Steelhelm said: gain skills = become stronger, no levels needed.
That is levels.
Actually there is a difference. Gaining a power is not the same as gaining a multipliers and modifiers that take you out of range of play. I get tired of logic that they're the same thing. Its like saying in a MOBA when you gain a power you're suddenly untouchable by the people who don't.
Unless that power grants that sort of power its more shallow or horizontal progression. A level 10 in most games are untouchable to a level 1. Gaining fireball giving you AE over fireblast a single target isn't giving typical level like gains.
There is a difference. Grats on that. Normally we call that simply noticing something, but I feel you need some special praise. Levels, skills, points, etc, is called progression.
Duh why don't you address the ones saying it's the same with your snarky nonsense. Nobody is asking for special recognitions just intellectual honesty.
I addressed it. Get the crap out of your eyes: Levels, skills, points, etc, is called progression.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
The problem with no levels is the lack of framework for content. Players need progression. They need to build to something bigger and better. When you remove levels and relegate all progress to items, you introduce a massive way to circumvent the progression necessary to keep people playing the game (as can be seen in just about every sandbox mmo that incorporated it - ever).
Eve is an exception. In a game like Eve where the economy and the means for progression are kept in balance by massive gold sinks (ships and destruction), you can govern progression. Unfortunately, that system hasn't worked very well for anyone else. Not everyone wants that kind of loss in their MMO, and the kind of "content" available in Eve doesn't necessarily work in other games.
Not really. Themeparks in my opinion would be better if they lacked levels. There can still be shallow progression and a world with difficulty zones for example easy, intermediate, hard, group required.
Throw away content and world is just impractical unless your Blizzard who can pump millions into making expansions. Even their expansions are small and a few weeks worth content before you have your players stuck repeating the same dungeons and dailies.
So its OK for a player on day 1 to immediately go do the hardest content in the game? Does that really sound practical and like a game that will last very long? Because that is the result without any form of leveling system.
The only way to prevent such a thing is to create a massive death penalty / gold sink, and that isn't something most people want to deal with.
Content gating is just a necessary thing in games if they are to have any sense of reward attached. Levels and time devotion are just the easiest way to achieve that.
Yes, it is ok. You can have other barriers like situational gear and the like to prevent entry just like action adventure games do. And yes, its as practical as making easy leveling games and forcing players to play end game fast anyway. Not sure what's the aversion considering how fast you reach end game in most MMOPRG.
No, its not read above.
Content gating can be done more creative than funneling people through the game in levels. How practical is it to have 95% of your game's content being outleveled in a mature game? Having zones based on difficulty instead of levels allows for "hard" content to remain relevant no matter how many expansions come out and you can even encorporated that into those zones without changing the balance of the game or leveling path.
If it was that easy, then everyone that failed trying would have been successful. And that is a long list of failures, particularly in "sandbox" games.
When I talk about MMOs, I don't consider rush to end game. That paradigm is old hat and on its way out. I'm talking about game design that can stand the test of time. The design that early MMOs had like EQ, AC and even vanilla WoW. That means a slower progression and gating of content.
As to just placing other "gating" mechanisms in front of content, people really have to start asking themselves what is the difference between that an leveling. If you really want a free open world without any sort of restrictions like levels, then places a restriction of a different type that accomplishes the same goal really doesn't make much sense now... does it?
I definitely do not want a game that is 200 vs. 200 players constantly fighting all the time. That's essentially Plantside/Planetside 2 which while fun for a short while, lack the depth I need for long term interest.
I like harvesting, crafting, engaging PvE, and especially building and fortifying player holdings. Those are all things you see in my absolute favorite MMOs. The issue I take exception to is how the point of the game is player politics and conflicts between players but you are just constantly leveling to catch up to veteran players anywhere from a couple months to a couple years depending on the game. Most of the PvP you see is bored no skill veterans with half their skills maxed going to the low level spawns to just screw with you, and you live for those very seldom newb vs. newb fights where you don't get shut down by someone who has over twice your health, is armored as heck, and takes a quarter of your health with each hit while you have to land like 20 hits to kill them.
Entirely skipping that portion of the game by removing character stats (Levels) and any form of gear not lost upon death / that does not degrade to nothing of the course of a couple hours of heavy use would do nothing but increase new-player retention and piss off a small portion old veterans who need to have the crutch of character stats to compete.
You can (and definitely should) still leave in the ability to swap around skills in your build, and possibly even earn skills that are equally powerful but different than older skills you can swap in and out of your build if desired. However all traditional form of vertical progression (Increased health, increased damage, increased damage reduction etc.) should be entirely tied to this very temporary gear.
I do not believe I am describing an MMO that will everyone will want to play or that will reach anything near to WoW level popularity but I believe I am describing a model that could certainly be a significant player in the MMO market if done well.
Ok.
So u want an open world PVP in PVE? Not entirely different WvW map?
But some PVE players will hate PVP in PVE. I suggest WVW map that has PVE elements
Its ok, good idea, but please give ideas how to balance it.
Yes i like crafting too, not just fighting.
How about the points? (Points Per Tick = PPT like in gw2)
Ok, how casual players, but very skilled that play like 1-3 hours a day compete with grinders that play 9-11 hours a day?
This is my idea.
There is no PPT, whoever guild that claim a castle will get money as long they hold it.
So actually there is no real winning or losing.
Example:
You are very skilled player, but you play only 1 hours-3hours a day. So u log in for 3 hours, fighting, and at the time you log in, your castle is safe, you defeat all the intruders. So you log off, feel happy.
However, as soon you log off, another guild will take over the castle for 19 hours. Of course they will get more money from it.
With money you can buy a lot of ingame things. Like inventory slots, bank slots, high tier gear, etc
where money comes from? once you capture the castle, u can start a trade run from points to points, securing it and building farm, etc
Addressing your post would require multiple entirely different topics. The ideas I'm talking about are not completely made up. Most of them have been implemented in games that, while certainly not mainstream, were successful in building a loyal enough following to keep the games running to this day.
I have very in-depth ideas on things such as how to allow PvEers and crafters who do not enjoy PvP and Open World full loot PvPers to have an enjoyable experience within the same world and how to create siege system that prevents the need for anyone to wake up at 3 am to defend their base. Both of those have descriptions longer than the original post of this topic though.
Believe me I've spent literally hundreds or even thousands of hours discussing various aspects of designing sandbox MMOs. There are are very few angles of designing a game like this that I haven't considered.
The problem with no levels is the lack of framework for content. Players need progression. They need to build to something bigger and better. When you remove levels and relegate all progress to items, you introduce a massive way to circumvent the progression necessary to keep people playing the game (as can be seen in just about every sandbox mmo that incorporated it - ever).
Eve is an exception. In a game like Eve where the economy and the means for progression are kept in balance by massive gold sinks (ships and destruction), you can govern progression. Unfortunately, that system hasn't worked very well for anyone else. Not everyone wants that kind of loss in their MMO, and the kind of "content" available in Eve doesn't necessarily work in other games.
Not really. Themeparks in my opinion would be better if they lacked levels. There can still be shallow progression and a world with difficulty zones for example easy, intermediate, hard, group required.
Throw away content and world is just impractical unless your Blizzard who can pump millions into making expansions. Even their expansions are small and a few weeks worth content before you have your players stuck repeating the same dungeons and dailies.
So its OK for a player on day 1 to immediately go do the hardest content in the game? Does that really sound practical and like a game that will last very long? Because that is the result without any form of leveling system.
The only way to prevent such a thing is to create a massive death penalty / gold sink, and that isn't something most people want to deal with.
Content gating is just a necessary thing in games if they are to have any sense of reward attached. Levels and time devotion are just the easiest way to achieve that.
Yes, it is ok. You can have other barriers like situational gear and the like to prevent entry just like action adventure games do. And yes, its as practical as making easy leveling games and forcing players to play end game fast anyway. Not sure what's the aversion considering how fast you reach end game in most MMOPRG.
No, its not read above.
Content gating can be done more creative than funneling people through the game in levels. How practical is it to have 95% of your game's content being outleveled in a mature game? Having zones based on difficulty instead of levels allows for "hard" content to remain relevant no matter how many expansions come out and you can even encorporated that into those zones without changing the balance of the game or leveling path.
If it was that easy, then everyone that failed trying would have been successful. And that is a long list of failures, particularly in "sandbox" games.
When I talk about MMOs, I don't consider rush to end game. That paradigm is old hat and on its way out. I'm talking about game design that can stand the test of time. The design that early MMOs had like EQ, AC and even vanilla WoW. That means a slower progression and gating of content.
As to just placing other "gating" mechanisms in front of content, people really have to start asking themselves what is the difference between that an leveling. If you really want a free open world without any sort of restrictions like levels, then places a restriction of a different type that accomplishes the same goal really doesn't make much sense now... does it?
To me it's about choice. It's about having a throw away world design where cool placed become obsolete. It's about being able to play with friends and contribute because NPCS don't have 50k hp and I can't touch them. I like quest to be optional, detailed and not in my face. I don't want to grind endless generic task or NPC just to say there is content and progression.
I know there is a market for what your talking about but I think it's a waste of resources to make a disposable game world in a long term game.
To me it's about choice. It's about having a throw away world design where cool placed become obsolete. It's about being able to play with friends and contribute because NPCS don't have 50k hp and I can't touch them. I like quest to be optional, detailed and not in my face. I don't want to grind endless generic task or NPC just to say there is content and progression.
I know there is a market for what your talking about but I think it's a waste of resources to make a disposable game world in a long term game.
There are other ways to deal with that. Mixed content (higher level and lower). Quests that take you back through earlier zones. Events and so forth.
When all zones are equal, they all become equally unimportant. In general people just want progressively harder content, and that means older content becomes easier.
Honestly all that was solved in EQ and no one had the sense to
replicate it. Not that it can't be improved upon, but removing levels is
not necessarily the answer.
To me it's about choice. It's about having a throw away world design where cool placed become obsolete. It's about being able to play with friends and contribute because NPCS don't have 50k hp and I can't touch them. I like quest to be optional, detailed and not in my face. I don't want to grind endless generic task or NPC just to say there is content and progression.
I know there is a market for what your talking about but I think it's a waste of resources to make a disposable game world in a long term game.
There are other ways to deal with that. Mixed content (higher level and lower). Quests that take you back through earlier zones. Events and so forth.
When all zones are equal, they all become equally unimportant. In general people just want progressively harder content, and that means older content becomes easier.
Honestly all that was solved in EQ and no one had the sense to
replicate it. Not that it can't be improved upon, but removing levels is
not necessarily the answer.
But that said in games where vertical progression is limited you have zones based off challenge. Meaning Hell is lecel 40 and it doesn't become easy because you're level 60 from 2 or 3 expansions. Many cases with levels you're so well balanced the challenges are the same easy mode 1-50.
I am not saying that you can't build another EQ. I am for variety. But there is a reason why grinds are compromised in the genre in the West. I would have strategic combat for each NPC type than have generic quest grinds though.
Addressing your post would require multiple entirely different topics. The ideas I'm talking about are not completely made up. Most of them have been implemented in games that, while certainly not mainstream, were successful in building a loyal enough following to keep the games running to this day.
I have very in-depth ideas on things such as how to allow PvEers and crafters who do not enjoy PvP and Open World full loot PvPers to have an enjoyable experience within the same world and how to create siege system that prevents the need for anyone to wake up at 3 am to defend their base. Both of those have descriptions longer than the original post of this topic though.
Believe me I've spent literally hundreds or even thousands of hours discussing various aspects of designing sandbox MMOs. There are are very few angles of designing a game like this that I haven't considered.
That's a common misconception. Socialization is the essence of a MMO, not progression. Progression is just a means to an end and leveling is just one form of progression.
I came to the same conclusions as you pretty much @Eldurian ; That a game that allows you to play with your friends despite everyone being able to invest different amounts of time in the game is important. The level system in D&D was a good first attempt at a progression system, but it really shouldn't have been copied as much as it is. There have been many better systems. I think there should be some level of power game as you progress in a game, but it should never be as ridiculous as most games have it, were a 5 level advantage leaves you pretty much untouchable. The game I'm working on has a non-level, non-class skill based progression that takes the focus off loot. I'm planning to update the site with some clearer details, but the Wordpress theme I'm working with doesn't want to do what I tell it XD
Of course that decline has nothing to do with the game design that they used successfully over a decade and more to do with product life-cycle.
EVE was released in May of 2003. To put that in perspective WoW and Anarchy Online came out in 2001, the original Planetside was also released May 2003, and LoTRO was released in 2007.
So it's going pretty strong for it's age. I think the only MMOs comparable in age still going as strong as EVE are WoW and Runescape.
I was only confirming Horusra's comment with data. I didn't actually see what he was responding to (maybe you edited it out?)
Also WOW released in 2004, not 2001.
EVE has had a much longer tail than most games, but perspective is understanding that peak subscriber count was barely above ~450k (compared with WOW's 12 mil). Game design definitely factors into peak popularity.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Addressing your post would require multiple entirely different topics. The ideas I'm talking about are not completely made up. Most of them have been implemented in games that, while certainly not mainstream, were successful in building a loyal enough following to keep the games running to this day.
I have very in-depth ideas on things such as how to allow PvEers and crafters who do not enjoy PvP and Open World full loot PvPers to have an enjoyable experience within the same world and how to create siege system that prevents the need for anyone to wake up at 3 am to defend their base. Both of those have descriptions longer than the original post of this topic though.
Believe me I've spent literally hundreds or even thousands of hours discussing various aspects of designing sandbox MMOs. There are are very few angles of designing a game like this that I haven't considered.
From what I've seen PVE in sandboxes aren't like the PVE you see in themeparks like raids, dungeons and stuff like that. I feel like the PVE in sandboxes don't play that big of a role other than progressing your character's skill levels in different areas such as rifleman, fencer, etc. The closest thing you can get to a raid in sandboxes are just really difficult mobs to defeat in the open world, and if you manage to solo it you get bragging rights or whatever.
I just can't see pvers enjoying the sandbox style of an mmo at all, it seems like to me that RP plays a bigger role than PVE. Plus theres no clear trinity system even though you have doctor skills etc. its just about people mix and matching different skill abilities they want to focus on. If there was a clear trinity system, it would really turn off the sandbox mmo gamers including me. This is why most of the time, sandbox and themepark are seperate games.
As for PvP, all they need to do is to have no PVE or PvP servers at the same time you have to flag yourself if you want to pvp or go to a pvp zone. Just like the old days, just regular servers for different time zones, none of that PVE or PvP server BS, IMO.
But if you can figure out a way for PvE'ers to enjoy the same game while not displeasing sandbox peeps, kudos to you.
The acronym MMORPG use to mean Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game.
But the acronym MMMORPG now currently means Microscopic Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Kappa.
The problem is what to do if no level? IF you play games like WoW you don't have to level up at all. Here is what is going to happened with Legion. and it is a perfect example for your post OP.
Buy Legion you get a free level 100 characte boost. Use it right now before release of Legion by pre-order. Bam level 100 in a instant, garrison level 3 , 500g, 4 x 22 slots bags, full gear set, etc. Now we know we have 12 years of content also in that game here available to us that every quest gives gold now because we are at max level. But you know what like all the other players i will go Q for raids, heroics, dungeons, mythics, etc.
And i can garantee you that inside 1 or 2 days you are already starting to level up a alt if not started after a few hours you started playing your first character. Then inside 2 to 6 months your are playing another game while you wait for the next xpac or if by any chance you are still playing only this game then you are leveling up your 4th or 5th if not 10 th character and crying there is nothing much to do in the game.
It is not the leveling process that is killing the game it is the altoholics that are killing it for everyone. It is like drug addict that need is next fix. They need there next toon and each one of them must be nicely gear, so every single way they can come up with to make it to max level and get that gear fast is the way to go for them and they will stop at nothing to make it they even have addons to how to make it the fastest way. Even by destroying the genre they will do it.
But guess what a game with 12 years of content behind it that you have skipped all of it's content just to have it all to do at the end of the game can not satisfy you still. So i don't think there is a game left for you in this genre. Please go play another genre.
The game I'm working on has a non-level, non-class skill based progression that takes the focus off loot. I'm planning to update the site with some clearer details, but the Wordpress theme I'm working with doesn't want to do what I tell it XD
That's awesome! I like a lot of the ideas presented in your site an the concept are looks cool. A bit off-topic but what is your plan to acquire funding?
ApexTKM said: From what I've seen PVE in sandboxes aren't like the PVE you see in themeparks like raids, dungeons and stuff like that. I feel like the PVE in sandboxes don't play that big of a role other than progressing your character's skill levels in different areas such as rifleman, fencer, etc. The closest thing you can get to a raid in sandboxes are just really difficult mobs to defeat in the open world, and if you manage to solo it you get bragging rights or whatever.
Raids are over-rated IMO but here is my thought. Yes very few sandboxes have good small group content and raids. But is there any reason that they can't?
I think the answer to that is a pretty clear no. The word "instance" is often seen as a dirty word in the sandbox community but I don't think there is any reason it has to be.
Raids are over-rated IMO but here is my thought. Yes very few sandboxes have good small group content and raids. But is there any reason that they can't?
I think the answer to that is a pretty clear no. The word "instance" is often seen as a dirty word in the sandbox community but I don't think there is any reason it has to be.
Caves are like the closest thing to an instance as far as I've seen. But I kind of agree with you as long as its not the main focus of the mmo than yea, some instances are fine with me. 90 percent open world, 10 percent instanced, not a huge deal breaker.
Trinity isn't seen as a good thing in sandbox communities either.
The acronym MMORPG use to mean Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game.
But the acronym MMMORPG now currently means Microscopic Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Kappa.
This was not a Problem in UO. Even new players could do harder mobs with friends. Leveling and Skilling up depend on the design of the game. Not a MMO issue as much as too many MMOs are just a copy and paste of WOW.
Raids are over-rated IMO but here is my thought. Yes very few sandboxes have good small group content and raids. But is there any reason that they can't?
I think the answer to that is a pretty clear no. The word "instance" is often seen as a dirty word in the sandbox community but I don't think there is any reason it has to be.
Caves are like the closest thing to an instance as far as I've seen. But I kind of agree with you as long as its not the main focus of the mmo than yea, some instances are fine with me. 90 percent open world, 10 percent instanced, not a huge deal breaker.
Trinity isn't seen as a good thing in sandbox communities either.
I kind of agree with the trinity thing to some extent. I at least really hate the traditional tank roll of "I pull aggro and everything attacks me. So all I focus on is being able to take hits."
I think tanking needs to be taken in a new direction from pulling aggro to using abilities that help protect allies and hinder enemies but not taking all the incoming damage, and doing that will change the way people min-max their healer and DPS.
The level system in D&D was a good first attempt at a progression system, but it really shouldn't have been copied as much as it is. There have been many better systems. I think there should be some level of power game as you progress in a game, but it should never be as ridiculous as most games have it, were a 5 level advantage leaves you pretty much untouchable.
Er, it's not merely a "good first attempt". A single number to communicate progression is quite probably the most elegant way to communicate and measure progression to players.
Reinventing the wheel isn't often the wisest course of action.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
But sometimes it is. The D&D system was not invented for a massively multiplayer format. It was designed for groups who all do the same content together and thus level at roughly the same pace. In fact most DMs I know have everyone level together.
So things like not being able to do the same content together or drastic power disparity ruining PvP just isn't an issue.
The D&D system as it was first made had some pretty obvious flaws as well, hence competitive PnP titles such as Melee that popped up.
While I will say having a succinct indication of global progress isn't bad for the sake of achievement, it's actual value can vary from something integral in the case of very vertical systems, to something almost entirely superficial in the case of horizontal systems.
In many cases RPGs rely on a vertical progression system, and levels end up offering both a structure for the progression to move in as well as a clear indicator of player power (and subsequently average expectation of capability). However, a horizontal system doesn't necessarily give a player a statistical or runaway advantage that a vertical system gives, and any "level" consequently ascribed to the character only accounts for progress in unlocking all available options/permutations of abilities while giving no distinct indicator of player performance.
In other words, levels aren't actually all that good of a universal indicator for anything but how far along they are in unlocking the content for a character. With the amount of data that can be parsed and tracked nowadays too, there are better metrics to track if you want to have a succinct representation of a person or character's performance/capability.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Comments
I addressed it. Get the crap out of your eyes: Levels, skills, points, etc, is called progression.
I
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
When I talk about MMOs, I don't consider rush to end game. That paradigm is old hat and on its way out. I'm talking about game design that can stand the test of time. The design that early MMOs had like EQ, AC and even vanilla WoW. That means a slower progression and gating of content.
As to just placing other "gating" mechanisms in front of content, people really have to start asking themselves what is the difference between that an leveling. If you really want a free open world without any sort of restrictions like levels, then places a restriction of a different type that accomplishes the same goal really doesn't make much sense now... does it?
So u want an open world PVP in PVE? Not entirely different WvW map?
But some PVE players will hate PVP in PVE. I suggest WVW map that has PVE elements
Its ok, good idea, but please give ideas how to balance it.
Yes i like crafting too, not just fighting.
How about the points? (Points Per Tick = PPT like in gw2)
Ok, how casual players, but very skilled that play like 1-3 hours a day compete with grinders that play 9-11 hours a day?
This is my idea.
There is no PPT, whoever guild that claim a castle will get money as long they hold it.
So actually there is no real winning or losing.
Example:
You are very skilled player, but you play only 1 hours-3hours a day. So u log in for 3 hours, fighting, and at the time you log in, your castle is safe, you defeat all the intruders. So you log off, feel happy.
However, as soon you log off, another guild will take over the castle for 19 hours. Of course they will get more money from it.
With money you can buy a lot of ingame things. Like inventory slots, bank slots, high tier gear, etc
where money comes from? once you capture the castle, u can start a trade run from points to points, securing it and building farm, etc
I have very in-depth ideas on things such as how to allow PvEers and crafters who do not enjoy PvP and Open World full loot PvPers to have an enjoyable experience within the same world and how to create siege system that prevents the need for anyone to wake up at 3 am to defend their base. Both of those have descriptions longer than the original post of this topic though.
Believe me I've spent literally hundreds or even thousands of hours discussing various aspects of designing sandbox MMOs. There are are very few angles of designing a game like this that I haven't considered.
I know there is a market for what your talking about but I think it's a waste of resources to make a disposable game world in a long term game.
When all zones are equal, they all become equally unimportant. In general people just want progressively harder content, and that means older content becomes easier.
Honestly all that was solved in EQ and no one had the sense to replicate it. Not that it can't be improved upon, but removing levels is not necessarily the answer.
I am not saying that you can't build another EQ. I am for variety. But there is a reason why grinds are compromised in the genre in the West. I would have strategic combat for each NPC type than have generic quest grinds though.
That a game that allows you to play with your friends despite everyone being able to invest different amounts of time in the game is important.
The level system in D&D was a good first attempt at a progression system, but it really shouldn't have been copied as much as it is. There have been many better systems. I think there should be some level of power game as you progress in a game, but it should never be as ridiculous as most games have it, were a 5 level advantage leaves you pretty much untouchable.
The game I'm working on has a non-level, non-class skill based progression that takes the focus off loot.
I'm planning to update the site with some clearer details, but the Wordpress theme I'm working with doesn't want to do what I tell it XD
Player 2 - Fireball!
Makes complete sense.
"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/Also WOW released in 2004, not 2001.
EVE has had a much longer tail than most games, but perspective is understanding that peak subscriber count was barely above ~450k (compared with WOW's 12 mil). Game design definitely factors into peak popularity.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I just can't see pvers enjoying the sandbox style of an mmo at all, it seems like to me that RP plays a bigger role than PVE. Plus theres no clear trinity system even though you have doctor skills etc. its just about people mix and matching different skill abilities they want to focus on. If there was a clear trinity system, it would really turn off the sandbox mmo gamers including me. This is why most of the time, sandbox and themepark are seperate games.
As for PvP, all they need to do is to have no PVE or PvP servers at the same time you have to flag yourself if you want to pvp or go to a pvp zone. Just like the old days, just regular servers for different time zones, none of that PVE or PvP server BS, IMO.
But if you can figure out a way for PvE'ers to enjoy the same game while not displeasing sandbox peeps, kudos to you.
But the acronym MMMORPG now currently means Microscopic Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Kappa.
PRINCESS FOUND! LET THE KINGDOM REJOICE!
Now I can skip all of that tedious running around with friends,exploring, fighting and so on. Just jump straight to the:
AND THEY LIVED HAPPILY EVER AFTER.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
IF you play games like WoW you don't have to level up at all. Here is what is going to happened with Legion. and it is a perfect example for your post OP.
Buy Legion you get a free level 100 characte boost. Use it right now before release of Legion by pre-order. Bam level 100 in a instant, garrison level 3 , 500g, 4 x 22 slots bags, full gear set, etc. Now we know we have 12 years of content also in that game here available to us that every quest gives gold now because we are at max level. But you know what like all the other players i will go Q for raids, heroics, dungeons, mythics, etc.
And i can garantee you that inside 1 or 2 days you are already starting to level up a alt if not started after a few hours you started playing your first character. Then inside 2 to 6 months your are playing another game while you wait for the next xpac or if by any chance you are still playing only this game then you are leveling up your 4th or 5th if not 10 th character and crying there is nothing much to do in the game.
It is not the leveling process that is killing the game it is the altoholics that are killing it for everyone. It is like drug addict that need is next fix. They need there next toon and each one of them must be nicely gear, so every single way they can come up with to make it to max level and get that gear fast is the way to go for them and they will stop at nothing to make it they even have addons to how to make it the fastest way. Even by destroying the genre they will do it.
But guess what a game with 12 years of content behind it that you have skipped all of it's content just to have it all to do at the end of the game can not satisfy you still. So i don't think there is a game left for you in this genre. Please go play another genre.
Raids are over-rated IMO but here is my thought. Yes very few sandboxes have good small group content and raids. But is there any reason that they can't?
I think the answer to that is a pretty clear no. The word "instance" is often seen as a dirty word in the sandbox community but I don't think there is any reason it has to be.
Trinity isn't seen as a good thing in sandbox communities either.
But the acronym MMMORPG now currently means Microscopic Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Kappa.
I think tanking needs to be taken in a new direction from pulling aggro to using abilities that help protect allies and hinder enemies but not taking all the incoming damage, and doing that will change the way people min-max their healer and DPS.
Reinventing the wheel isn't often the wisest course of action.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
While I will say having a succinct indication of global progress isn't bad for the sake of achievement, it's actual value can vary from something integral in the case of very vertical systems, to something almost entirely superficial in the case of horizontal systems.
In many cases RPGs rely on a vertical progression system, and levels end up offering both a structure for the progression to move in as well as a clear indicator of player power (and subsequently average expectation of capability). However, a horizontal system doesn't necessarily give a player a statistical or runaway advantage that a vertical system gives, and any "level" consequently ascribed to the character only accounts for progress in unlocking all available options/permutations of abilities while giving no distinct indicator of player performance.
In other words, levels aren't actually all that good of a universal indicator for anything but how far along they are in unlocking the content for a character. With the amount of data that can be parsed and tracked nowadays too, there are better metrics to track if you want to have a succinct representation of a person or character's performance/capability.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."