Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

Much of the MMO gameplay is not massive

2456710

Comments

  • BadSpockBadSpock Somewhere, MIPosts: 7,974Member

    Ultima Online you would maybe, maybe have 20-30 people around the Brittania bank at a given time.

    Even when they introduced the Factions PvP system you'd maybe, MAYBE have 40-60 people max in a large fight for control of a town in Felucca - and it'd be a slide show.

    The limit there really was bandwidth - we were on dialup.

    Now?

    The real limit is graphics IMO - too much budget given to photorealism not enough on scale.

    And the way combat mechanics work in most MMOs - no real point to hundreds vs. hundreds battles anyway.

    So no, I do not think the "massively" has to do with the number of players participating in a single activity...

    Had some huge zergs in GW2 events and in WvW but didn't feel any more massive in scale...

    Do I want to see massive thousands on thousands type battles like you'd see in a LOTR movie?

    Not with modern combat systems in MMOs - no thanks.

    I'd rather see something more like the Goblin chase scene in The Hobbit - dozen or so players against hundreds of mobs.

    I just want the "massively" to come in the size of the worlds - no zoning, instances only used for dungeons/raids, and having hundreds per side for OWPvP is just fine and dandy IMO - OWPvP it's more important to have proper reason to fight for things rather than caring about how many people are fighting.

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    Originally posted by lizardbones  

    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    Originally posted by lizardbones  

    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    Originally posted by lizardbones  

    Originally posted by danwest58

    Originally posted by nariusseldon small group dungeons (like in DDO, WOW, LOTRO, DCUO, .....) arena/battleground pvp (some smaller than BF3) raids (biggest in WOW is 25 man ... even at 40 man .. it is smaller than BF3 battles) and not to mention SINGLE PLAYER quests and daily quests. In fact, the only massive part is the city where people wait for their dungeons/pvp to pop .. and that is just a massive lobby with a massive AH. So much of the gameplay experience that many players spend most of their time on are not "massive" (like a PS2 hundreds on hundreds battle) in *many* MMOs, may be it is time for MMOs to abandon its roots, and embrace a broader definition. In fact, the texas holden online game i just played is as massive as a MMO. YOu can gamble with 8 people, which has more players than heroic dungeons ... and the lobby is as massive as orgrimmar in WOW.  
    The Point of an MMO is to play on a server with thousands of other people not to have massive groups.  You can complain about 25 or 40 mans being small.  The problem is not that the raids are hards, its near impossible to get 40 people to a raid.  Back when I ran 40 man raids we had to have 70+ people on everynight we raided just so we had enough of certain classes.       Sorry this is a pointless post talking about how MMOs are not Massive.
    The game can be massive, even if the groups you are in are not massive. The number of interactions going on can be massive as well, especially if you have a global auction house or something similar.  
    Great .. you are describing Diablo 3. The groups are not massive. The number of interactions going on are massive, and it does have a global auction house and chat rooms.
    If we start with "MMO" as the type of game under discussion, the games like D3 are excluded. I would also hope that my two sentences doesn't describe everything possible in an MMO. ** edit ** However, a common set of terms to describe online games in general, and the games that attract massive crowds might be helpful. It doesn't have to be "MMO", but words or acronyms that can be used to describe a game, without saying, "It's like Diablo 3" or "It's like WoW".  
    I am not interested in debating definition, and very much D3 is by common usage, not a MMO.   However, your description of the game .. is exactly like D3. In my view, there is little difference, given your description, between doing WOW 5-man dungeon and playing D3, except the lobby is 3D in WOW. Wouldn't you agree? This argument can easily extend to Borderland 3, and many other online game. And that is the point .. in terms of gameplay experences, a MMO is not that different from a non-MMO because much of that experience (particularly in PvE) is not massive.
    My description was two sentences. It doesn't begin to cover the whole experience of playing D3 or playing WoW. Of course they share some things in common, but they also have things between them that are not shared. You could say the same thing about Fallout 3 and The Secret World. That doesn't mean Fallout 3 and The Secret World should be considered part of the same category of games.  
    Nope. I think you pretty much describe all the MP aspects of D3. Let's see

    "The game can be massive, even if the groups you are in are not massive."

    Well, as you say, the group in D3 is not massive, but the game "can be" massive.

    "The number of interactions going on can be massive as well, especially if you have a global auction house or something similar."

    D3 has one, doesn't it? So the interactions going on *is* massive in D3, right? That is what your sentence mean.

     



    D3 doesn't have a persistent and shared virtual world. A key idea behind MMOs is that the world doesn't go away when you take your avatar out of the world. Even if all the players leave the world, the world itself keeps going. D3 doesn't have this. You can bring up a lobby as a virtual world, but it's not persistent. When a player logs out, their lobby goes away. The chat channels are persistent, but they aren't virtual worlds. D3 doesn't have the primary feature that is behind the idea of MMOs. It lacks a persistent and shared virtual world.

    There is also the idea that you need to be able to have many people in the same virtual space at the same time. I've seen both hundreds and thousands, but I'd be happy to draw the line at one hundred. There doesn't seem to be a consensus on what "many" or "massive" means in this case. However, D3 doesn't have this either. When a player is logged into their lobby, other players are not in their lobby. They are in their own lobbies, communicating via chat with each other.

    All this might change. It could be changing right now. In a year or so, every online game with a downloadable client and more than 64 people online at the same time could be an MMO. That hasn't happened yet though.

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • NaughtyPNaughtyP Edmonton, ABPosts: 793Member

    Well, here's my personal take. There are two criteria I use when determining a game to be "Massive".

    Criteria #1 is concurrent users on a server. Pretty straightforward. I'm more concerned with # of users online than the # of users total. Total is useless imo because there are no player interactions when people are offline.

    Criteria #2 is more specific. Concurrent users per zone. I can't interact with people I can't see, with the exception of a few scenarios (auction house, resource node depletion, mob depletion, ???). Also, instanced zones imo are one of the worst things to ever come to MMOs. I understand why they exist (technical and gameplay issues), but they drastically reduce the potential for player interaction.

    To me, the more potential there is for player interaction, the more massive the game really is. This is why I despise the "compartmentalization trend" of MMOs so much. Instancing, phasing... these are the swear words of the MMO genre for me!

    Enter a whole new realm of challenge and adventure.

  • RasputinRasputin gnaf, AKPosts: 604Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by zymurgeist
    Small group play has always been dominant in MMOs. Almost all social activities are small groups.  After all how often do you go out to eat with fifty of your closest friends? The restraunt may accomodate a hundred people but your table can't seat that many.

    But in an instance you may not happen to meet your neighbour, who is also eating out on the same day. And no one can accidentally come in and rob the restaurant. Actually no kind of surprise or unexpectedness will happen. Noone you don't expect - actually invite - will be around.

    That is the difference between MMOs and lobby games.

  • YamotaYamota LondonPosts: 6,620Member

    The M before Multiplayer does not stand for Massive, it stands for Massively. This is a small but important distinction because it directly dictactes that it is the Multiplayer part that is massive and not the game itself.

    So a game could be massive if it is huge or sells a lot of copies or whatever but Massively Multiplayer means only that the Multiplayer aspect is massive and does not talk about anything else. This may be obvious to some people but not all and specially the OP since he thinks it has anything to do with the gameplay, it does not. It refers only and only to the multiplayer aspect.

    So that being said, what is Massively Multiplayer? Well what is a massive number of people in the context of multiplayer games? I would have thought that with advanced technology this would go up and up but instead the latest generation of games instead have tried to take it down by creating identical copies and separating the communities rather than trying to bring them together.

    This would not by definition not make it massively multiplayer, because technically they are on the same server, but if you cant interact with massive amounts of people no matter how hard you try then what point is it in calling it masssively multiplayer (beside selling more copies)?

    No I think the genre needs to go back to the roots and look at old games like Eve to understand this concept of massively multiplayer. Beside the fact that you can have fleet battles spanning houndreds of ships the crafting and economy is very important and there you indirectly interact with thousands of people. 

    So I think that, currently, the only MMORPG which deserves the Massively adverb is Eve. I dont much like the game myself but no one can deny the shere amount of people it can bring together where as most of these latest "cutting edge" MMORPGs instead divide the community into identical, cloned instances.

  • zymurgeistzymurgeist Pittsville, VAPosts: 5,211Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Rasputin
    Originally posted by zymurgeist
    Small group play has always been dominant in MMOs. Almost all social activities are small groups.  After all how often do you go out to eat with fifty of your closest friends? The restraunt may accomodate a hundred people but your table can't seat that many.

    But in an instance you may not happen to meet your neighbour, who is also eating out on the same day. And no one can accidentally come in and rob the restaurant. Actually no kind of surprise or unexpectedness will happen. Noone you don't expect - actually invite - will be around.

    That is the difference between MMOs and lobby games.

     We're stretching the analogy out of shape but when I eat a home with friends that does happen and it's usually an unwanted interruption.  Instancing by design  avoids those unwanted interruptions and allows the developers to tailor the experience. The world is still there, persistant, which is not true with a lobby game. When not in an instance I can still interact with everyone near me in the world and some quite far away in limited ways. The point is social situations do not need to involve large crowds. You are no more relevant in real life than an NPC in a game unless you or they choose to involve yourself in their business. Instancing doesn't make MMOs less social just more intimate.

    "Strong and bitter words indicate a weak cause" ~Victor Hugo

  • RasputinRasputin gnaf, AKPosts: 604Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by zymurgeist
    Originally posted by Rasputin
    Originally posted by zymurgeist
    Small group play has always been dominant in MMOs. Almost all social activities are small groups.  After all how often do you go out to eat with fifty of your closest friends? The restraunt may accomodate a hundred people but your table can't seat that many.

    But in an instance you may not happen to meet your neighbour, who is also eating out on the same day. And no one can accidentally come in and rob the restaurant. Actually no kind of surprise or unexpectedness will happen. Noone you don't expect - actually invite - will be around.

    That is the difference between MMOs and lobby games.

     We're stretching the analogy out of shape but when I eat a home with friends that does happen and it's usually an unwanted interruption.  Instancing by design  avoids those unwanted interruptions and allows the developers to tailor the experience. The world is still there, persistant, which is not true with a lobby game. When not in an instance I can still interact with everyone near me in the world and some quite far away in limited ways. The point is social situations do not need to involve large crowds. You are no more relevant in real life than an NPC in a game unless you or they choose to involve yourself in their business. Instancing doesn't make MMOs less social just more intimate.

    I want to live in a world. I don't want to be locked away without any connection to the rest of the players or the world.

    And that is what defines an MMO in my opinion. If you are shielded from the influence of other people, there is no reason to call it a massively multiplayer game, because you are in effect playing only with a select group.

    It does not matter if (part of) the world is technically persistant if it has no impact on gameplay, if it works as a 3D lobby.

  • RasputinRasputin gnaf, AKPosts: 604Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by zymurgeist
     You are no more relevant in real life than an NPC in a game unless you or they choose to involve yourself in their business. Instancing doesn't make MMOs less social just more intimate.

     

    And I will never have a chance of becoming relevant either, because I will not have a chance to be in a position in-game, where I become interesting. Because I am not there.

    Is all you want really only another small-scale multiplayer?

     
  • zymurgeistzymurgeist Pittsville, VAPosts: 5,211Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Rasputin
    Originally posted by zymurgeist
    Originally posted by Rasputin
    Originally posted by zymurgeist
    Small group play has always been dominant in MMOs. Almost all social activities are small groups.  After all how often do you go out to eat with fifty of your closest friends? The restraunt may accomodate a hundred people but your table can't seat that many.

    But in an instance you may not happen to meet your neighbour, who is also eating out on the same day. And no one can accidentally come in and rob the restaurant. Actually no kind of surprise or unexpectedness will happen. Noone you don't expect - actually invite - will be around.

    That is the difference between MMOs and lobby games.

     We're stretching the analogy out of shape but when I eat a home with friends that does happen and it's usually an unwanted interruption.  Instancing by design  avoids those unwanted interruptions and allows the developers to tailor the experience. The world is still there, persistant, which is not true with a lobby game. When not in an instance I can still interact with everyone near me in the world and some quite far away in limited ways. The point is social situations do not need to involve large crowds. You are no more relevant in real life than an NPC in a game unless you or they choose to involve yourself in their business. Instancing doesn't make MMOs less social just more intimate.

    I want to live in a world. I don't want to be locked away without any connection to the rest of the players or the world.

    And that is what defines an MMO in my opinion. If you are shielded from the influence of other people, there is no reason to call it a massively multiplayer game, because you are in effect playing only with a select group.

    It does not matter if (part of) the world is technically persistant if it has no impact on gameplay, if it works as a 3D lobby.

     There are varying degrees of instancing. The ideal game allows you to tailor how much you interact with the masses at any particular time just as life does. Unfortunately within the limitations of time and money games are far from ideal. You make your choice by what games you play. Just because it's not a MMO style you choose to play doesn't make it any less of a MMO. There is room for each variation. Getting developers to realize that rather than having most of them  trying to make the same game can be a problem though.

    "Strong and bitter words indicate a weak cause" ~Victor Hugo

  • zymurgeistzymurgeist Pittsville, VAPosts: 5,211Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Rasputin
    Originally posted by zymurgeist
     You are no more relevant in real life than an NPC in a game unless you or they choose to involve yourself in their business. Instancing doesn't make MMOs less social just more intimate.

     

    And I will never have a chance of becoming relevant either, because I will not have a chance to be in a position in-game, where I become interesting. Because I am not there.

    Is all you want really only another small-scale multiplayer?

     

     Sometimes small scale multiplayer is all I want. As a person you have no chance of becoming relevant beyond this enjoyable conversation either. Because you are not here and I will not go there. Personally I would like another MMO where I can meet new and interesting people. Then burn down their houses and kill them. Alas Shadowbane is no more and we shall not see it's like again. Darkfall has, so far, been only a pale shadow.

    "Strong and bitter words indicate a weak cause" ~Victor Hugo

  • DauzqulDauzqul Detroit, MIPosts: 1,402Member Uncommon

    The op is spot on.

  • RasputinRasputin gnaf, AKPosts: 604Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by zymurgeist
    Originally posted by Rasputin
    Originally posted by zymurgeist
    Originally posted by Rasputin
    Originally posted by zymurgeist
    Small group play has always been dominant in MMOs. Almost all social activities are small groups.  After all how often do you go out to eat with fifty of your closest friends? The restraunt may accomodate a hundred people but your table can't seat that many.

    But in an instance you may not happen to meet your neighbour, who is also eating out on the same day. And no one can accidentally come in and rob the restaurant. Actually no kind of surprise or unexpectedness will happen. Noone you don't expect - actually invite - will be around.

    That is the difference between MMOs and lobby games.

     We're stretching the analogy out of shape but when I eat a home with friends that does happen and it's usually an unwanted interruption.  Instancing by design  avoids those unwanted interruptions and allows the developers to tailor the experience. The world is still there, persistant, which is not true with a lobby game. When not in an instance I can still interact with everyone near me in the world and some quite far away in limited ways. The point is social situations do not need to involve large crowds. You are no more relevant in real life than an NPC in a game unless you or they choose to involve yourself in their business. Instancing doesn't make MMOs less social just more intimate.

    I want to live in a world. I don't want to be locked away without any connection to the rest of the players or the world.

    And that is what defines an MMO in my opinion. If you are shielded from the influence of other people, there is no reason to call it a massively multiplayer game, because you are in effect playing only with a select group.

    It does not matter if (part of) the world is technically persistant if it has no impact on gameplay, if it works as a 3D lobby.

     There are varying degrees of instancing. The ideal game allows you to tailor how much you interact with the masses at any particular time just as life does. Unfortunately within the limitations of time and money games are far from ideal. You make your choice by what games you play. Just because it's not a MMO style you choose to play doesn't make it any less of a MMO. There is room for each variation. Getting developers to realize that rather than having most of them  trying to make the same game can be a problem though.

    Any degree of instancing takes away from the world. If you want to be locked away in your own private game, then that has been a possibility since Doom. There is nothing special to what it is you want, and also not to those "MMO's", that are what you want and put the MMO label on themselves.

    What makes MMO special, is the possibility of a world, without which the definition becomes irrelevant.

  • RasputinRasputin gnaf, AKPosts: 604Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by zymurgeist
     

    Any interesting story you get involved with, that being book, movie or other media, has unexpected events happening to the main character. Many events in books and movies are based on r/l or would be possible in r/l. Your assumption, that just because you can lock your front door after having invited your friends, you have a picture of what is r/l. It is not. And it is only very recently in human history, that we have even had the law to enable you to be fairly certain that you will indeed not be disturbed.

    And it is a boring, boring world, where that possibility is not open. And the r/l (western) world is indeed quite boring, which is why many people consume works of fiction, including games.

  • RedJorgeRedJorge LisbonPosts: 106Member

    Events with hundreds of players fighting off huge NPC attacks or PvPing each other are some of the most interesting and truly community boosters events a MMORPG can have. Nothing unites more a community than large scale events affecting the game world.

    Unfortunately, there are 3 obstacles to it:

    1. Game engines;

    2. Servers side processing;

    3. Personal computer processing/graphic power.

    Until a few years ago internet bandwidth was also an obstacle but not anymore in most of countries.

    I believe that if a brave and well funded company invests the time and resources to overcome 1. and 2. then players will invest in good enough computers to overcome 3.

    Im my opinion, these 3 points are responsible for the lack of MMORPG innovation over the last 5 years at least. Every company bets in safe instanced environments, using and improving previous games ideas, but not leaping into hundreds of players environments. The ones that tried it before failed because of all the 3 points and got no good results.

    Until then, WoW will continue to rule the world with its bad graphics capable of running in all PC´s.

     

    Leonard: Penny, you are on fire.
    Penny: Yes, so is Sheldon.
    [laughs]
    Sheldon: Okay, that's it. I don't know how, but she is cheating. No-one can be that attractive and this skilled at a video game.
    [walks away]
    Penny: Wait, wait. Sheldon. Come back, you forgot something.
    Sheldon: What?
    Penny: This plasma grenade.
    [explosion]
    Penny: [laughs] Look! It's raining you.
    Sheldon: You laugh now. You just wait until you need tech support. (Big Bang Theory)

  • YamotaYamota LondonPosts: 6,620Member
    Originally posted by RedJorge

    Events with hundreds of players fighting off huge NPC attacks or PvPing each other are some of the most interesting and truly community boosters events a MMORPG can have. Nothing unites more a community than large scale events affecting the game world.

    Unfortunately, there are 3 obstacles to it:

    1. Game engines;

    2. Servers side processing;

    3. Personal computer processing/graphic power.

    Until a few years ago internet bandwidth was also an obstacle but not anymore in most of countries.

    I believe that if a brave and well funded company invests the time and resources to overcome 1. and 2. then players will invest in good enough computers to overcome 3.

    Im my opinion, these 3 points are responsible for the lack of MMORPG innovation over the last 5 years at least. Every company bets in safe instanced environments, using and improving previous games ideas, but not leaping into hundreds of players environments. The ones that tried it before failed because of all the 3 points and got no good results.

    Until then, WoW will continue to rule the world with its bad graphics capable of running in all PC´s.

     

    Eve has had houndreds of players fight each other and Lineage 2 has come pretty close. So it is not the technical obstacle that is the issue but rather the commercial one. To create an engine and server infrastructure which manages that coupled together with the relatively few who can run it requires a lot of money and the return on investment may not cover that or not as much as your standard ThemePark clone which uses the very cheap technique to take the exact identical zone and create multiple clones of it.

    Yes, MMOs have become big bussiness so what is being invested in, or not, is not what would be the best MMORPG but rather what would give the highest return of investment. Sad but that is what happens one something goes mainstream.

  • Cephus404Cephus404 Redlands, CAPosts: 3,675Member
    Originally posted by danwest58

    The Point of an MMO is to play on a server with thousands of other people not to have massive groups.  You can complain about 25 or 40 mans being small.  The problem is not that the raids are hards, its near impossible to get 40 people to a raid.  Back when I ran 40 man raids we had to have 70+ people on everynight we raided just so we had enough of certain classes.  

    Sorry this is a pointless post talking about how MMOs are not Massive.

    Yet that is exactly what a lot of pro-groupers demand, that it isn't the thousands of people around you that make a game massive or multiplayer, it's the fact that you're forced to do things with them.  Personally, I look at MMOs like living in a big city.  There are millions of people around that you can interact with if you wish, but you're not required to.

    Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
    Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
    Now Playing: None
    Hope: None

  • Cephus404Cephus404 Redlands, CAPosts: 3,675Member
    Originally posted by Rasputin

    Any degree of instancing takes away from the world. If you want to be locked away in your own private game, then that has been a possibility since Doom. There is nothing special to what it is you want, and also not to those "MMO's", that are what you want and put the MMO label on themselves.

    What makes MMO special, is the possibility of a world, without which the definition becomes irrelevant.

    Absolutely I want to have the opportunity to be locked away in my own private game, especially considering the number of assholes who run around in these games.  I want the rewards for my labor, I don't want someone showing up and killstealing the boss, ninjaing the loot or purposely training mobs into my group.  All of this happens regularly in non-instanced games.  If people weren't such asshats, I wouldn't say, but when people act specifically to piss others off and take their stuff, I draw the line and want a way to get away from them so I can actually have fun.

    Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
    Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
    Now Playing: None
    Hope: None

  • KanethKaneth Posts: 1,922Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Cephus404
    Originally posted by Rasputin

    Any degree of instancing takes away from the world. If you want to be locked away in your own private game, then that has been a possibility since Doom. There is nothing special to what it is you want, and also not to those "MMO's", that are what you want and put the MMO label on themselves.

    What makes MMO special, is the possibility of a world, without which the definition becomes irrelevant.

    Absolutely I want to have the opportunity to be locked away in my own private game, especially considering the number of assholes who run around in these games.  I want the rewards for my labor, I don't want someone showing up and killstealing the boss, ninjaing the loot or purposely training mobs into my group.  All of this happens regularly in non-instanced games.  If people weren't such asshats, I wouldn't say, but when people act specifically to piss others off and take their stuff, I draw the line and want a way to get away from them so I can actually have fun.

    Yup, and this is why mmos went from being nearly completely open to small private instances, because people can't act right. Too many anonymous pricks will do what they do best, ruin someone else's time. People get pissed off and quit, and that's that.

     

  • BanaghranBanaghran HuisoPosts: 869Member
    Originally posted by Cephus404
    Originally posted by Rasputin

    Any degree of instancing takes away from the world. If you want to be locked away in your own private game, then that has been a possibility since Doom. There is nothing special to what it is you want, and also not to those "MMO's", that are what you want and put the MMO label on themselves.

    What makes MMO special, is the possibility of a world, without which the definition becomes irrelevant.

    Absolutely I want to have the opportunity to be locked away in my own private game, especially considering the number of assholes who run around in these games.  I want the rewards for my labor, I don't want someone showing up and killstealing the boss, ninjaing the loot or purposely training mobs into my group.  All of this happens regularly in non-instanced games.  If people weren't such asshats, I wouldn't say, but when people act specifically to piss others off and take their stuff, I draw the line and want a way to get away from them so I can actually have fun.

    You do realize that someone will ask "Then why dont you play singleplayer games then?"

    Which does not mean that i am saying that safety cannot be achieved, eve has friendly sectors, runescape  is predominantly non-pvp and single target combat.

    And for the record, it does not happen as often as paranoid people think, it only happens if the game already caters to those paranoid people, having, say, penaltyless pvp, fixed factions or stuff like that.

    ..and training is always fun :)

    Flame on!

    :)

  • MagiknightMagiknight McKinleyville, CAPosts: 782Member

    The problems with an open world, ie kill stealing and ninjaing loot, can we dealt with other ways besides instancing.

    Instancing is for people who want a small game.

  • Cephus404Cephus404 Redlands, CAPosts: 3,675Member
    Originally posted by Magiknight

    The problems with an open world, ie kill stealing and ninjaing loot, can we dealt with other ways besides instancing.

    Instancing is for people who want a small game.

    How do you propose to stop it entirely then?  How can it be dealt with so that those who don't want to be around it are never bothered by it again?

    Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
    Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
    Now Playing: None
    Hope: None

  • SpectralHunterSpectralHunter So CalPosts: 386Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Cephus404
    Originally posted by Magiknight

    The problems with an open world, ie kill stealing and ninjaing loot, can we dealt with other ways besides instancing.

    Instancing is for people who want a small game.

    How do you propose to stop it entirely then?  How can it be dealt with so that those who don't want to be around it are never bothered by it again?

    Developers should understand they can never meet the expectations of every player.  It's impossible.  If you try to please everyone, you'll end up pleasing no one.  At best, you can implement mechanisms to deter it but ksing and ninjaing will be around just like there's stealing in real life.

    The best that developers can do is to create a game that caters to the type of player they are trying to attract.  For instance, I don't like FFA PvP and wouldn't play a game that has it.  But I wouldn't discourage companies to make them if there's a player base for it.  I most certainly wouldn't demand the company to change it for me.

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by SpectralHunter
    Originally posted by Cephus404 Originally posted by Magiknight The problems with an open world, ie kill stealing and ninjaing loot, can we dealt with other ways besides instancing. Instancing is for people who want a small game.
    How do you propose to stop it entirely then?  How can it be dealt with so that those who don't want to be around it are never bothered by it again?
    Developers should understand they can never meet the expectations of every player.  It's impossible.  If you try to please everyone, you'll end up pleasing no one.  At best, you can implement mechanisms to deter it but ksing and ninjaing will be around just like there's stealing in real life.

    The best that developers can do is to create a game that caters to the type of player they are trying to attract.  For instance, I don't like FFA PvP and wouldn't play a game that has it.  But I wouldn't discourage companies to make them if there's a player base for it.  I most certainly wouldn't demand the company to change it for me.




    Kill stealing can be dealt with by giving any player who hits a mob credit for the kill and making sure that mobs scale with the power of the player so that no player can one shot mobs.

    Loot stealing can be dealt with by giving each player a separate pile of loot. A player cannot steal another player's loot because they cannot touch or see the other player's loot.

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • JemcrystalJemcrystal Champaign, ILPosts: 1,549Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Rohn
    Originally posted by danwest58
    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    small group dungeons (like in DDO, WOW, LOTRO, DCUO, .....)

    arena/battleground pvp (some smaller than BF3)

    raids (biggest in WOW is 25 man ... even at 40 man .. it is smaller than BF3 battles)

    and not to mention SINGLE PLAYER quests and daily quests.

    In fact, the only massive part is the city where people wait for their dungeons/pvp to pop .. and that is just a massive lobby with a massive AH.

    So much of the gameplay experience that many players spend most of their time on are not "massive" (like a PS2 hundreds on hundreds battle) in *many* MMOs, may be it is time for MMOs to abandon its roots, and embrace a broader definition. In fact, the texas holden online game i just played is as massive as a MMO. YOu can gamble with 8 people, which has more players than heroic dungeons ... and the lobby is as massive as orgrimmar in WOW.

     

    The Point of an MMO is to play on a server with thousands of other people not to have massive groups.  You can complain about 25 or 40 mans being small.  The problem is not that the raids are hards, its near impossible to get 40 people to a raid.  Back when I ran 40 man raids we had to have 70+ people on everynight we raided just so we had enough of certain classes.  

     

    Sorry this is a pointless post talking about how MMOs are not Massive.

     

    I agree with the sentiment of the OP.

    Most games do not have systems that actually take advantage of massive populations in a persistent world.

    The worlds themselves are just lobbies for small group instances, and little more.  Large scale social, economic, or political systems are generally absent, which renders the virtual society meaningless.

    What he said.  Only we left out nothing going to change until lag is gone.

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Stone Mountain, GAPosts: 13,643Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Cephus404
    Originally posted by Magiknight

    The problems with an open world, ie kill stealing and ninjaing loot, can we dealt with other ways besides instancing.

    Instancing is for people who want a small game.

    How do you propose to stop it entirely then?  How can it be dealt with so that those who don't want to be around it are never bothered by it again?

    By making MMOs that offer something else to do other than run around murdering every creature in site to take their belongings. 

     

    But since that won't happen any time soon, Lizardbones' reply offers some decent solutions.

     

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

Sign In or Register to comment.