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!

Will most player even notice if the virtual world is taken away from MMO pve gameplay?

1468910

Comments

  • jimdandy26jimdandy26 salem, ORPosts: 527Member
    Originally posted by RefMinor
    Originally posted by laokoko
    Originally posted by Phelcher
    Most who do looby style games, do so because they are bored with the game, but still enjoy the incertainty of combat.. Or, the game itself is boring and lobby os the only thing phun left to do.

    Either way, it is no phun to play a lobby game you are paying for, so most games turned into ftp, because most turned into lobby games.

    Point is.. any lobby game now is not worth noting, as it's already dieing or dead.

    Ya I mean all those virtual world game are doing much better.

    That is why currently the mmorpg market are full with those virtual world games everyone love and play.

    They are coming.

    To fall into the very same "themepark trap". I really cannot wait for the excuses to come rolling in from the sandbox crowd when they fail just as spectacularly.

    I did battle with ignorance today, and ignorance won.

    To exercise power costs effort and demands courage. That is why so many fail to assert rights to which they are perfectly entitled - because a right is a kind of power but they are too lazy or too cowardly to exercise it. The virtues which cloak these faults are called patience and forbearance.

  • BanaghranBanaghran HuisoPosts: 869Member
    Originally posted by jimdandy26

    Not really, because those were the only meaningful choices you had at that point anyway. You really did not lose anything from the skill trees, they just gave them to you anyway.

    I do get where you are coming from to an extent, but especially from a designers perspective the game is much more complicated now than it was at release. The player base through osmosis is much less ignorant now than it was then for starters. Itemization has many more choices to it, and rotation has changed dramatically. I know my first 4 years of WoW all I had as a raiding warlock was spam shadowbolt, which kinda sucked balls honestly.

    Hmm, what things do you feel are more complicated? The 10 classes with replaceable (interchangeable) raid wide buffs? The skill trees that have a x% dps tagged along per skill point? Do we still have playstyle changing sets?

    Most of things that were done in the last 6 years have made the game more simple to balance, mantain and design, even those valkyries from the legendary had a X dps number tagged on them that was not allowed to overshadow other choices too much.

    Rotation has changed, but also dps expectation (bb endless mana advantage) and interesting synergies.

    Quid pro quo.

    Flame on!

    :)

  • laokokolaokoko TaipeiPosts: 2,003Member

    You know what I hate about mmorpg game design in general?

    Balance, reward, and not enough random.

    Why does the game have to be balance.  Why is everyone a jedi.  And why do everyone can do what they want to do.

    That is what really make a virtual world isn't it?  Not everyone can be anything they want to be.  Why is there a quest for everyone to be a jedi.  Maybe only a few people can be a jedi.

    Why is pvp balanced.  There  is this commander from another faction and he is as strong as everyone else.  Isn't commander suppose to be stronger?

    Why is everyone a blacksmith if they want to be a blacksmith.  Maybe some of they are just not skilled enough to be a blacksmith.

    People keep talking about "vitual world" and exploring and living in it.  But take away pvp, what is there really to explore if you already been there before.

  • FdzzaiglFdzzaigl Somewhere in nowherePosts: 2,309Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Aeonblades
    Originally posted by XAPGames

    Yeah, they would notice.  Just look at all the threads of people complaining about empty overland zones indicating that a game is dead.

     

    It's a paradox.  They might not want to play with others, but they like having them around.

     

    This. If the world seems empty, it doesn't seem like a world anymore to most.

    I think that really depends on the game, it isn't so much of a paradox.

    Take people complaining about empty zones in GW2: why do they find the zones empty? It's because there are not enough people to get the event trains going in the mid-level zones (on some servers). So they complain because the content has a certain number of people in mind who should be participating, but there are too few people actually there.

    On the other hand, you might have a game with a massive and mostly empty open world where people are content to roam on their own, because the content is aimed toward just doing exploration, finding resources, or doing other stuff that is viable on your own.

    In other words, how lonely people feel also depends on how much they need the other players to get the most of the content. Apart from communication of course.

    Feel free to use my referral link for SW:TOR if you want to test out the game. You'll get some special unlocks!

  • HeroEvermoreHeroEvermore salem, ORPosts: 672Member
    Originally posted by Grixxitt
    Narius, I'm starting to think you get paid by a MOBA collective to do your best in making sure that future MMORPGs are absolute shit

    Lol 4 realz. this guy has the lamest ideas ever. So glad hes not a game developer.

    I learned how to block people. Hes my first. Guy just makes troll comments to keep up his silly online rank.

    Hero Evermore
    Guild Master of Dragonspine since 1982.
    Playing Path of Exile and deeply in love with it.

  • ScotScot UKPosts: 5,754Member Uncommon

    (Scot's toon looks around a game lobby the size of this post box)

    - Yep, think I would notice.

  • fivorothfivoroth LondonPosts: 3,652Member Uncommon

    Will most players even notice if the virtual world is take anway from MMO pve gameplay? 

    Of course they will. Any other questions?

    Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.

  • MurlockDanceMurlockDance ParisPosts: 1,223Member
    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    These never happen in WOW, DDO, GW1, and many other instanced centric PvE MMOs.

    The point of this thread is not what should be the MMO design, but in these specific MMOs, why do we need a world if the experience is the same?

    The stuff you talk about .. .like meeting another group in a dungeon .. is just not the gameplay in these MMO i am discussing. So irrelevant.

    I would certainly leave WoW if they removed the world zones.

    I rarely dungeon run, maybe once a day tops, and I spend most of my time out in the world leveling, exploring, harvesting, collecting pets, talking to people I meet, sometimes grouping up with them, etc. The CRZ helped a lot with this.

    Seeing as I usually bump into 10 or more people per zone, I am apparently not the only one who enjoys questing. Whether that is the minority or majority is hard to gauge, because not everyone sitting in Ogr is there waiting for dungeons. People duel there, socialize, check out the AH, craft, etc.

    Sorry but lobby games are not equivalent to MMORPGs.

    Playing MUDs and MMOs since 1994.

    image
  • MurlockDanceMurlockDance ParisPosts: 1,223Member
    Originally posted by sunshadow21

    But how many would really care if they were able to do the same solo activitives in a private instance while waiting for the group instances? That, I believe is the real question here. How important in the persistant world part in some of the current crop of themepark games? I would guess that most posters here would say very, but I question how indicative that is of the population as a whole. I'd be willing to bet that for the majority of people, you could place them in a well done instance, and they would not notice a difference. I'm not saying I want games that do that, but that is a reality that I have come to accept, and a major reason that I've gotten very picky about the games I show interest in.

    Just a question but how do you *know* what other people will or will not notice or will or will not care about ? This is just pointless speculation. There is no "reality", because you don't know how people will react to things or what is going on in their heads.

    Take ToR for instance: the world areas are more populated than the dungeon runs (flash points). There can be many instances of a place like Balmorra, with 150+ players. The flash points will have 20-30 players in them. As far as I know, ToR is one of the few games that actively shows number of players in a particular dungeon instance.

    Remove the ability to group up for heroics and just put people in their own instances would completely ruin that game. I certainly would not want to play it like that. It is much, much funner with other players. Yes, you can play it like a lobby game if you really want to, but you are missing out on 97% of the game. Yes, you can play it entirely solo, but you are missing out on the heroics, which are actually pretty fun.

     

    I think you guys are confusing the fact that you can choose to be self-reliant with being forced to be self-reliant. I prefer the former, and I usually choose to hang out with other players since the whole point of MMOs is to be sociable... I certainly would not pay a subscription for a lobby game, and I would not pay 60 dollars for a game like ToR with the entire world part ripped out, or forced to be single player.

     

    Playing MUDs and MMOs since 1994.

    image
  • sunshadow21sunshadow21 Omaha, NEPosts: 354Member
    Originally posted by MurlockDance
    Originally posted by sunshadow21

    But how many would really care if they were able to do the same solo activitives in a private instance while waiting for the group instances? That, I believe is the real question here. How important in the persistant world part in some of the current crop of themepark games? I would guess that most posters here would say very, but I question how indicative that is of the population as a whole. I'd be willing to bet that for the majority of people, you could place them in a well done instance, and they would not notice a difference. I'm not saying I want games that do that, but that is a reality that I have come to accept, and a major reason that I've gotten very picky about the games I show interest in.

    Just a question but how do you *know* what other people will or will not notice or will or will not care about ? This is just pointless speculation. There is no "reality", because you don't know how people will react to things or what is going on in their heads.

    Take ToR for instance: the world areas are more populated than the dungeon runs (flash points). There can be many instances of a place like Balmorra, with 150+ players. The flash points will have 20-30 players in them. As far as I know, ToR is one of the few games that actively shows number of players in a particular dungeon instance.

    Remove the ability to group up for heroics and just put people in their own instances would completely ruin that game. I certainly would not want to play it like that. It is much, much funner with other players. Yes, you can play it like a lobby game if you really want to, but you are missing out on 97% of the game. Yes, you can play it entirely solo, but you are missing out on the heroics, which are actually pretty fun.

     

    I think you guys are confusing the fact that you can choose to be self-reliant with being forced to be self-reliant. I prefer the former, and I usually choose to hang out with other players since the whole point of MMOs is to be sociable... I certainly would not pay a subscription for a lobby game, and I would not pay 60 dollars for a game like ToR with the entire world part ripped out, or forced to be single player.

     

    Like I said, I would expect most people here to have that view, but if you think that is representative of the the gaming population as a whole, I think you would find that most people don't actually care if it's an open world or an instance, which is why for pve, instances are not going away, and are probably going to be even more common in the future. It's not a game I would play, but most people speak with their wallets, not on the forums, and that response is what devs are going to listen to ultimately; that response, in the recent past, has been bring on the instances, we don't need the open world as long as we get what we want when we want it.

  • laokokolaokoko TaipeiPosts: 2,003Member

    I never really get why people care that the world is empty. 

    I understand for pvp you need people to play with.  But take GW2 for example, who even care if the world is empty or not.  There isn't even much to do in there. 

    I mean, most of the dynamic event are soloable.  Those that have champion mob you can just skip it, it is no big deal.  I mean other people play dark fall before, do you ever hear them say, "oh wow, there is a monster I can't kill and no one want to kill it".

    And people keep saying exploring.  What is there to explore if you already been to a place.  It is not like some random thing pop up and you get excited.  To me virtual world is boring and unexcited unless it have pvp. 

  • OnomasOnomas Rock Hill, SCPosts: 1,128Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by sunshadow21
    Originally posted by MurlockDance
    Originally posted by sunshadow21

    But how many would really care if they were able to do the same solo activitives in a private instance while waiting for the group instances? That, I believe is the real question here. How important in the persistant world part in some of the current crop of themepark games? I would guess that most posters here would say very, but I question how indicative that is of the population as a whole. I'd be willing to bet that for the majority of people, you could place them in a well done instance, and they would not notice a difference. I'm not saying I want games that do that, but that is a reality that I have come to accept, and a major reason that I've gotten very picky about the games I show interest in.

    Just a question but how do you *know* what other people will or will not notice or will or will not care about ? This is just pointless speculation. There is no "reality", because you don't know how people will react to things or what is going on in their heads.

    Take ToR for instance: the world areas are more populated than the dungeon runs (flash points). There can be many instances of a place like Balmorra, with 150+ players. The flash points will have 20-30 players in them. As far as I know, ToR is one of the few games that actively shows number of players in a particular dungeon instance.

    Remove the ability to group up for heroics and just put people in their own instances would completely ruin that game. I certainly would not want to play it like that. It is much, much funner with other players. Yes, you can play it like a lobby game if you really want to, but you are missing out on 97% of the game. Yes, you can play it entirely solo, but you are missing out on the heroics, which are actually pretty fun.

     

    I think you guys are confusing the fact that you can choose to be self-reliant with being forced to be self-reliant. I prefer the former, and I usually choose to hang out with other players since the whole point of MMOs is to be sociable... I certainly would not pay a subscription for a lobby game, and I would not pay 60 dollars for a game like ToR with the entire world part ripped out, or forced to be single player.

     

    Like I said, I would expect most people here to have that view, but if you think that is representative of the the gaming population as a whole, I think you would find that most people don't actually care if it's an open world or an instance, which is why for pve, instances are not going away, and are probably going to be even more common in the future. It's not a game I would play, but most people speak with their wallets, not on the forums, and that response is what devs are going to listen to ultimately; that response, in the recent past, has been bring on the instances, we don't need the open world as long as we get what we want when we want it.

    Well they havent really had the option or choice. In the past 5+ years game features have been obmited slowly over time, eye candy and story has been pushed onto gamers, and its faster paced and always being forced down a path. You didnt have the option until recently. With more games with open worlds and sandbox features being released, this will give people the option and choice. Its easy to say oranges are better than apples when all you have in the store are oranges ;)

    Many people dont know how to play an open world, they are so use to raids, dailies, dungeons, and instances their creative side has been stripped away over the years. Its all about the "me" and not about the "community" and creating content to take part in.

    Open world has many features and benifits over an instanced dungeon. And when you instance a mmo, you take away the mmo part. Then the game becomes no better than a singleplayer game with multiplayer support.

    And its always better to have the choice and use of features, even if you dont like them and wont use them. Than to not have the freedom and chance to take part in said feature. Gimped game or fully useable world? I personaly rather have the world, and not wait hours to get into a dungeon or raid. Which many times they have lock out timers. Kind of defeats the purpose to force mmorpg players into a dungeon and have lock outs lol.

     

  • rojoArcueidrojoArcueid hell, NJPosts: 6,753Member Uncommon

    take away the virtual open world and ill stop playing mmos forever.

    Some F2P companies are making mmos this way.  Rusty hearts, Vindictus, Dragon nest and C9 are good examples. I would imagine if you ask the companies behind them they will say they had to sacrifice open world to add great character visuals and animations....lack of resources,  which is totaly invalid (im just saying). if they lacked resources they wouldnt have other open world mmos in the first place. Thats the only reason (the only one) why i dont play those games i mentioned. Leave the city lobbies for your typical team deathmatch shooter. If your not gonna make an open world mmo and improve on whats being done already, then leave the genre alone.

    limiting open gameplay to city lobbies in an mmorpg is pure lazy and should not be accepted.

    So yeah, OP, thats what i think of city lobbie games that try to invade the mmo scene. They are not mmos and should not be considered among them. They work well as (in game dungeons) within an mmorpg or a coop online like GW1, not as a stand alone ¨mmo¨

    image
  • darkhalf357xdarkhalf357x Brooklyn, NYPosts: 1,164Member Uncommon

    I would notice.  It would affect my experience.  I dont sit in major cities waiting for LFG or LFR.  In WoW I am typically out questing, fishing, doing archeaology, collecting pets, harvesting nodes, etc.  I LIKE being out in the world doing stuff -- its just convenient to have a LFG timer ticking in the background.  The timer pops I hit the dungeon and when its over I can continue what Im doing.

    I'd be very bored if I had to sit in a single area and just wait.  Wasnt that why the LFG tool was created?  So you COULD do other stuff instead of waiting?

    If I just had a lobby I'd play something else.

    image
  • WraithoneWraithone Salt Lake City, UTPosts: 3,592Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by jimdandy26
    Originally posted by RefMinor
    Originally posted by laokoko
    Originally posted by Phelcher
    Most who do looby style games, do so because they are bored with the game, but still enjoy the incertainty of combat.. Or, the game itself is boring and lobby os the only thing phun left to do.

    Either way, it is no phun to play a lobby game you are paying for, so most games turned into ftp, because most turned into lobby games.

    Point is.. any lobby game now is not worth noting, as it's already dieing or dead.

    Ya I mean all those virtual world game are doing much better.

    That is why currently the mmorpg market are full with those virtual world games everyone love and play.

    They are coming.

    To fall into the very same "themepark trap". I really cannot wait for the excuses to come rolling in from the sandbox crowd when they fail just as spectacularly.

    Thats going to be quite interesting... After hearing them go on (and on...) about sand boxes, it will be fascinating to hear the excuses that get offered up... ^^

  • jimdandy26jimdandy26 salem, ORPosts: 527Member
    Sir, I believe I like the cut of your jib.

    I did battle with ignorance today, and ignorance won.

    To exercise power costs effort and demands courage. That is why so many fail to assert rights to which they are perfectly entitled - because a right is a kind of power but they are too lazy or too cowardly to exercise it. The virtues which cloak these faults are called patience and forbearance.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by MurlockDance

    I think you guys are confusing the fact that you can choose to be self-reliant with being forced to be self-reliant. I prefer the former, and I usually choose to hang out with other players since the whole point of MMOs is to be sociable... I certainly would not pay a subscription for a lobby game, and I would not pay 60 dollars for a game like ToR with the entire world part ripped out, or forced to be single player.

     

    TOR is F2P. SP games are $60 a pop. You don't play those?

  • ThelricThelric Woodbury, NJPosts: 26Member

    I like my open world populated. I personally avoid overly populated points and meet more people outside exploring than inside. Just because one has a particular experience, this does not speak for the rest since we all have different playstyles. More is better than less in an MMO.  Rather than making it less of a Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game and taking from the idea of senseless waiting and grouping up in Player Hubs like FPS games do...I'd rather see the world populated by not just gamers, but more player content.

    What we need is not less places to explore along others, but more things to do to make players constantly move about. There's always room from improvement in what can be done to give players a purpose in the gaming world. This is something that has always been lacking in most mmo's. What the OP has experienced is certainly a lack of purpose for players to be waiting around just to do mindless raiding over and over. Games such as wow have gotten caught up in the gear grind. It's nothing new. I personally avoid that sort of gameplay. If there is nothing to do in the open world because devs spent most resources making dynamic content in instances, ofcourse player activity is going to move towards those instances.

    In the other hand, if developers start concentrating on the player experience in the open world. There are things such as easter egg hunting such as collectibles, resource gathering system in place which can be ranked up extensively, random rare resources to hunt for, hidden loot through puzzles, or even worth while world encounters among other more well thought out ideas for those looking for a challenge. The development of new ideas in MMO's needs to continue, not stop.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by laokoko

    I never really get why people care that the world is empty. 

    I understand for pvp you need people to play with.  But take GW2 for example, who even care if the world is empty or not.  There isn't even much to do in there. 

    I mean, most of the dynamic event are soloable.  Those that have champion mob you can just skip it, it is no big deal.  I mean other people play dark fall before, do you ever hear them say, "oh wow, there is a monster I can't kill and no one want to kill it".

    And people keep saying exploring.  What is there to explore if you already been to a place.  It is not like some random thing pop up and you get excited.  To me virtual world is boring and unexcited unless it have pvp. 

    That is the point. It is about gameplay option. A virtual persistent world is useless if you don't have compelling gameplay in there.

    And this idea about exploration is just meh ... the first time is exploration, the second time is commute. And few devs can make interesting big world that you can explore for any significant amount of time. Also .. endless terrain is not interesting.

    But i digress. Even if you want to explore, there is no need to have a persistent world. An instance with the size of SKYRIM will suffice.

  • RefMinorRefMinor MyTownPosts: 3,452Member
    Originally posted by Wraithone
    Originally posted by jimdandy26
    Originally posted by RefMinor
    Originally posted by laokoko
    Originally posted by Phelcher
    Most who do looby style games, do so because they are bored with the game, but still enjoy the incertainty of combat.. Or, the game itself is boring and lobby os the only thing phun left to do.

    Either way, it is no phun to play a lobby game you are paying for, so most games turned into ftp, because most turned into lobby games.

    Point is.. any lobby game now is not worth noting, as it's already dieing or dead.

    Ya I mean all those virtual world game are doing much better.

    That is why currently the mmorpg market are full with those virtual world games everyone love and play.

    They are coming.

    To fall into the very same "themepark trap". I really cannot wait for the excuses to come rolling in from the sandbox crowd when they fail just as spectacularly.

    Thats going to be quite interesting... After hearing them go on (and on...) about sand boxes, it will be fascinating to hear the excuses that get offered up... ^^

    Actually I was referring to both sandbox and themepark, eso will be a themepark but they won't be neglecting the virtual world side of things, Narius is mistaken if he thinks the future is AAA lobby based MMORPGs.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by RefMinor
     

    Actually I was referring to both sandbox and themepark, eso will be a themepark but they won't be neglecting the virtual world side of things, Narius is mistaken if he thinks the future is AAA lobby based MMORPGs.

    May be .. no one can predict the future perfectly. However, if you look at the past, i don't see virtual world a huge reason for success in online games. Look at what are successful lately in online games ...

    - LOL

    - WOT

    - Diablo 3

    - Borderland 2

    ....

    None has a persistent online world. The only one that comes close is PS2 ... and mainly because it is pvp. We will see how firefall will flare with large scale TPS pve.

    And if you talk about the future, you don't think the next Diablo expansion, Borderland, PoE, Marvel Heroes ... are going to AAA lobby base? Surely there may be some vritual world games, but if you seriously believe there is a gaming future without these lobby games, i have a bridge to sell you.

  • AeliousAelious Portland, ORPosts: 2,850Member Uncommon
    Im anxiously awaiting the next way this same subject can be asked. I think it's up to five now if I'm not mistaken, each culminating to the same outcome. We all have our preference and viewpoint regarding, well, everything in life and this is no different. Want a "majority view"? Either put polls up asking if others agree or look to entities that may know real numbers. Like, say, Blizzard. If an instanced world with no one in it is what most players want or care about why did Blizzard implement CRZ? That fact alone answers this thread.
  • RefMinorRefMinor MyTownPosts: 3,452Member
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by RefMinor
     

    Actually I was referring to both sandbox and themepark, eso will be a themepark but they won't be neglecting the virtual world side of things, Narius is mistaken if he thinks the future is AAA lobby based MMORPGs.

    May be .. no one can predict the future perfectly. However, if you look at the past, i don't see virtual world a huge reason for success in online games. Look at what are successful lately in online games ...

    - LOL

    - WOT

    - Diablo 3

    - Borderland 2

    ....

    None has a persistent online world. The only one that comes close is PS2 ... and mainly because it is pvp. We will see how firefall will flare with large scale TPS pve.

    And if you talk about the future, you don't think the next Diablo expansion, Borderland, PoE, Marvel Heroes ... are going to AAA lobby base? Surely there may be some vritual world games, but if you seriously believe there is a gaming future without these lobby games, i have a bridge to sell you.

    You are the one telling people that MMOs will become lobby based, I am not trying to push virtual worlds into non MMOs, ESO, EQ:Next, Archeage amongst others are not your favoured lobby games but are full AAA MMORPGs, the virtual world continues, whether you sell your lobby based bridge to anyone here or not.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by RefMinor
     

    You are the one telling people that MMOs will become lobby based, I am not trying to push virtual worlds into non MMOs, ESO, EQ:Next, Archeage amongst others are not your favoured lobby games but are full AAA MMORPGs, the virtual world continues, whether you sell your lobby based bridge to anyone here or not.

    What do you mean by "will"? Aren't a lot of MMO already have lobby based gameplay. I didn't say all of them, did i? But isn't it true that there are many MMOs with lobby-based gameplay?

    In fact, almost all end-game pve gameplay in WOW, STO, DDO ... (and a long list of MMOs) are lobby based. Do you disagree?

  • MyriaMyria Lowell, MAPosts: 570Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    In fact, almost all end-game pve gameplay in WOW, STO, DDO ... (and a long list of MMOs) are lobby based. Do you disagree?

    It's not clear if you even know what "lobby based" means or not. It does not, in point of fact, mean 'a game that has instances'. It does not even mean 'a game that can be played as essentially lobby based if I want to play it that way'.

    Multiple persons in this thread have stated that they do not in fact play their MMO of choice anything like a 'lobby game', games you say *are* lobby games.

    Until and unless you can provide actual evidence -- not your assumptions, not your surmises, and not "that's what my guild did in game X some indeterminant time ago and it's pretty clear that I never really played the game at all" assertions, actual evidence that a majority, or even significant minority, of the playerbase never goes into the game world -- I'll take their assertions far more seriously than I take your self-serving assumptions.

Sign In or Register to comment.