run content with your guild even if you were behind in GS. As it stands if you can't keep up you get left behind and get to sit on the sidelines and watch your guild get even further ahead of you as they link their drops in guild chat. It's not a fun place in which to be stuck.
Camp grinders included Lineage 1/2, EQ1, DAOC, other early MMORPGS.
Yeah I would put UO into the camp grinder catagory for sure. I cant think of any old school MMO's that was not camp grinders actually.
My DAOC guild broke as well moving to WoW. It was hard to keep people together in early WoW.
I think big issues not only was the level difference (which is big), but also with the quests, you could be on the same exact line as someone, but be at different stages in the line, so you cant even group together doing that. Also smaller group sizes, forced people to wait outside the group. I like WoW raiding, but WoW definetely broke up a bunch of old school guilds.
Ya see, I'd take "camp grinder" over "quest grinder" any day. You guys see a problem with "camp grinder", but the fact is that you didn't have to just grind a camp. You could go anywhere you wanted to go. If you were having fun, or had an objective, you could stay. And if not, you could go somewhere else. The problem with that was in early UO, because no one had the Gate Spell yet, and few even had the much lower Recall Spell (but the Recall Scroll took care of that on an individual basis). Still, the UO design does need some added oomph in all of this. Also, UO was a very small game world until they released added lands, and really not enough to do for very long. But then the industry experts thought that UO would only sell about 30k copies, so the game was being built for that number, until the pre-release forums exploded. That's when "shards" came about.
My thoughts are that any game needs a huge world and lots and lots of things to do in said world. We talk about exploration, but there's not been much in the way of making it meaningful. Games need lots of discoveries, of all sorts. And not the kind that everyone gets simply by running a quest.
Yeah someone needs to come up with a way for larger groups of players with disparate gear scores and even levels to do the same content and get rewards appropriate for their current level/gs. Kinda like a raid level sidekick system from city of heroes or something. That way you don't fracture social groups along gear score or level lines which is a huge problem in most MMOs WoW in particular.
To a certain extent guilds can do this, you can take along one sub par guy and still do the dungeon if he is not too far behind. 'Gatekeeping by gear' raids at the top, but the 'smaller' dungeons should certainly allow for more flexibility.
Right but I'm referring to a larger scale like up to a quarter or maybe even half your raid group could be below optimal GS but they get scaled up to the GS of the highest GS in the raid or something. Not just that the raid is OP for the content so they can afford to carry one or two individuals. And maybe there's content that doesn't allow this in the same game and some content that does. There could be difficulty modes you could toggle or something. There would be details to work out. I'd leave that to the game designers. Not going to hash that out here.
Point being it would solve a lot of the current social issues in modern MMOs if you could log on and go run content with your guild even if you were behind in GS. As it stands if you can't keep up you get left behind and get to sit on the sidelines and watch your guild get even further ahead of you as they link their drops in guild chat. It's not a fun place in which to be stuck.
Is running quests and raids the extent of what you think of socialization? Something like you are suggesting would be a benefit to guilds and stickiness there, but it comes with the drawback that those lowbies are missing content along the way. And it's not always going to work, because the problem is that some gamers just play more often than others. Those others will not be able to keep up even with that constant help. The power gaps are just too big.
1. The games are designed in a way that it's only thinly veiled that the developers want to waste your time. I don't know about you guys, but I'm married, have kids, a career, and don't have time to spare to be wasted.
2. The community. There are still some great people playing these games, especially in FF14 and GW2, but most of these games have a very hostile community who believes you should have to download multiple addons, watch youtube guides, and follow builds written by the 1% in order to participate in any group content. This is a farcry from the friendly random PUG's that I used to group with while camping mobs for xp in DAOC.
3. Cash shops. When cash shops are a part of the game, developers are incentivized to get us to buy things off that shop. This impacts gameplay by making things more tedious or by having mechanisms to gate our access to activities in the game. All of which we can improve by buying an item off the cash shop. It's not horrid if there's also no subscription and the amount you are forced to pay to have a normal experience doesn't exceed that of a subscription, but it's a turn off and I just end up walking away before the month is done anyways.
In the end, I think there's still fun to be found playing MMORPG's, but ultimately I feel like the glory days are over. They used to be a place where we all grouped up freely and were friendly to each other while we discovered the game world and carved our own goals out of the game. Now, the culture has changed. Even if a really great game was created, it'd be ruined by the community before it even launched. Just looks at Diablo 4 forums and reddit as an example.
Yeah someone needs to come up with a way for larger groups of players with disparate gear scores and even levels to do the same content and get rewards appropriate for their current level/gs. Kinda like a raid level sidekick system from city of heroes or something. That way you don't fracture social groups along gear score or level lines which is a huge problem in most MMOs WoW in particular.
To a certain extent guilds can do this, you can take along one sub par guy and still do the dungeon if he is not too far behind. 'Gatekeeping by gear' raids at the top, but the 'smaller' dungeons should certainly allow for more flexibility.
Right but I'm referring to a larger scale like up to a quarter or maybe even half your raid group could be below optimal GS but they get scaled up to the GS of the highest GS in the raid or something. Not just that the raid is OP for the content so they can afford to carry one or two individuals. And maybe there's content that doesn't allow this in the same game and some content that does. There could be difficulty modes you could toggle or something. There would be details to work out. I'd leave that to the game designers. Not going to hash that out here.
Point being it would solve a lot of the current social issues in modern MMOs if you could log on and go run content with your guild even if you were behind in GS. As it stands if you can't keep up you get left behind and get to sit on the sidelines and watch your guild get even further ahead of you as they link their drops in guild chat. It's not a fun place in which to be stuck.
There has to be a limit to this though, for me your first avatar should have to do all the top raids without being able to skip. Second avatars should have a very flexible approach. This creates a churn where subsequent avatar players are playing with first ones to get the raid done. If the game does not need more than one avatar it is setting itself up for problems right there, designers should not be scratching their heads working out why players are leaving the game at 'end game' if the game does not support more than one avatar and only has raids as end game.
Yeah someone needs to come up with a way for larger groups of players with disparate gear scores and even levels to do the same content and get rewards appropriate for their current level/gs. Kinda like a raid level sidekick system from city of heroes or something. That way you don't fracture social groups along gear score or level lines which is a huge problem in most MMOs WoW in particular.
To a certain extent guilds can do this, you can take along one sub par guy and still do the dungeon if he is not too far behind. 'Gatekeeping by gear' raids at the top, but the 'smaller' dungeons should certainly allow for more flexibility.
Right but I'm referring to a larger scale like up to a quarter or maybe even half your raid group could be below optimal GS but they get scaled up to the GS of the highest GS in the raid or something. Not just that the raid is OP for the content so they can afford to carry one or two individuals. And maybe there's content that doesn't allow this in the same game and some content that does. There could be difficulty modes you could toggle or something. There would be details to work out. I'd leave that to the game designers. Not going to hash that out here.
Point being it would solve a lot of the current social issues in modern MMOs if you could log on and go run content with your guild even if you were behind in GS. As it stands if you can't keep up you get left behind and get to sit on the sidelines and watch your guild get even further ahead of you as they link their drops in guild chat. It's not a fun place in which to be stuck.
There has to be a limit to this though, for me your first avatar should have to do all the top raids without being able to skip. Second avatars should have a very flexible approach. This creates a churn where subsequent avatar players are playing with first ones to get the raid done. If the game does not need more than one avatar it is setting itself up for problems right there, designers should not be scratching their heads working out why players are leaving the game at 'end game' if the game does not support more than one avatar and only has raids as end game.
MMORPGs should never have an "end game." That's a construct of gamers and devs alike, who only want to run through fixed content and then that's it, unless more fixed content is added. So they make these games (usually) with that in mind, and that, right there, is the biggest problem.
(Which causes the game itself to be made with only that focus in mind, the outcome -> source spiral of that problematic thinking.)
MMORPGs should never have an "end game." That's a construct of gamers and devs alike, who only want to run through fixed content and then that's it, unless more fixed content is added.
I am kinda mixed on this concept of no end game. On the one hand it would be nice to have continual areas you can just go and kill stuff, when you need whatever reagent, item etc... from that area. However I also want areas that are challenging. Over time as I improve, I want areas I can go to that are more challenging than before, as I dont want there to be a point where I am just killing everything without any effort.
Additionally I see the need for newbie areas etc... So if there is a newbie area, but that fact alone means some areas are harder than others.
How can you have this type of system without there being an endgame?
I remember in UO for example, PVE endgame for me looked like Ancient dragon farm, bloods, lichlord room, t5 treasure chests (I think this was highest at time) etc... Later they had some boss dungeons and scroll farms.
So if everything was the same level, then the game would be forced to make it easy to me because some people can compete at a hard level. So yeah I can see there is issues with this definition on what is "end game".
Which game do you see has no end game that actually still works later down the road?
Yeah someone needs to come up with a way for larger groups of players with disparate gear scores and even levels to do the same content and get rewards appropriate for their current level/gs. Kinda like a raid level sidekick system from city of heroes or something. That way you don't fracture social groups along gear score or level lines which is a huge problem in most MMOs WoW in particular.
To a certain extent guilds can do this, you can take along one sub par guy and still do the dungeon if he is not too far behind. 'Gatekeeping by gear' raids at the top, but the 'smaller' dungeons should certainly allow for more flexibility.
Right but I'm referring to a larger scale like up to a quarter or maybe even half your raid group could be below optimal GS but they get scaled up to the GS of the highest GS in the raid or something. Not just that the raid is OP for the content so they can afford to carry one or two individuals. And maybe there's content that doesn't allow this in the same game and some content that does. There could be difficulty modes you could toggle or something. There would be details to work out. I'd leave that to the game designers. Not going to hash that out here.
Point being it would solve a lot of the current social issues in modern MMOs if you could log on and go run content with your guild even if you were behind in GS. As it stands if you can't keep up you get left behind and get to sit on the sidelines and watch your guild get even further ahead of you as they link their drops in guild chat. It's not a fun place in which to be stuck.
There has to be a limit to this though, for me your first avatar should have to do all the top raids without being able to skip. Second avatars should have a very flexible approach. This creates a churn where subsequent avatar players are playing with first ones to get the raid done. If the game does not need more than one avatar it is setting itself up for problems right there, designers should not be scratching their heads working out why players are leaving the game at 'end game' if the game does not support more than one avatar and only has raids as end game.
MMORPGs should never have an "end game." That's a construct of gamers and devs alike, who only want to run through fixed content and then that's it, unless more fixed content is added. So they make these games (usually) with that in mind, and that, right there, is the biggest problem.
(Which causes the game itself to be made with only that focus in mind, the outcome -> source spiral of that problematic thinking.)
That's my "no sheet, Sherlock" comment for today.
When I was posting I was thinking of MMOS who had "looked no further" as it were. I would not want to play in a MMO that only had raids as "end game". PvP is the key to me for what the players should be focused on when the content is said and done, for others a thriving economy is a must. You can do raids in a "best fit" way but it is just not enough for a fully rounded MMORPG. So yes, I agree.
MMORPGs should never have an "end game." That's a construct of gamers and devs alike, who only want to run through fixed content and then that's it, unless more fixed content is added.
I am kinda mixed on this concept of no end game. On the one hand it would be nice to have continual areas you can just go and kill stuff, when you need whatever reagent, item etc... from that area. However I also want areas that are challenging. Over time as I improve, I want areas I can go to that are more challenging than before, as I dont want there to be a point where I am just killing everything without any effort.
Additionally I see the need for newbie areas etc... So if there is a newbie area, but that fact alone means some areas are harder than others.
How can you have this type of system without there being an endgame?
I remember in UO for example, PVE endgame for me looked like Ancient dragon farm, bloods, lichlord room, t5 treasure chests (I think this was highest at time) etc... Later they had some boss dungeons and scroll farms.
So if everything was the same level, then the game would be forced to make it easy to me because some people can compete at a hard level. So yeah I can see there is issues with this definition on what is "end game".
Which game do you see has no end game that actually still works later down the road?
Well, to keep the "no end game" going you need a constant stream of new "everything." New add-ons to everything. What you want is for every sort of game play to always have more to do.
This is difficult to envision, but I think it can be done. Through adding new things that each come with multiple new aspects that affect multiple game play styles. Through adding add-ons to Dungeons, as in new sections after some event such as an earthquake (but not limited to that). Through new MOB alliances. Through a world that changes. Not the land mass so much, but what sorts of things are happening in the world at large.
Then there's GM Events. UO had one on-running Event, centered around Mondain and Minax. There should be multiple sources from the Lore to spread it out into multiple on-running storylines. They should come with all sorts of little world events that may or may not be related to these. There should be mysteries to these, and ways to discover the answers, which can be there in-game waiting for those heroes who make such discoveries. Some should be harder than others.
Interest in the game has to be maintained, and the trick is to multitask most of anything new. IMO.
MMORPGs should never have an "end game." That's a construct of gamers and devs alike, who only want to run through fixed content and then that's it, unless more fixed content is added.
So yeah I can see there is issues with this definition on what is "end game".
Which game do you see has no end game that actually still works later down the road?
See EVE Online, end game starts practically at Day 1 and never ends.
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 honestly don't base my decisions on whether they are big or small MMOs. I go with what I will enjoy in terms of content, quality...... fun. Whether it's produced by Blizzard or the Road Runner Acme Company makes no never mind to me.
I got sick of waiting for a new shinny MMO and bought an Xbox. Playing all the top AAA games I missed MMOing and now GPUs have become so expensive I'm not sure I want to PC Game anymore. So the next time I MMO will be on a console. When GPU prices normalize. I'm may go back to PC gaming and my normal MMO rotation.
I got sick of waiting for a new shinny MMO and bought an Xbox. Playing all the top AAA games I missed MMOing and now GPUs have become so expensive I'm not sure I want to PC Game anymore. So the next time I MMO will be on a console. When GPU prices normalize. I'm may go back to PC gaming and my normal MMO rotation.
I haven't bought or up graded a new video card or gpu in 5 years, and it seems to not be a problem playing any "top line" games at all.
I can safely say the industry has slowed down on needing upgrades. Now if you system breaks down and you need new parts it could be expensive.
This seems to be a fact because I had good stuff even dated beck 5 years 5 YEARS !! If your having problems, then your stuff is junk to begin with.
MMORPGs should never have an "end game." That's a construct of gamers and devs alike, who only want to run through fixed content and then that's it, unless more fixed content is added.
So yeah I can see there is issues with this definition on what is "end game".
Which game do you see has no end game that actually still works later down the road?
See EVE Online, end game starts practically at Day 1 and never ends.
Ultima online also , figured this out 26 years ago.
I got sick of waiting for a new shinny MMO and bought an Xbox. Playing all the top AAA games I missed MMOing and now GPUs have become so expensive I'm not sure I want to PC Game anymore. So the next time I MMO will be on a console. When GPU prices normalize. I'm may go back to PC gaming and my normal MMO rotation.
I haven't bought or up graded a new video card or gpu in 5 years, and it seems to not be a problem playing any "top line" games at all.
I can safely say the industry has slowed down on needing upgrades. Now if you system breaks down and you need new parts it could be expensive.
This seems to be a fact because I had good stuff even dated beck 5 years 5 YEARS !! If your having problems, then your stuff is junk to begin with.
To add to above: Not a single hitch in a video game at all.
I got sick of waiting for a new shinny MMO and bought an Xbox. Playing all the top AAA games I missed MMOing and now GPUs have become so expensive I'm not sure I want to PC Game anymore. So the next time I MMO will be on a console. When GPU prices normalize. I'm may go back to PC gaming and my normal MMO rotation.
I haven't bought or up graded a new video card or gpu in 5 years, and it seems to not be a problem playing any "top line" games at all.
I can safely say the industry has slowed down on needing upgrades. Now if you system breaks down and you need new parts it could be expensive.
This seems to be a fact because I had good stuff even dated beck 5 years 5 YEARS !! If your having problems, then your stuff is junk to begin with.
To add to above: Not a single hitch in a video game at all.
I've never seen you mention playing any newer games, at least nothing made in the past 5 years so sure, Turtle WOW is running great.
Tell us about your Star Citizen or Cyberpunk 2077 experiences.
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
FarCry5, Witcher, Fallout 4, games like that, no FPS games because I don't like shooter games. Star Citizen or Cyberpunk 2077 don't interest me but I'm sure it can handle them. maybe the last few not on max settings.
Games like ESO and many others played on max, only problem is they suck.
NOTE: All above games run well, with no up grade in well over 5 years ago !
MMORPGs should never have an "end game." That's a construct of gamers and devs alike, who only want to run through fixed content and then that's it, unless more fixed content is added.
So yeah I can see there is issues with this definition on what is "end game".
Which game do you see has no end game that actually still works later down the road?
See EVE Online, end game starts practically at Day 1 and never ends.
MMORPGs should never have an "end game." That's a construct of gamers and devs alike, who only want to run through fixed content and then that's it, unless more fixed content is added.
So yeah I can see there is issues with this definition on what is "end game".
Which game do you see has no end game that actually still works later down the road?
See EVE Online, end game starts practically at Day 1 and never ends.
Ultima online also , figured this out 26 years ago.
Both EVE and UO do carry on with no "end game." But isn't that mostly all about the PvP? Not that that's wrong (the PvP).
I see the PvE elements too, but again, that seems to be tied to the PvP game, and otherwise not enough to keep the games running. But I'm not really sure of this and open to other thoughts.
I think a great game needs a lot of PvE, PvWorld as it were, including Lore, construction (housing, but more), mysteries and experimental discoveries, I mean there should be loads of other game play that's not specifically tied to feeding PvP. In my opinion, of course.
I'd love to see a game that can logically divide players into PvP and PvE, and have it all meaningful to the ONE game world and it's play.
I never got very far in EVE, is there more than crafting, mining, and PVP? All I ever heard in game chat was "I'm gonna kill you" from the other players.....it doesnt exactly make people want to stay.....Same thing in UO....All I ever saw there was people griefing others.
MMORPGs should never have an "end game." That's a construct of gamers and devs alike, who only want to run through fixed content and then that's it, unless more fixed content is added.
So yeah I can see there is issues with this definition on what is "end game".
Which game do you see has no end game that actually still works later down the road?
See EVE Online, end game starts practically at Day 1 and never ends.
MMORPGs should never have an "end game." That's a construct of gamers and devs alike, who only want to run through fixed content and then that's it, unless more fixed content is added.
So yeah I can see there is issues with this definition on what is "end game".
Which game do you see has no end game that actually still works later down the road?
See EVE Online, end game starts practically at Day 1 and never ends.
Ultima online also , figured this out 26 years ago.
Both EVE and UO do carry on with no "end game." But isn't that mostly all about the PvP? Not that that's wrong (the PvP).
I see the PvE elements too, but again, that seems to be tied to the PvP game, and otherwise not enough to keep the games running. But I'm not really sure of this and open to other thoughts.
I think a great game needs a lot of PvE, PvWorld as it were, including Lore, construction (housing, but more), mysteries and experimental discoveries, I mean there should be loads of other game play that's not specifically tied to feeding PvP. In my opinion, of course.
I'd love to see a game that can logically divide players into PvP and PvE, and have it all meaningful to the ONE game world and it's play.
I feel EVE does a great job logically dividing players yet keeping it all one game, although of course it isn't totally exclusionary so eventually PVEers can and probably will be killed now and then.
Now if one is like most gamers (even many PVPers) who literally cannot stand to ever lose, or suffer consequences from losing, EVE's PVE isn't for them.
Three of the four careers in EVE are related to PVE, only one tract focuses on PVP. Link below well to explains the activities within each one.
Explorer, Industrialist, Enforcer are all PVE, only the Soldier of Fortune is solidly PVP focused.
Should be noted a solid majority, 75% or more of EVE players are found in Hi-sec, the safest space with most pursuing PVE activities within. (The "CODE" and other suicide gankers like them not withstanding.)
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 never got very far in EVE, is there more than crafting, mining, and PVP? All I ever heard in game chat was "I'm gonna kill you" from the other players.....it doesnt exactly make people want to stay.....Same thing in UO....All I ever saw there was people griefing others.
Yeah, there really is more depth than you might think, read through the careers at this link.
By game chat you mean local which like most MMOs is often mostly a bunch of crap talk. There are many others chat channels which are better, even for unaffiliated gamers, but joining a corp is almost a must in EVE for the optimal experience, no matter what career you choose to pursue
But, it isn't really a free game, you must sub to play it correctly and I know you aren't supportive of the sub model.
The free Alpha account is a good intro, but few will find it's many restrictions bearable if they play the game over the long haul.
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
Comments
Point being it would solve a lot of the current social issues in modern MMOs if you could log on and go run content with your guild even if you were behind in GS. As it stands if you can't keep up you get left behind and get to sit on the sidelines and watch your guild get even further ahead of you as they link their drops in guild chat. It's not a fun place in which to be stuck.
You guys see a problem with "camp grinder", but the fact is that you didn't have to just grind a camp. You could go anywhere you wanted to go. If you were having fun, or had an objective, you could stay. And if not, you could go somewhere else.
The problem with that was in early UO, because no one had the Gate Spell yet, and few even had the much lower Recall Spell (but the Recall Scroll took care of that on an individual basis).
Still, the UO design does need some added oomph in all of this. Also, UO was a very small game world until they released added lands, and really not enough to do for very long.
But then the industry experts thought that UO would only sell about 30k copies, so the game was being built for that number, until the pre-release forums exploded. That's when "shards" came about.
My thoughts are that any game needs a huge world and lots and lots of things to do in said world. We talk about exploration, but there's not been much in the way of making it meaningful. Games need lots of discoveries, of all sorts. And not the kind that everyone gets simply by running a quest.
Once upon a time....
Something like you are suggesting would be a benefit to guilds and stickiness there, but it comes with the drawback that those lowbies are missing content along the way.
And it's not always going to work, because the problem is that some gamers just play more often than others. Those others will not be able to keep up even with that constant help. The power gaps are just too big.
Once upon a time....
1. The games are designed in a way that it's only thinly veiled that the developers want to waste your time. I don't know about you guys, but I'm married, have kids, a career, and don't have time to spare to be wasted.
2. The community. There are still some great people playing these games, especially in FF14 and GW2, but most of these games have a very hostile community who believes you should have to download multiple addons, watch youtube guides, and follow builds written by the 1% in order to participate in any group content. This is a farcry from the friendly random PUG's that I used to group with while camping mobs for xp in DAOC.
3. Cash shops. When cash shops are a part of the game, developers are incentivized to get us to buy things off that shop. This impacts gameplay by making things more tedious or by having mechanisms to gate our access to activities in the game. All of which we can improve by buying an item off the cash shop. It's not horrid if there's also no subscription and the amount you are forced to pay to have a normal experience doesn't exceed that of a subscription, but it's a turn off and I just end up walking away before the month is done anyways.
In the end, I think there's still fun to be found playing MMORPG's, but ultimately I feel like the glory days are over. They used to be a place where we all grouped up freely and were friendly to each other while we discovered the game world and carved our own goals out of the game. Now, the culture has changed. Even if a really great game was created, it'd be ruined by the community before it even launched. Just looks at Diablo 4 forums and reddit as an example.
MMORPGs should never have an "end game." That's a construct of gamers and devs alike, who only want to run through fixed content and then that's it, unless more fixed content is added.
So they make these games (usually) with that in mind, and that, right there, is the biggest problem.
(Which causes the game itself to be made with only that focus in mind,
the outcome -> source spiral of that problematic thinking.)
That's my "no sheet, Sherlock" comment for today.
Once upon a time....
Additionally I see the need for newbie areas etc... So if there is a newbie area, but that fact alone means some areas are harder than others.
How can you have this type of system without there being an endgame?
I remember in UO for example, PVE endgame for me looked like Ancient dragon farm, bloods, lichlord room, t5 treasure chests (I think this was highest at time) etc... Later they had some boss dungeons and scroll farms.
So if everything was the same level, then the game would be forced to make it easy to me because some people can compete at a hard level. So yeah I can see there is issues with this definition on what is "end game".
Which game do you see has no end game that actually still works later down the road?
New add-ons to everything.
What you want is for every sort of game play to always have more to do.
This is difficult to envision, but I think it can be done. Through adding new things that each come with multiple new aspects that affect multiple game play styles.
Through adding add-ons to Dungeons, as in new sections after some event such as an earthquake (but not limited to that).
Through new MOB alliances.
Through a world that changes. Not the land mass so much, but what sorts of things are happening in the world at large.
Then there's GM Events. UO had one on-running Event, centered around Mondain and Minax. There should be multiple sources from the Lore to spread it out into multiple on-running storylines.
They should come with all sorts of little world events that may or may not be related to these.
There should be mysteries to these, and ways to discover the answers, which can be there in-game waiting for those heroes who make such discoveries. Some should be harder than others.
Interest in the game has to be maintained, and the trick is to multitask most of anything new.
IMO.
Once upon a time....
"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
I can safely say the industry has slowed down on needing upgrades. Now if you system breaks down and you need new parts it could be expensive.
This seems to be a fact because I had good stuff even dated beck 5 years 5 YEARS !!
If your having problems, then your stuff is junk to begin with.
Not a single hitch in a video game at all.
Tell us about your Star Citizen or Cyberpunk 2077 experiences.
"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
Games like ESO and many others played on max, only problem is they suck.
NOTE:
All above games run well, with no up grade in well over 5 years ago !
Not that that's wrong (the PvP).
I see the PvE elements too, but again, that seems to be tied to the PvP game, and otherwise not enough to keep the games running.
But I'm not really sure of this and open to other thoughts.
I think a great game needs a lot of PvE, PvWorld as it were, including Lore, construction (housing, but more), mysteries and experimental discoveries, I mean there should be loads of other game play that's not specifically tied to feeding PvP.
In my opinion, of course.
I'd love to see a game that can logically divide players into PvP and PvE, and have it all meaningful to the ONE game world and it's play.
Once upon a time....
Now if one is like most gamers (even many PVPers) who literally cannot stand to ever lose, or suffer consequences from losing, EVE's PVE isn't for them.
Three of the four careers in EVE are related to PVE, only one tract focuses on PVP. Link below well to explains the activities within each one.
Explorer, Industrialist, Enforcer are all PVE, only the Soldier of Fortune is solidly PVP focused.
Should be noted a solid majority, 75% or more of EVE players are found in Hi-sec, the safest space with most pursuing PVE activities within. (The "CODE" and other suicide gankers like them not withstanding.)
https://www.eveonline.com/eve-academy/careers
"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
https://www.eveonline.com/eve-academy/careers/soldier-of-fortune
By game chat you mean local which like most MMOs is often mostly a bunch of crap talk. There are many others chat channels which are better, even for unaffiliated gamers, but joining a corp is almost a must in EVE for the optimal experience, no matter what career you choose to pursue
But, it isn't really a free game, you must sub to play it correctly and I know you aren't supportive of the sub model.
The free Alpha account is a good intro, but few will find it's many restrictions bearable if they play the game over the long haul.
"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
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.