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.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
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.
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?
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.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
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.
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......
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.
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.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
To be fair, i dont think boss fights were intended for a constant challenge in that game, you have maps and leagues or whatwasthename for that.
In the end i think it is about grind, drops and really testing out your build, when i played it the 1hp all es build was quite strong, but you would get your face smashed by the siren and overlord due to the freeze and lightning mechanics being tied to the amount of maxhp a charater has.
Just focusing on the fun aspect, what if we pretended that RPGs could involve more than combat?
For example:
Player housing and decorating
Pet taming, breeding, fighting
Crafting system that requires some thought/planning
Exploration
City building
Resource farming
Star Wars Galaxies was possibly my favorite MMORPG of all time for the above reasons. It released originally as a level free, skill based character progression system which never really seemed to be that balanced to me. But the non-combat activites couldn't be beat. And I'll always remember hanging out in the cantinas watching players play their instruments for the dancers(with their player crafted outfits and makeup) while 3-4 medics sat around and kept their energy topped off so they wouldn't have to take rest breaks...
Comments
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.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
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.
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!
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.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
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.
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!
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?
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.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
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
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.
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.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Playability after level cap.
This isn't a signature, you just think it is.
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!
Fun is subjective, what is enough for you is not guaranteed to be enough for everyone else.
Flame on!
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
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.
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.
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.
To be fair, i dont think boss fights were intended for a constant challenge in that game, you have maps and leagues or whatwasthename for that.
In the end i think it is about grind, drops and really testing out your build, when i played it the 1hp all es build was quite strong, but you would get your face smashed by the siren and overlord due to the freeze and lightning mechanics being tied to the amount of maxhp a charater has.
Which was nice to see.
Flame on!
Just focusing on the fun aspect, what if we pretended that RPGs could involve more than combat?
For example:
Player housing and decorating
Pet taming, breeding, fighting
Crafting system that requires some thought/planning
Exploration
City building
Resource farming
Star Wars Galaxies was possibly my favorite MMORPG of all time for the above reasons. It released originally as a level free, skill based character progression system which never really seemed to be that balanced to me. But the non-combat activites couldn't be beat. And I'll always remember hanging out in the cantinas watching players play their instruments for the dancers(with their player crafted outfits and makeup) while 3-4 medics sat around and kept their energy topped off so they wouldn't have to take rest breaks...