So I'll condense my long list - Instancing. Instancing is the number one. It is the antithesis of MMO. In almost any application of it, it makes an MMO less of an MMO by its very nature. At its best, it makes a nice cinematic raid for a small number of people. At its worst, it makes a mediocre anti social singleplayer game out of an MMO.
No. Instancing solves the horrible old camping program. It makes MMO a successful game genre. In almost all application of it, it makes MMOs better games.
You don't agree? Just look at how popular it is. Still don't agree, don't play any games with instances.
But denying instance is a main feature of MMOs is just ... in denial.
I don't think personal story that is going to be immersion breaking belongs in an MMO. Which is kinda sad, because it's easy to make stories that don't break immersion and are still interesting, but games like SWTOR insist on bashing the "you are the one" storyline into your brain. And don't get me started on the companion thing... yikes.
Enter a whole new realm of challenge and adventure.
So I'll condense my long list - Instancing. Instancing is the number one. It is the antithesis of MMO. In almost any application of it, it makes an MMO less of an MMO by its very nature. At its best, it makes a nice cinematic raid for a small number of people. At its worst, it makes a mediocre anti social singleplayer game out of an MMO.
No. Instancing solves the horrible old camping program.
I've played numerous MMos without instancing. Camping was a problem in NONE of them. It was a problem in EQ1, and it was a problem solved by good game design in other MMOs. Instancing is the bad developer's band aid.
- fully automatic LFG systems = changing game into lobby
Great feature. I won't play a MP game without it. In fact, the only reason i came back to WOW is because of LFR.
Clicking a button while standing in town waiting for a queue to pop. Horrible feature that removes player interaction and socialization for convience.
- cross-server tools and making world / zones channels / duplicates= no separate world feel anymore
Even better. I want to play with my friends no matter where they are. I don't care about server boundaries.
While being able to play with freinds is great sacrificing server community isn't.
- cash shop or rmah = ruining immersion totally + destrying barrier between mmorpg and real world - thus making it feel like strictly a game and not mmorpg. Worst offender.
Selling stuff for RM is fun. mmorpG .. the G stands for GAME. It should be a game first.
Cash shops and RMAH are horrible for the game economy, immersion, and promote pay to win.
- single player instances and overall too much instancing = the more things like that the more game feel like single player or co-op game.
MOre the better. A controlled scripted 5 man dungeon is much better than a 100 zerg dungeon. Take the good part of SP games and put them in MMOs.
Yes let's make a MMO so everyone can have their own little instance. We have the systems to prevent kill stealing and ninja looting in public dungeons and open world areas.
- Auction Houses like ebay - tunneling whole trade into one centralized person-less banalized experience. Sure more conveniant, but tbh more system like that = less mmo feel for me (very subjective I know).
Won't play a MMO without a AH. It is just no worth the while to do trading any other way.
SWG galactic market with bazzar terminals beats any AH.
- teleporting without limits or with very small limits - making open world and travelling pointless. Teleporting is needed but it need to have quite a bit of limits, otherwise it banalize experience.
Nah ... in fact, I won't mind getting rid of the world and run instanced missions. Traveling to a place the first time may be fun, it becomes a chore by the 3rd time.
Get rid of the world? WTF might as well all hail the lobby MMO where you stand in town and wait for your instance que to pop /sarcasm.
UO and SWG did it best. They haven't really forced you into grouping to progress, but there were quite a bit of group only or group preferred content. Dynamic scaling NOT solve it completly. It makes it bit better, but not solve a problem.
UO has uninteresting combat mecahnics, and too much ganging pvp. Won't play a game like that again.
- end game focused in 95% at instances / arenas - speak for itself - when you couple it with cross server automatic LFG systems then playing end-game in mmorpg's is really NO DIFFRENT than playing any lobby-like games like FPS, MOBA or RTS games like CoD, LoL or Starcraft.
Yeh ... focus on the combat, co-op group mechanics. That is the way to go. It works for FPS, MOBA and ... , and no reason why this model does not work for the new MMORPG.
I wouldn't call a lobby based, instance saturated, cash shop/RMAH infested game that has a world you might as well get rid of a MMORPG.
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
So I'll condense my long list - Instancing. Instancing is the number one. It is the antithesis of MMO. In almost any application of it, it makes an MMO less of an MMO by its very nature. At its best, it makes a nice cinematic raid for a small number of people. At its worst, it makes a mediocre anti social singleplayer game out of an MMO.
No. Instancing solves the horrible old camping program.
I've played numerous MMos without instancing. Camping was a problem in NONE of them. It was a problem in EQ1, and it was a problem solved by good game design in other MMOs. Instancing is the bad developer's band aid.
Bad .. only in your opinion.
Instances .. has many advantages .. including making dungeon experiences BETTER ..because the dev knows how many to design for.
1. fully automatic LFG systems = changing game into lobby
...
Nailed it on all points.
I like the signature I saw somewhere. (paraphrased) "I really like MMORPGs. I just hope that someday a developer will make another one."
Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now working in Network Security. I don't Forum PVP. If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident. When I don't understand, I ask. Such is not intended as criticism.
- fully automatic LFG systems = changing game into lobby
Great feature. I won't play a MP game without it. In fact, the only reason i came back to WOW is because of LFR.
Clicking a button while standing in town waiting for a queue to pop. Horrible feature that removes player interaction and socialization for convience.
So .... i don't need more socialization. You can chat in guild chat, you can chat in trade .. you can see all the players in town. How does making people spam trade channel "LFG" make it better?
- cross-server tools and making world / zones channels / duplicates= no separate world feel anymore
Even better. I want to play with my friends no matter where they are. I don't care about server boundaries.
While being able to play with freinds is great sacrificing server community isn't.
I don't cares about server community? As long as i have friends to play with, and i am having fun, why would i care?
- cash shop or rmah = ruining immersion totally + destrying barrier between mmorpg and real world - thus making it feel like strictly a game and not mmorpg. Worst offender.
Selling stuff for RM is fun. mmorpG .. the G stands for GAME. It should be a game first.
Cash shops and RMAH are horrible for the game economy, immersion, and promote pay to win.
Not. RMAH solves the gold inflation problem because now the currency is tied to real value. So what if it is pay to win? If someone wants to p2w in a PvE game, and buy my stuff, so much the better.
- single player instances and overall too much instancing = the more things like that the more game feel like single player or co-op game.
MOre the better. A controlled scripted 5 man dungeon is much better than a 100 zerg dungeon. Take the good part of SP games and put them in MMOs.
Yes let's make a MMO so everyone can have their own little instance. We have the systems to prevent kill stealing and ninja looting in public dungeons and open world areas.
No ... public dungeon are not tailored to the group size, beacuse the devs do not know the group size. Much prefer instances. Plus, dungeon adventures are supposed for SMALL groups. Sending 100 people into a dungeon ... take away from the adventure.
- Auction Houses like ebay - tunneling whole trade into one centralized person-less banalized experience. Sure more conveniant, but tbh more system like that = less mmo feel for me (very subjective I know).
Won't play a MMO without a AH. It is just no worth the while to do trading any other way.
SWG galactic market with bazzar terminals beats any AH.
Too much work. ONE central AH is always more efficient.
- teleporting without limits or with very small limits - making open world and travelling pointless. Teleporting is needed but it need to have quite a bit of limits, otherwise it banalize experience.
Nah ... in fact, I won't mind getting rid of the world and run instanced missions. Traveling to a place the first time may be fun, it becomes a chore by the 3rd time.
Get rid of the world? WTF might as well all hail the lobby MMO where you stand in town and wait for your instance que to pop /sarcasm.
Yeh ... since most are waiting for the queue anyway .. why do we need a world? Diablo 3 ... also discussesd here, is a perfect example.
UO and SWG did it best. They haven't really forced you into grouping to progress, but there were quite a bit of group only or group preferred content. Dynamic scaling NOT solve it completly. It makes it bit better, but not solve a problem.
UO has uninteresting combat mecahnics, and too much ganging pvp. Won't play a game like that again.
- end game focused in 95% at instances / arenas - speak for itself - when you couple it with cross server automatic LFG systems then playing end-game in mmorpg's is really NO DIFFRENT than playing any lobby-like games like FPS, MOBA or RTS games like CoD, LoL or Starcraft.
Yeh ... focus on the combat, co-op group mechanics. That is the way to go. It works for FPS, MOBA and ... , and no reason why this model does not work for the new MMORPG.
I wouldn't call a lobby based, instance saturated, cash shop/RMAH infested game that has a world you might as well get rid of a MMORPG.
Get rid of? More like changing. If you have not notice, many MMOs are already lobby based instance game, and many plays as such. Are you disagreeing?
1. fully automatic LFG systems = changing game into lobby
...
Nailed it on all points.
I like the signature I saw somewhere. (paraphrased) "I really like MMORPGs. I just hope that someday a developer will make another one."
THink about WHY there is such change. In fact, LFG systems are very popular. Lots of playres asked for one in TOR because it wasn't there from the start.
Yeah, MMORPGs are turning into lobby-based games .. or at least a large part of it ... this is a trend for a reason.
1. fully automatic LFG systems = changing game into lobby
...
Nailed it on all points.
I like the signature I saw somewhere. (paraphrased) "I really like MMORPGs. I just hope that someday a developer will make another one."
THink about WHY there is such change. In fact, LFG systems are very popular. Lots of playres asked for one in TOR because it wasn't there from the start.
Yeah, MMORPGs are turning into lobby-based games .. or at least a large part of it ... this is a trend for a reason.
Yeah because SWTOR, AoC, and Rift were all such huge success stories that they only had to merge the majority of their servers within a few months of launch!
So I'll condense my long list - Instancing. Instancing is the number one. It is the antithesis of MMO. In almost any application of it, it makes an MMO less of an MMO by its very nature. At its best, it makes a nice cinematic raid for a small number of people. At its worst, it makes a mediocre anti social singleplayer game out of an MMO.
No. Instancing solves the horrible old camping program.
I've played numerous MMos without instancing. Camping was a problem in NONE of them. It was a problem in EQ1, and it was a problem solved by good game design in other MMOs. Instancing is the bad developer's band aid.
Bad .. only in your opinion.
Instances .. has many advantages .. including making dungeon experiences BETTER ..because the dev knows how many to design for.
Camping is only a problem because of loot allocation. Only having one mob drop a certain item. It has nothing to do with instancing.
Instancing solves only one problem in recent MMO's: Overcrowding.
Kill stealing and ninja looting wouldn't even exist in a modern public dungeon where everyone gets quest credit, xp, and loot just for breathing heavy next to a monster. Instancing means they can use the same content/dungeon for literally 1000's of people.
I would much rather have a huge sprawing dungeon with multiple paths, exits/entrances than a hallway with bosses. I know what your going to say tho, "but how can you prevent overcrowding without instances?" My answer: Stop being lazy and make more huge dungeons.
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
So I'll condense my long list - Instancing. Instancing is the number one. It is the antithesis of MMO. In almost any application of it, it makes an MMO less of an MMO by its very nature. At its best, it makes a nice cinematic raid for a small number of people. At its worst, it makes a mediocre anti social singleplayer game out of an MMO.
No. Instancing solves the horrible old camping program.
I've played numerous MMos without instancing. Camping was a problem in NONE of them. It was a problem in EQ1, and it was a problem solved by good game design in other MMOs. Instancing is the bad developer's band aid.
Bad .. only in your opinion.
Instances .. has many advantages .. including making dungeon experiences BETTER ..because the dev knows how many to design for.
Camping is only a problem because of loot allocation. Only having one mob drop a certain item. It has nothing to do with instancing.
Instancing solves only one problem in recent MMO's: Overcrowding.
Kill stealing and ninja looting wouldn't even exist in a modern public dungeon where everyone gets quest credit, xp, and loot just for breathing heavy next to a monster. Instancing means they can use the same content/dungeon for literally 1000's of people.
I would much rather have a huge sprawing dungeon with multiple paths, exits/entrances than a hallway with bosses. I know what your going to say tho, "but how can you prevent overcrowding without instances?" My answer: Stop being lazy and make more huge dungeons.
Yup, and make it so that there are multiple dungoens per level range and they're all on par with each other loot wise. DAoC rarely ever had an overcrowding problem because there were numerous overworld AND dungeon zones that offered lots of xp.
1. fully automatic LFG systems = changing game into lobby
...
Nailed it on all points.
I like the signature I saw somewhere. (paraphrased) "I really like MMORPGs. I just hope that someday a developer will make another one."
THink about WHY there is such change. In fact, LFG systems are very popular. Lots of playres asked for one in TOR because it wasn't there from the start.
Yeah, MMORPGs are turning into lobby-based games .. or at least a large part of it ... this is a trend for a reason.
Of course there is a reason. MMORPGs don't do well as mainstream* games. The "new" MMORPGs do much better at providing gameplay for wide playerbase. That's why the trend exists, because developer / publishers are finding increased revenue streams.
However, not all players are looking for a mainstream game. Some would rather find a niche game that plays like MMORPGs used to. I call it oldschool, described as patterned after Vanilla WoW**, classic EQ, UO, or SWG.
This brings me to two related observations.
First, players looking for a modern high budget game that holds to old designs is not realistic. It simply isn't economically feasible to spend that sort of money on a niche market. Oldschoolers are a minority. Sandboxers are a minority. It simply isn't going to happen coming from a major dev / publisher.
Second, if any developer / publisher is going to create an oldschool game, it's going to be an Indie who can fill that niche and still make money in the process. The clearest example I can provide is The Repopulation which can sort of be described as a SWG clone. One can't get more oldschool than that.
Yes, the King is dead. Long live the King. SP+Lobby is the new king. The developers walked away from the existing playerbase in order to gain popularity with new players. It's business, of course they did. Many love it, some don't.
* mass appeal, wide audience
** Yep, I consider Vanilla WoW as oldschool. Some might not, but it's close enough for me.
Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now working in Network Security. I don't Forum PVP. If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident. When I don't understand, I ask. Such is not intended as criticism.
Get rid of? More like changing. If you have not notice, many MMOs are already lobby based instance game, and many plays as such. Are you disagreeing?
Sadly I have to agree.
Thing is I want to play a MMORPG that is a virtual world.
You want to play an MMORPG that is an MMORPG. I refuse to call games like SWTOR and World of Tanks and LoL, MMOs. Because they aren't. I can make an FPS and call it an RTS, but that doesn't mean anyone else has to call it such. I mean, look at this website, they have TONS of games on here that aren't MMOs in any form.
1. fully automatic LFG systems = changing game into lobby
...
Nailed it on all points.
I like the signature I saw somewhere. (paraphrased) "I really like MMORPGs. I just hope that someday a developer will make another one."
THink about WHY there is such change. In fact, LFG systems are very popular. Lots of playres asked for one in TOR because it wasn't there from the start.
Yeah, MMORPGs are turning into lobby-based games .. or at least a large part of it ... this is a trend for a reason.
Of course there is a reason. MMORPGs don't do well as mainstream* games. The "new" MMORPGs do much better at providing gameplay for wide playerbase. That's why the trend exists, because developer / publishers are finding increased revenue streams.
However, not all players are looking for a mainstream game. Some would rather find a niche game that plays like MMORPGs used to. I call it oldschool, described as patterned after Vanilla WoW**, classic EQ, UO, or SWG.
This brings me to two related observations.
First, players looking for a modern high budget game that holds to old designs is not realistic. It simply isn't economically feasible to spend that sort of money on a niche market. Oldschoolers are a minority. Sandboxers are a minority. It simply isn't going to happen coming from a major dev / publisher.
Second, if any developer / publisher is going to create an oldschool game, it's going to be an Indie who can fill that niche and still make money in the process. The clearest example I can provide is The Repopulation which can sort of be described as a SWG clone. One can't get more oldschool than that.
Yes, the King is dead. Long live the King. SP+Lobby is the new king. The developers walked away from the existing playerbase in order to gain popularity with new players. It's business, of course they did. Many love it, some don't.
* mass appeal, wide audience
** Yep, I consider Vanilla WoW as oldschool. Some might not, but it's close enough for me.
Vanilla WoW introduced all the things that more or less killed the genre. It's the opposite of old school, it founded the new school.
And its entirely possible to make a profit off hardcore MMO gamers. There's millions of them, and all of them are looking for a game. It's a marketing without competition. Moba style MMOs barely even hold onto 50k players after the first few months of launch. Launching a hardcore MMO would net millions of LONG TERM subscribers.
Hmm .. you are illogical. Why would dev skipping storyline & leveling in instances? In fact, instances are GREAT for storyline.
And yeah .. lobby-based games are what i am looking for, and playing. SD Gundam, Diablo 3, Torchlight 2 (hopefully good), DDO, DCUO ....
Then PLEASE stop hijacking every thread that is discussing MMOs.
MMOs are turning into lobby-based games.
That is not what this discussion is about, all you do is hijack other constructive posts and write about completely different things. We're talking about what makes people socialize and builds communities. All the thing you listed do the opposite of community building. There is not persistent community in lobby based games. I know you like those games, but nothing you are saying is relavent to MMOs.
No .. this thread is about "anti-MMO" features. MMO is going the direction of lobby-based games, like it or not. And i am talking about the features that further go in that direction.
It is certainly relevant to MMOs. I gather that you do not like these features. Are you saying others cannot voice their opinions that they do? Are you saying these features are not in MMOs? Who make you the dictator of MMOs?
Let me be very clear. MMO has instances .. for a long time. I like it, and i whole heartedly endorse the use of them (as well as other featuers i wrote about). How is that not relevant to MMOs?
That is where you dont understand, we ARE talking about alternate worlds, MMORPG's were and are designed to be alternate worlds, the lobby based games you play are MOBA's or Dungeon Crawlers Not MMO's. Those features you love ARE ANTI-MMO! Diablo 3, Torchlight 2 and many more, These games have no place in our Genre and neither do you. MMO's are the only games designed to be worlds, living breathing worlds. Your kind who enjoy Lobby-based and quick in and out games are not MMO players, you dont even know what a real MMO is.
MMO's use instances because for a long time the technology has not been there to create lag free virtual seamless worlds, or they dont want to have every dungeon or raid be contested, other than that REAL MMO Devs have stated they dont want instances, but the tech was never completely there. Now as we stand on the horizon of that occuring, it is your lobby's that will be removed from the MMO world and left to their own genres.
I am only going to say this once then, I will not fight with you about any of this because I have seen on almost every thread you post in, you are just the biggest troll on this website and hijack every thread just to be a troll, you never offer anything constructive so no one wants to hear what you have to say.
I wont say that this is /Thread because I want this thread to get back on its rails, but I will say /nariusseldon!
1. fully automatic LFG systems = changing game into lobby
...
Nailed it on all points.
I like the signature I saw somewhere. (paraphrased) "I really like MMORPGs. I just hope that someday a developer will make another one."
THink about WHY there is such change. In fact, LFG systems are very popular. Lots of playres asked for one in TOR because it wasn't there from the start.
Yeah, MMORPGs are turning into lobby-based games .. or at least a large part of it ... this is a trend for a reason.
Lol not they are not. TSW, GW2, Repop, Archeage lots of games coming up are not lobby based. You seem to "want" them to all be but that doesn't mean they are. You were talking about SWTOR it didn't fail because it's lobby based it failed because it was a SPRG and sucked and so did Tera and to a lesser extent Rift. Don't confuse Moba's and MMO's they are not the same thing.Diablo 3 is not an MMO and nether is torchlight 2 or LOL or SMITE or TRIBES Ascend.
1. fully automatic LFG systems = changing game into lobby
2. cross-server tools and making world / zones channels / duplicates= no separate world feel anymore
3. cash shop or rmah = ruining immersion totally + destrying barrier between mmorpg and real world - thus making it feel like strictly a game and not mmorpg. Worst offender.
4.cutscenes especially if there are more than few rare occasional ones - separating player from game world & making it feel like single player
5. single player instances and overall too much instancing = the more things like that the more game feel like single player or co-op game.
6.Auction Houses like ebay - tunneling whole trade into one centralized person-less banalized experience. Sure more conveniant, but tbh more system like that = less mmo feel for me (very subjective I know).
7. teleporting without limits or with very small limits - making open world and travelling pointless. Teleporting is needed but it need to have quite a bit of limits, otherwise it banalize experience.
8. making whole or almost whole open world content soloable - it is as bad as making most of them group only.
9. UO and SWG did it best. They haven't really forced you into grouping to progress, but there were quite a bit of group only or group preferred content. Dynamic scaling NOT solve it completly. It makes it bit better, but not solve a problem.
10. end game focused in 95% at instances / arenas - speak for itself - when you couple it with cross server automatic LFG systems then playing end-game in mmorpg's is really NO DIFFRENT than playing any lobby-like games like FPS, MOBA or RTS games like CoD, LoL or Starcraft.
Reply directed to Garvon3.
Using this list as basis for comparison.
WoW Vanilla:
1. No
2. No
3. No
4. No
5. Yes, in dungeons, raids, battlegrounds and arenas (some introduced after release).
6. Yes
7. Limited. Overland travel was required to get flight paths. Mage could teleport / portal.
8. Mixed. Some quests were designed for groups.
9. NA
10. Mixed. Endgame was raid / pvp focused in instances, but one had to find a group and travel to get in.
Suffice it to say, Vanilla WoW was more oldschool than the current version which would be "Yes" on just about everything.
NOTE: Not in disagreement that WoW started the new school trend, but much of that was in later expansions.
Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now working in Network Security. I don't Forum PVP. If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident. When I don't understand, I ask. Such is not intended as criticism.
1. fully automatic LFG systems = changing game into lobby
2. cross-server tools and making world / zones channels / duplicates= no separate world feel anymore
3. cash shop or rmah = ruining immersion totally + destrying barrier between mmorpg and real world - thus making it feel like strictly a game and not mmorpg. Worst offender.
4.cutscenes especially if there are more than few rare occasional ones - separating player from game world & making it feel like single player
5. single player instances and overall too much instancing = the more things like that the more game feel like single player or co-op game.
6.Auction Houses like ebay - tunneling whole trade into one centralized person-less banalized experience. Sure more conveniant, but tbh more system like that = less mmo feel for me (very subjective I know).
7. teleporting without limits or with very small limits - making open world and travelling pointless. Teleporting is needed but it need to have quite a bit of limits, otherwise it banalize experience.
8. making whole or almost whole open world content soloable - it is as bad as making most of them group only.
9. UO and SWG did it best. They haven't really forced you into grouping to progress, but there were quite a bit of group only or group preferred content. Dynamic scaling NOT solve it completly. It makes it bit better, but not solve a problem.
10. end game focused in 95% at instances / arenas - speak for itself - when you couple it with cross server automatic LFG systems then playing end-game in mmorpg's is really NO DIFFRENT than playing any lobby-like games like FPS, MOBA or RTS games like CoD, LoL or Starcraft.
Reply directed to Garvon3.
Using this list as basis for comparison.
WoW Vanilla:
1. No
2. No
3. No
4. No
5. Yes, in dungeons, raids, battlegrounds and arenas (some introduced after release).
6. Yes
7. Limited. Overland travel was required to get flight paths. Mage could teleport / portal.
8. Mixed. Some quests were designed for groups.
9. NA
10. Mixed. Endgame was raid / pvp focused in instances, but one had to find a group and travel to get in.
Suffice it to say, Vanilla WoW was more oldschool than the current version which would be "Yes" on just about everything.
NOTE: Not in disagreement that WoW started the new school trend, but much of that was in later expansions.
Sure, old WoW is more oldschool than new WoW. It'd be silly to argue otherwise. But when people discuss oldschool MMOs, they are NOT talking about WoW. Because WoW introduced/popularized many of the features that I put on MY list of anti MMO features.
The abuse of instancing, the solo questing, the shallow and simple gameplay mechanics, the lack of death penalty...
Instancing is taking a part of an MMO and removing it from the Massively Multiplayer to make a Single Player experience with Multi-Player capability.
There is no "opinion" here, that's what it is.
If your're immersed, you dont care or notice. Everything has it's place. Even instancing.
Immersion is king. People will remember their king.
This isn't a discussion about immersion, it's about socializing. And no, instancing is insanely immersion breaking.
In LotRO, running around, finding a cave, getting a message "You cannot enter here without the right quest." Yeah, immersion!
In a virtual world full of adventurers it makes sense for other people to be in dungeons.
Some worlds are different than others. Are you saying eve can't instance a space station? That would be fantastic but not needed for immersion. In a game like EQ, and if all future games must clone eq, then you might be right.
Also socializing is a side effect of immersion. People talking about football is socializing, but is different than people talking about what city the enemy horde is attacking.
Putting an arrow always showing what city the enemy is attacking is an anti-socailizing tool. But without immersion no one gives a shit, because they'll always just attack whatever one is the most efficient for rewards, because no one would attack a city without rewards unless they were immersed in the world and conflict.
Immesrion in king. Everthing else bows before it. People will remember why they play games. It aint for the imaginary rewards.
Vanilla WoW introduced all the things that more or less killed the genre. It's the opposite of old school, it founded the new school.
And its entirely possible to make a profit off hardcore MMO gamers. There's millions of them, and all of them are looking for a game. It's a marketing without competition. Moba style MMOs barely even hold onto 50k players after the first few months of launch. Launching a hardcore MMO would net millions of LONG TERM subscribers.
I'm not so sure about that. The average player in the largest MMO is getting older. Newer, younger players aren't entering the market as much as developers would like. The demographics are shifting towards an older generation that doesn't have as much time to play as before. I don't think marketing to the "hardcore" demographic would be a wise decision. Then again; this all depends on what is meant by "hardcore".
Comments
No. Instancing solves the horrible old camping program. It makes MMO a successful game genre. In almost all application of it, it makes MMOs better games.
You don't agree? Just look at how popular it is. Still don't agree, don't play any games with instances.
But denying instance is a main feature of MMOs is just ... in denial.
I don't think personal story that is going to be immersion breaking belongs in an MMO. Which is kinda sad, because it's easy to make stories that don't break immersion and are still interesting, but games like SWTOR insist on bashing the "you are the one" storyline into your brain. And don't get me started on the companion thing... yikes.
Enter a whole new realm of challenge and adventure.
I've played numerous MMos without instancing. Camping was a problem in NONE of them. It was a problem in EQ1, and it was a problem solved by good game design in other MMOs. Instancing is the bad developer's band aid.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/Instancing is taking a part of an MMO and removing it from the Massively Multiplayer to make a Single Player experience with Multi-Player capability.
There is no "opinion" here, that's what it is.
Once upon a time....
Bad .. only in your opinion.
Instances .. has many advantages .. including making dungeon experiences BETTER ..because the dev knows how many to design for.
Nailed it on all points.
I like the signature I saw somewhere. (paraphrased) "I really like MMORPGs. I just hope that someday a developer will make another one."
THink about WHY there is such change. In fact, LFG systems are very popular. Lots of playres asked for one in TOR because it wasn't there from the start.
Yeah, MMORPGs are turning into lobby-based games .. or at least a large part of it ... this is a trend for a reason.
Yeah because SWTOR, AoC, and Rift were all such huge success stories that they only had to merge the majority of their servers within a few months of launch!
Camping is only a problem because of loot allocation. Only having one mob drop a certain item. It has nothing to do with instancing.
Instancing solves only one problem in recent MMO's: Overcrowding.
Kill stealing and ninja looting wouldn't even exist in a modern public dungeon where everyone gets quest credit, xp, and loot just for breathing heavy next to a monster. Instancing means they can use the same content/dungeon for literally 1000's of people.
I would much rather have a huge sprawing dungeon with multiple paths, exits/entrances than a hallway with bosses. I know what your going to say tho, "but how can you prevent overcrowding without instances?" My answer: Stop being lazy and make more huge dungeons.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/Yup, and make it so that there are multiple dungoens per level range and they're all on par with each other loot wise. DAoC rarely ever had an overcrowding problem because there were numerous overworld AND dungeon zones that offered lots of xp.
Sadly I have to agree.
Thing is I want to play a MMORPG that is a virtual world.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/Of course there is a reason. MMORPGs don't do well as mainstream* games. The "new" MMORPGs do much better at providing gameplay for wide playerbase. That's why the trend exists, because developer / publishers are finding increased revenue streams.
However, not all players are looking for a mainstream game. Some would rather find a niche game that plays like MMORPGs used to. I call it oldschool, described as patterned after Vanilla WoW**, classic EQ, UO, or SWG.
This brings me to two related observations.
First, players looking for a modern high budget game that holds to old designs is not realistic. It simply isn't economically feasible to spend that sort of money on a niche market. Oldschoolers are a minority. Sandboxers are a minority. It simply isn't going to happen coming from a major dev / publisher.
Second, if any developer / publisher is going to create an oldschool game, it's going to be an Indie who can fill that niche and still make money in the process. The clearest example I can provide is The Repopulation which can sort of be described as a SWG clone. One can't get more oldschool than that.
Yes, the King is dead. Long live the King. SP+Lobby is the new king. The developers walked away from the existing playerbase in order to gain popularity with new players. It's business, of course they did. Many love it, some don't.
* mass appeal, wide audience
** Yep, I consider Vanilla WoW as oldschool. Some might not, but it's close enough for me.
You want to play an MMORPG that is an MMORPG. I refuse to call games like SWTOR and World of Tanks and LoL, MMOs. Because they aren't. I can make an FPS and call it an RTS, but that doesn't mean anyone else has to call it such. I mean, look at this website, they have TONS of games on here that aren't MMOs in any form.
Vanilla WoW introduced all the things that more or less killed the genre. It's the opposite of old school, it founded the new school.
And its entirely possible to make a profit off hardcore MMO gamers. There's millions of them, and all of them are looking for a game. It's a marketing without competition. Moba style MMOs barely even hold onto 50k players after the first few months of launch. Launching a hardcore MMO would net millions of LONG TERM subscribers.
That is where you dont understand, we ARE talking about alternate worlds, MMORPG's were and are designed to be alternate worlds, the lobby based games you play are MOBA's or Dungeon Crawlers Not MMO's. Those features you love ARE ANTI-MMO! Diablo 3, Torchlight 2 and many more, These games have no place in our Genre and neither do you. MMO's are the only games designed to be worlds, living breathing worlds. Your kind who enjoy Lobby-based and quick in and out games are not MMO players, you dont even know what a real MMO is.
MMO's use instances because for a long time the technology has not been there to create lag free virtual seamless worlds, or they dont want to have every dungeon or raid be contested, other than that REAL MMO Devs have stated they dont want instances, but the tech was never completely there. Now as we stand on the horizon of that occuring, it is your lobby's that will be removed from the MMO world and left to their own genres.
I am only going to say this once then, I will not fight with you about any of this because I have seen on almost every thread you post in, you are just the biggest troll on this website and hijack every thread just to be a troll, you never offer anything constructive so no one wants to hear what you have to say.
I wont say that this is /Thread because I want this thread to get back on its rails, but I will say /nariusseldon!
Lol not they are not. TSW, GW2, Repop, Archeage lots of games coming up are not lobby based. You seem to "want" them to all be but that doesn't mean they are. You were talking about SWTOR it didn't fail because it's lobby based it failed because it was a SPRG and sucked and so did Tera and to a lesser extent Rift. Don't confuse Moba's and MMO's they are not the same thing.Diablo 3 is not an MMO and nether is torchlight 2 or LOL or SMITE or TRIBES Ascend.
Reply directed to Garvon3.
Using this list as basis for comparison.
WoW Vanilla:
1. No
2. No
3. No
4. No
5. Yes, in dungeons, raids, battlegrounds and arenas (some introduced after release).
6. Yes
7. Limited. Overland travel was required to get flight paths. Mage could teleport / portal.
8. Mixed. Some quests were designed for groups.
9. NA
10. Mixed. Endgame was raid / pvp focused in instances, but one had to find a group and travel to get in.
Suffice it to say, Vanilla WoW was more oldschool than the current version which would be "Yes" on just about everything.
NOTE: Not in disagreement that WoW started the new school trend, but much of that was in later expansions.
Sure, old WoW is more oldschool than new WoW. It'd be silly to argue otherwise. But when people discuss oldschool MMOs, they are NOT talking about WoW. Because WoW introduced/popularized many of the features that I put on MY list of anti MMO features.
The abuse of instancing, the solo questing, the shallow and simple gameplay mechanics, the lack of death penalty...
If your're immersed, you dont care or notice. Everything has it's place. Even instancing.
Immersion is king. People will remember their king.
This isn't a discussion about immersion, it's about socializing. And no, instancing is insanely immersion breaking.
In LotRO, running around, finding a cave, getting a message "You cannot enter here without the right quest." Yeah, immersion!
In a virtual world full of adventurers it makes sense for other people to be in dungeons.
Some worlds are different than others. Are you saying eve can't instance a space station? That would be fantastic but not needed for immersion. In a game like EQ, and if all future games must clone eq, then you might be right.
Also socializing is a side effect of immersion. People talking about football is socializing, but is different than people talking about what city the enemy horde is attacking.
Putting an arrow always showing what city the enemy is attacking is an anti-socailizing tool. But without immersion no one gives a shit, because they'll always just attack whatever one is the most efficient for rewards, because no one would attack a city without rewards unless they were immersed in the world and conflict.
Immesrion in king. Everthing else bows before it. People will remember why they play games. It aint for the imaginary rewards.
I'm not so sure about that. The average player in the largest MMO is getting older. Newer, younger players aren't entering the market as much as developers would like. The demographics are shifting towards an older generation that doesn't have as much time to play as before. I don't think marketing to the "hardcore" demographic would be a wise decision. Then again; this all depends on what is meant by "hardcore".
Nah .. fun is king. Immersion is just part of it. If it detrack from the fun, (like ask me to walk 20 min before anything happens), get rid of it.