It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
=-D Only on a forum can optimism be called bad and pessimism the good thing =-D Welcome to the internet and forums.
Originally posted by NanfoodleI voted other, should be no longer then it takes for the average person to learn your new char and the mechanics of the game. Longer then that it gets to be a drag and stops people from making new chars to balance out end game for missing roles in guilds and the community. Over long leveling time is something thats passed MMOs. Gone are the days of EQ1 and hell levels.
Shorter leveling curves means end-game players will spend a lot of time powerleveling and twinking alts, thereby blocking content from up and coming players, subsequently causing them to quit.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
Originally posted by theoneandonly there should be lvls but no lvl cup.
That would be a balancing nightmare.
You make me like charity
Originally posted by Caldrin As long as its a fun experience then the longer the better.. I hate modern MMORPGs that allow you to max characters in a week or two... I get bored of them so fast. it seems to be all about end game these days and in my opinion a MMORPG should not be all about end game, the jouney to that point should be just as important.
This is how mmo's were, then world of warcraft came out and ruined the genre single handedly. Now mmo's are mostly solo to cap in a few days then raid for gear that has no more real use in the game. Most of the newer mmo's have raiding, but they never put in any non-raid content to use the gear from the raids in like pvp, or some other kind of pve. I used to be a hardcore mmorpg player but i've pretty much given up on the genre now, due to every game feeling the exact same as the last, again this all started with wow's release. Elder scrolls online sounds nice, but watch, it'll end up just like wow with a slightly diff combat system just like every other mmo. Which will be sad if I am right, because the game sounds promising. As long as they make raid gear, the best gear for the endgame pvp I will be happy, DO not seperate pve and pvp gear, that just screws it all up.
Being a pessimist is a win-win pattern of thinking. If you're a pessimist (I'll admit that I am!) you're either:
A. Proven right (if something bad happens)
B. Pleasantly surprised (if something good happens)
Either way, you can't lose! Try it out sometime!
Originally posted by asmkm22
Originally posted by theoneandonly there should be lvls but no lvl cup. That would be a balancing nightmare.
Originally posted by theoneandonly there should be lvls but no lvl cup.
Yes and no, Depends how its done. For example a game like Drox Operative a great little space rpg game, could technacally do fine with no level caps with how the game is setup. Each sector is randomly generated based on stuff u set, and the monsters use an algorithym I believe for how their stats raise, as does the items. They made the game I think with the intent to up the level cap past the current cap of 100 eventually. I don't know why but I am addicted to Drox, I pirated it first, then liked it so much I actually bought it direct from the devolopers website, its honestly the best game I've played in a while it actually keeps me intersted unlike most of the trash these AAA devs want 70 bucks for.
Originally posted by Theocritus End game is rarely ever a goal for me in MMOs....usually when I hit end game the game ends, at least for that character....The only game I have played for any length past end game was EQ and you had AA abilities that you could gain to improve your character.....For me the journey is always the key to a MMO.
Sadly mmo's aren't built anymore to be about the journey, its all about playing solo till lv cap then raiding for worthless gear (these mmo's never put in a use for the raid gear outside of more raids, hell even it being best gear for pvp would work).
In GW1 I could get to cap (in Factions) in an afternoon, but then I continued playing that game for years on end. In GW2 I really couldn't be bothered going further than 50 and quit after a few short weeks.
Having a level grind isn't a substitute for having a fun and immersive game.
currently playing: DDO, AOC, WoT, P101
Its hard to say.
I went from UO for a ton of years to DAOC.
UO was skilled based, and yes we grinded which was boring as hell at places like the bone wall to macro'n skills to raise them fast.
In DAOC i had a great time and although reaching max level took quite some time, it is the only game ever when i reached max level on my first character that I smiled and felt accomplished, it took quite some time.
In newer games I never had that smile or feeling of accomplishment, maybe because it was too fast or maybe because I had done it before. I tend to feel that it was far to quick though. Games should make players feel like they've done something. Games like WoW where you can find guides to max characters in a few days(sorry i haven't played the game since before BC so i dont know how long it takes now) i feel hurts game play.
I dunno, its just my opinion.
Back when I started playing vanilla WoW (first mmo), I hated how slow leveling was. After playing GW2, I was depressed at how quickly I was tearing through levels. It just didn't feel significant. I think the grind, miserable as it may be, is a feature that I enjoy while leveling because it causes me to bond with my character and remain patient with the experience.
My vote goes to 6+ mo. Not only does a longer experience add to my enjoyment, but it cuts down on the number of people running alts. I'm attached to the archaic idea that you should have one character in an mmorpg.
I never reached max level in Asherons Call...only got to level 124 and I played off and on for 6 years. That was due to it having NO END GAME...it just had lots of GAME and free MONTHLY UPDATES, 2 were larger than most Everquest 1 epacs.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
Originally posted by Icewhite
Originally posted by Adamantine
I hate the concept of a "maxlevel". There is no limit to what you can do in reallife, either, and a MMO is a game you can potentially play from youth to old age. If the players would slow down to a rate where the developers could stay ahead, the cap could go. Ha. Sorry, still laughiing.
Originally posted by Adamantine
I hate the concept of a "maxlevel". There is no limit to what you can do in reallife, either, and a MMO is a game you can potentially play from youth to old age.
I hate the concept of a "maxlevel".
There is no limit to what you can do in reallife, either, and a MMO is a game you can potentially play from youth to old age.
If the players would slow down to a rate where the developers could stay ahead, the cap could go.
Ha. Sorry, still laughiing.
Devs talk about taking at least 8 weeks to make 2 weeks (hopefully) worth of content. it's rough.
For me these games are (in theory) an improvement on reading a Conan story or watching a Star Wars movie in that you can step into that world and be part of it. If a world does that then 6 months+. However if that is the case then it can't be too grindy - because it's not the amount of time that makes it fun but *if* you like the world you don't want it to be over too quick (and for me max level is over) - which means there has to be a lot of variety in the game in terms of levelling spots, mobs to fight and distraction activities for when you want a break from levelling.
One way out of the endgame obsession might be not having a max level. One practical way to do that might be to not have classes as such but still have class skills.
What i mean by this is have warrior, mage, rogue, crafting etc skill trees with say 50 skills in each tree and then each level you can pick one new skill from any of the trees (as long as you have the pre-requisites of that skill in the particular tree) so a level 30 player might have 30 warrior skills or 15 warrior and 15 mage or 10 warrior, 10 priest and 10 crafting etc. Also at the top of the skill trees would be things like +1 constitution or +100 mana with unlimited raises so you could do that instead if you had your character how you wanted them or even if you played long enough to get all the skills in every tree you could still carry on levelling if you wanted.
(Skills/spells would be restricted to n actives/passives at a time in a deck and a lot of them would be situational or designed for particular mobs so a player wouldn't necessarily get exponentially more powerful as they levelled just more flexible.)
Dephends on how the mmo is set up.
If the mmo is based around its endgame, max level content (WoW for instance). I would rather have an EXTREMELY short levelling portion (12 hours max), which is long enough to help players get acquainted with their class and skills but not long enough to discourage alts. Fast levelling also means that less levelling content needs to be added which means more of the budget can go towards the endgame, balances and features.
Meanwhile if the game is not designed around end game content, but is more about being an virtual world and letting players live in it I would love a long time to reach the level cap. For my ideal mmo there would be a long levelling portion BUT the power gain would also be really small, a max level player would be at a maximum 3 times stronger than a level 1 character.
Originally posted by Scot No way can a MMO be better than reading a book, or watching a film for that matter. Each genre has its pros and cons, MMOs are stronger on immersion, weaker on story for example.
Many single player games have better immersion than most MMOs. Dead Space (the first one) is a good example.
And yes, you are right, MMOs are not better (as entertainment) than books or movies. However, people do like variety and hence all forms of entertainment have their place.
Well i said improvement rather than better but that's probably not a good choice of words either. What i mean is for example if you're already a big Tolkein fan then running around the shire in Lotro is an ~some word i can't think of~ on the books. Obviously you need the book/film in the first place to make you want to run round in the world the book/film created (or that type of world).
No matter how cynical you become, its never enough to keep up - Lily Tomlin
Ive compiled the poll results based on 242 votes and 121 comments so far (nice symmetry there). Here's the breakdown:
Under 1 month = 34 votes or 14.1%
Up to 3 months = 54 votes or 22.3%
Over 6 months = 109 votes or 45%
Other = 45 votes or 18.6%
Based on the 3 option of "up to 3 months and over 6 months we had 163 votes:
Character progression and develoment = 94 votes or 57.7%
A strong community interaction in game = 28 votes or 17.2%
I feel like I'm in a great alternate reality = 41 votes or 25.1%
After going through the 121 comments posted there were two main comments that stood out. The first one being that the levelling should be endless and the second was that there should be no levelling at all but have character development (sandbox style). Looking at the first data set the clear indication as well as supporting comments is that people want to be immersed in the game to develop their character at a slower pace than what many MMO's offer today.
I would be almost inclined to put 60% of the other votes in with the over 6 month votes as many who indicated that they voted "Other" wanted endless content or No levels but character development.
As shown in the second set of stats character progression and development seems to be a huge driving force for a player staying with a game or leaving it. Based on my first poll which I did a few days earlier called - Whats your main reason for playing a MMO game? and is currently in "in the Spotlight" at the top of the forum, nearly 27% of people voted chose "Alternate reality" whilst only 20% chose "Character progression/development" from the 10 options.
The consistant thing here is that these two options came out on top in both polls.
Lastly, it was interesting to note that only one person mentioned that there was no option for 3 to 6 months. There were three reasons for this:
1. I thought it would be a good talking point to comment on to generate interest.
2. I thought people would either tend to select a fast rate of 3 months or faster, OR, they would want to go slow with at least 6 months. To cover this I had the "Other" option to choose from.
3. I FORGET