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!

Fun and challenge should exist before endgame

135

Comments

  • NekokekiNekokeki Seattle, WAPosts: 79Member
    Originally posted by coretex666

    What is the point of having everyone capped anyway.

    Is there any other reason to it than balance in PvP?

    Does MMORPG have to be a perfectly balanced e-sport?

    In my world, no. I think that MMORPGs sacrifice way too much to provide space for competitive PvP. In fact, they sacrifice the RPG part for it which is why we are getting these arcade shallow MMOs.

    They are not supposed to be FPS, they are supposed to be massive RPGs. What is the point of RPG where your character gets capped and does not progress anymore? At level CAP, these so called MMORPGs become similar to FPS in design. They are still nice to play now and then, but the immersion and seriousness are gone.

    Either make max level hardly obtainable (years) or remove levels completely. This design does not make any sense.

    "Endgame" has nothing to do in RPG.

    Just my opinion.

    There is a cap and it is obtainable, but your post reminds me of Phantasy Star Online, level cap is 200 :)  Lineage was pretty high and mighty to cap at as well wasn't it? 

  • LuxferreGamingLuxferreGaming Haverhill, MAPosts: 12Member
    Well, this is one reason I have stopped playing MMORPG's; the game is usually garbage until endgame. Every MMO I have ever played provides little to no challenge, mostly not even at the endgame. I find PvPing extremely fun, but usually PvPing doesn't happen till endgame and I have to PvE to get to the PvP. I stick to games like SMITE, LoL, DoTa 2, and FPS games because you don't have to grind to get to the fun, and even then... the endgame might get boring fast.
  • AxehiltAxehilt San Francisco, CAPosts: 8,751Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by kadepsyson

    Why should endgame exist?

    Make a new game without endgame.

    Watch players eventually get tired of it.

    Add new types of gameplay for the bored high-level players.

    Realize you've just created something they're going to call "endgame".

    In short, endgame should exist to keep games fresh.  Few types of games are dynamic enough to remain fresh on their own (most of them use PVP as a form of UGC content to keep things fresh.)

    "Joe stated his case logically and passionately, but his perceived effeminate voice only drew big gales of stupid laughter..." -Idiocracy
    "There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance." -Socrates

  • TwoThreeFourTwoThreeFour Virginia, VAPosts: 2,131Member
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by TwoThreeFour
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
     

    The problem with options is: if you can't do them well, you should not do them in the first place since it drags down the overall impression of the game. This was the reason for why GW2 did not create open PvP servers unlike many other games: they didn't think they had the time and resources to do Open PvP properly so they opted to not do it.

    It was because many of the mechanics in the game wouldn't have worked in an open world PvP environment therefore the changes would've been much more complicated than "a simple rule change". It is the similar problem as with "Skyrim MMO": Many of Skyrim's features only work in a single player environment so simply allowing multiplayer wouldn't work very well if at all.

    If you start thinking about it feature by feature, you'll notice the amount of difficulties and conflicts the devs must resolve. "Just make it multiplayer" or "just allow PvP" sounds easy, but things are rarely that simple.

     

    Which is precisely what I said: they didn't thave the time and resources to do Open PvP properly. Just making a rule change would yield Open PvP but a very bad such.

  • BanaghranBanaghran HuisoPosts: 869Member
    Originally posted by Axehilt

    Make a new game without endgame.

    Watch players eventually get tired of it.

    Add new types of gameplay for the bored high-level players.

    Realize you've just created something they're going to call "endgame".

    In short, endgame should exist to keep games fresh.  Few types of games are dynamic enough to remain fresh on their own (most of them use PVP as a form of UGC content to keep things fresh.)

    Isnt this the tunnel-visioned unimaginative development process people argue against?

    Why should new content be restricted to high-level players? How bout the thing you guys call "horizontal progression"? How bout soft-caps, ie that you can participate in everything before you hit maxlevel, but ofcourse your efficiency will "vary" ?

    Is slapping another 20 statpoints on everything really the only solution just because it is the most simple one?

    Flame on!

    :)

  • JemcrystalJemcrystal Champaign, ILPosts: 1,554Member Uncommon
    Needs to be both endgame and fun along the way.  
  • AxehiltAxehilt San Francisco, CAPosts: 8,751Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Banaghran

    Isnt this the tunnel-visioned unimaginative development process people argue against?

    Why should new content be restricted to high-level players? How bout the thing you guys call "horizontal progression"? How bout soft-caps, ie that you can participate in everything before you hit maxlevel, but ofcourse your efficiency will "vary" ?

    Is slapping another 20 statpoints on everything really the only solution just because it is the most simple one?

    Unless previous content was botched in some way, it makes a lot more sense to put new stuff at the end of progression (where high-level players are bored) than earlier (where low-level players are still enjoying the old stuff -- because it's new to them.)

    Plenty of games make the mistake of being too wide-open and watching their userbase bleed away as a result of overwhelming players with too much at once.  But if you ration things out properly, you create a game which is both simple and deep, which is the ideal.

    "Joe stated his case logically and passionately, but his perceived effeminate voice only drew big gales of stupid laughter..." -Idiocracy
    "There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance." -Socrates

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

    Make a new game without endgame.

    Watch players eventually get tired of it.

    Add new types of gameplay for the bored high-level players.

    Realize you've just created something they're going to call "endgame".

    In short, endgame should exist to keep games fresh.  Few types of games are dynamic enough to remain fresh on their own (most of them use PVP as a form of UGC content to keep things fresh.)

    Isnt this the tunnel-visioned unimaginative development process people argue against?

    Why should new content be restricted to high-level players? How bout the thing you guys call "horizontal progression"? How bout soft-caps, ie that you can participate in everything before you hit maxlevel, but ofcourse your efficiency will "vary" ?

    Is slapping another 20 statpoints on everything really the only solution just because it is the most simple one?

    Flame on!

    :)

    It is probably not the only solution, but a solution that works. Is there a reason why this is a problem? Play up to end game. Finish the content. Stop. Wait for the next content release. Essentially it is like finishing a game and wait for a new one .. just that the "new" content is an expansion (or content release, or whatever you call it) and not   a new game.

    If the content is fun, there is no issue. If the content is not fun, it does not matter if it is end-game content or not.

    And i don't understand why people complains that leveling is not fun. If it is not, you should not play it. Find a game that is fun to level. That has nothing to do with whether there is an end-game or not.

  • BanaghranBanaghran HuisoPosts: 869Member
    Originally posted by Axehilt

    Unless previous content was botched in some way, it makes a lot more sense to put new stuff at the end of progression (where high-level players are bored) than earlier (where low-level players are still enjoying the old stuff -- because it's new to them.)

    Plenty of games make the mistake of being too wide-open and watching their userbase bleed away as a result of overwhelming players with too much at once.  But if you ration things out properly, you create a game which is both simple and deep, which is the ideal.

    Only if you have a completely linear, vertical and whatnot progression, which was technically my whole point.

    As for "simple and deep", you know, anyone can watch PA, but very few actually notice when they use words like "experientially different" or "meaningful choices", depth itself does not magically appear out of simplicity with some recoloring options thrown in :)

    Flame on!

    :)

  • BanaghranBanaghran HuisoPosts: 869Member
    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    It is probably not the only solution, but a solution that works. Is there a reason why this is a problem? Play up to end game. Finish the content. Stop. Wait for the next content release. Essentially it is like finishing a game and wait for a new one .. just that the "new" content is an expansion (or content release, or whatever you call it) and not   a new game.

    If the content is fun, there is no issue. If the content is not fun, it does not matter if it is end-game content or not.

    And i don't understand why people complains that leveling is not fun. If it is not, you should not play it. Find a game that is fun to level. That has nothing to do with whether there is an end-game or not.

    Or dont play at all if this is all you hope for? :)

    Flame on!

    :)

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

    It is probably not the only solution, but a solution that works. Is there a reason why this is a problem? Play up to end game. Finish the content. Stop. Wait for the next content release. Essentially it is like finishing a game and wait for a new one .. just that the "new" content is an expansion (or content release, or whatever you call it) and not   a new game.

    If the content is fun, there is no issue. If the content is not fun, it does not matter if it is end-game content or not.

    And i don't understand why people complains that leveling is not fun. If it is not, you should not play it. Find a game that is fun to level. That has nothing to do with whether there is an end-game or not.

    Or dont play at all if this is all you hope for? :)

    Flame on!

    :)

    uh? Why shouldn't i play if a game is fun?

  • AxehiltAxehilt San Francisco, CAPosts: 8,751Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Banaghran

    Only if you have a completely linear, vertical and whatnot progression, which was technically my whole point.

    As for "simple and deep", you know, anyone can watch PA, but very few actually notice when they use words like "experientially different" or "meaningful choices", depth itself does not magically appear out of simplicity with some recoloring options thrown in :)

    Whatever color you paint it, too much complexity early on reduces your game's retention.  LOL will eventually see diminishing retention of new players as its champion count continues to grow, because playing LOL well requires knowing not only your own champion (simple) but the opponents' champions (simple when there were 20 champions; quite time-consuming when there are 112.)  Calling it by a different name like lateral progression doesn't change this -- too many rules early on pushes players away.

    Depth doesn't magically appear.  Nobody said it did.  We're talking about whether it's a wise plan to overcomplicate the early gameplay vs. layering on content later on in progression.  One is outright a bad move because it involves complication for complication's sake.  The other can be an acceptable move, as it involves layering in new rules (which are hopefully also simple) which interact in interesting ways with the existing ruleset and create depth.

    I barely visit PA, though Extra Credit is awesome and has been 100% correct each time I've watched it.  I speak to depth because (a) I've played many games at an extremely high level of play to know which are deep and which aren't, and (b) I'm a game designer professionally, and by closely monitoring the changes in player behavior based on changes I make to games I see a direct cause-and-effect of how different design decisions impact a game.   I don't make MMORPGs, but the underlying principles are the same in any genre so when I speak about depth there tends to be a lot of actual game-making experience behind the words.

    "Joe stated his case logically and passionately, but his perceived effeminate voice only drew big gales of stupid laughter..." -Idiocracy
    "There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance." -Socrates

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

    It is probably not the only solution, but a solution that works. Is there a reason why this is a problem? Play up to end game. Finish the content. Stop. Wait for the next content release. Essentially it is like finishing a game and wait for a new one .. just that the "new" content is an expansion (or content release, or whatever you call it) and not   a new game.

    If the content is fun, there is no issue. If the content is not fun, it does not matter if it is end-game content or not.

    And i don't understand why people complains that leveling is not fun. If it is not, you should not play it. Find a game that is fun to level. That has nothing to do with whether there is an end-game or not.

    That's exactly what I do.  I have zero interest in endgame, I play until I max my character and then the character gets shelved.  If the game is fun enough, I'll start another character.  If not, I'll drop the game until there is more pre-endgame content to do, or I'll just go play a different game.

    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

  • TheocritusTheocritus Gary, INPosts: 3,754Member Uncommon
    As far as I am concerned, the journey is always greater than the destination....When (and if) I reach end game I eitehr start playing alts or go to a new game......
  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Cephus404
     

    That's exactly what I do.  I have zero interest in endgame, I play until I max my character and then the character gets shelved.  If the game is fun enough, I'll start another character.  If not, I'll drop the game until there is more pre-endgame content to do, or I'll just go play a different game.

    Yeah. Just play whatever part of the game that entertains you .. that is what an entertainment product is about.

    And there is no lack of good games to play. Personally i like end-game progression too .. but i can totally see why some only digs level progression.

  • AxehiltAxehilt San Francisco, CAPosts: 8,751Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Theocritus
    As far as I am concerned, the journey is always greater than the destination....When (and if) I reach end game I eitehr start playing alts or go to a new game......

    Sounds like you're more concerned with the mile-markers than the journey itself.

    Once the levels stop coming, you don't see the road ahead (all the things you could do), you only see the lack of mile-markers (level-ups) in the road beyond.  So you end the journey before it's really ended.

    "Joe stated his case logically and passionately, but his perceived effeminate voice only drew big gales of stupid laughter..." -Idiocracy
    "There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance." -Socrates

  • AeliousAelious Portland, ORPosts: 2,854Member Uncommon
    Depending on the game the journey does end or changes to something completely different. WoW is the biggest and best example of this. Level scaling is a HUGE aspect to
    Playability after level cap.
  • AkulasAkulas GoldcoastPosts: 1,619Member Uncommon
    Just play it and have fun and not worry about levels or endgame. The game is only what you make it.

    This isn't a signature, you just think it is.

  • DonY81DonY81 RochesterPosts: 350Member
    They could cap level achievements and levelling per day. That will slow people down then put more emphasis on things like crafting and make it worthwhile. Possibly run a few dungeons group or solo i dont know. Maybe your characters story which could be seperate from earning XP could be something else that could be looked at.

    image
  • BanaghranBanaghran HuisoPosts: 869Member
    Originally posted by Axehilt

    Whatever color you paint it, too much complexity early on reduces your game's retention.  LOL will eventually see diminishing retention of new players as its champion count continues to grow, because playing LOL well requires knowing not only your own champion (simple) but the opponents' champions (simple when there were 20 champions; quite time-consuming when there are 112.)  Calling it by a different name like lateral progression doesn't change this -- too many rules early on pushes players away.

    Depth doesn't magically appear.  Nobody said it did.  We're talking about whether it's a wise plan to overcomplicate the early gameplay vs. layering on content later on in progression.  One is outright a bad move because it involves complication for complication's sake.  The other can be an acceptable move, as it involves layering in new rules (which are hopefully also simple) which interact in interesting ways with the existing ruleset and create depth.

    I barely visit PA, though Extra Credit is awesome and has been 100% correct each time I've watched it.  I speak to depth because (a) I've played many games at an extremely high level of play to know which are deep and which aren't, and (b) I'm a game designer professionally, and by closely monitoring the changes in player behavior based on changes I make to games I see a direct cause-and-effect of how different design decisions impact a game.   I don't make MMORPGs, but the underlying principles are the same in any genre so when I speak about depth there tends to be a lot of actual game-making experience behind the words.

    But why do you, its not really jumping, you have put on 7 mile boots for this one, arrive at the conclusions that it would overcomplicate things and it has to be very early? Or should we really take only the bad examples into account? Like in your progressive system dead content that is completely skipped?

    As for (a) , i will let you find out on your own why i think it is actually a bad thing, and as for (b), it made me think of an era around 7-8 years ago, when soon-to-be-bankrupt managers pranced around mobile gaming companies spewing things like "a game has to entertain just for the first 15 seconds, then people will play it and be happy", so i wont comment :)

    Flame on!

    :)

  • BanaghranBanaghran HuisoPosts: 869Member
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Banaghran
    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    It is probably not the only solution, but a solution that works. Is there a reason why this is a problem? Play up to end game. Finish the content. Stop. Wait for the next content release. Essentially it is like finishing a game and wait for a new one .. just that the "new" content is an expansion (or content release, or whatever you call it) and not   a new game.

    If the content is fun, there is no issue. If the content is not fun, it does not matter if it is end-game content or not.

    And i don't understand why people complains that leveling is not fun. If it is not, you should not play it. Find a game that is fun to level. That has nothing to do with whether there is an end-game or not.

    Or dont play at all if this is all you hope for? :)

    Flame on!

    :)

    uh? Why shouldn't i play if a game is fun?

    Fun is subjective, what is enough for you is not guaranteed to be enough for everyone else.

    Flame on!

    :)

  • Cephus404Cephus404 Redlands, CAPosts: 3,675Member
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Cephus404
     

    That's exactly what I do.  I have zero interest in endgame, I play until I max my character and then the character gets shelved.  If the game is fun enough, I'll start another character.  If not, I'll drop the game until there is more pre-endgame content to do, or I'll just go play a different game.

    Yeah. Just play whatever part of the game that entertains you .. that is what an entertainment product is about.

    And there is no lack of good games to play. Personally i like end-game progression too .. but i can totally see why some only digs level progression.

    I won't do endgame becuase I refuse to engage in PvP of any kind and I absolutely hate raiding.  Not much else to do in the endgame in most MMOs.

    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

  • jazz.bejazz.be Sint-NiklaasPosts: 820Member Uncommon

    Blasphemy! Challenge and fun before endgame? What are you, 35 years old??

     

    I agree though ;)

    It should be easier to die on your journey.

    Dying should be really painful like long walks, or loss of XP or something similar.

    These two things would greatly improve leveling experience.

  • GraeyGraey Jacksonville, FLPosts: 218Member
    Originally posted by waffleyone

    Race to the level cap, through huge amounts of created world, so that you can play the endgame! Why are people racing to the level cap? Because the early game is just a hollow skinner box! Why just a skinner box? Because there isn't any real sense of accomplishment!

    What?! Can't somebody develop a game where it's interesting and challenging from the start? Interesting and Challenging doesn't mean 'difficult' per se, not numerically rough or 'hardcore' or permadeath, just that you need to observe and learn and act, with an actual sense of accomplishment, rather than the ever accelerating skinner boxes. I've never made it to endgame in an MMO, and i've tried to do so in more than five, because leveling up and going to a new area never held my attention long enough. The faster I level, the faster I get bored.

    Guild Wars 2, for all its possible merits, pissed me off and I quit in the leveling phase because it was too mind numbingly easy. I like Greatswords, and I played a warrior. I ran around, annihilating everything 8 levels higher than me, playing 1handed on a laptop while laying down on a couch with my head on a pillow. And i'm not good at MMOs, it was just that easy. Really, that game might as well only go up to level 16 because you only feel a difference every 5 levels anyway, and they go by fast enough for it.

    Numeric inflation is failing as a means to keep people playing, which is why every fifth thread in this forum is "MMOS are Dying!". Offer real challenges earlier, real obstacles. Don't accelerate the hampster wheel, trying to make us think we're going somewhere by running faster. Slow us down. Give us obstacles. Challenge us. We don't need to be hit over the head with shovels all day long, we just need a reason to care why we're playing.

    The hundreds of hours I've clocked in MMORPGs has provided me with less interest and accomplishment than any given five hours of Dark Souls or Starcraft, (Excluding soloing bosses in Tera). Somebody needs to get this shit right.

     

    Edit: I'm going to pre-empt the "Go to a higher level area" argument by saying that numeric difficulty isn't challenging, doesn't carry accomplishment. Hit byootans git eckspee levuhl fahster git board kwikur.

    I agree with you OP. If I had the funds I'd def try and make an MMO. But first what I would do is take some time off and study AI. Study it in a way that I could great a script for AI that would change within certain parameters. For example take wow for instance. If your fighting a boar in the woods...it just stands there and let you kill it. It doesn't really run,  there are no variables so to speak. Taken even further...if you are killing a bandit here and there is a bandit not 50ft away...shouln't the second bandit help the first.

    So....after creating an AI that actually changed based on how people played and learned then I would create the world. Also with the AI i would creat characters with the limitations of being a person..what I mean is. your character would be created and they would start young, you would be taken care of and developed over time. You would even get sick and have certain aflictions like for instance maybe you have a disease that could kill your character after a certain amount of time. However I would broaden the game rules to account for that and give you a chance to cure yourself or something.

     

    Quests-They would be firstly primitate. based off the needs of the person. For instance you would need to eat, sleep, etc. You would have to hunt, huting alone or with another person would probably increase your odds. This is where pvp would come in as other would hunt with others and kill others as well. Or I would have no pvp(however there would be loopholes) and have the character only have one life. after that you would have to start over. So this would encourage taking things flow and thinking about stuff and also group play.

    the worl dwould be chaotic and I'd propably progress through eras...instead of zones. Ie for each expansion it would cover a certain time period progressivlely going forward from a prehistoric type age into a futuristic age., with stats and genes developing other characters. Something along those lines.

  • moosecatlolmoosecatlol Boring, TXPosts: 1,172Member Uncommon

    Challenge and progression has been done before, if you have yet to see this you need to broaden your gaming portfolio.

    Any game that requires a player to handcuff and blindfold himself to experience challenge is a shit game.

     

    Boss design is a receding concept of this genre, there used to be a time when bosses would have 6-7 attacks on top of secondary mechanics and sometimes tertiary mechanics. Now most bosses can't be asked to have more than 3 attacks and most don't even have secondary mechanics.

    However you can have a mechanically well-structured boss fight and still have it not provide challenge if you allow for infinite vertical progression, personally vertical progression is one of the worse things about the genre. For instance, Path of Exile has a "decent" boss at the end of each act, but the only way to make these bosses truly challenging is by gimping yourself. This is due to the fact that you can obtain absurd amounts of survivability in this game to the point where you don't even need to try, and that's bad.

     

    A player should be able to experience a challenge while playing the game as it was intended to be played, while at the same time becoming a better player for overcoming a challenge.

Sign In or Register to comment.