This could cause more tactical game play between players and require a much higher skill based to be desired by groups. However, the challenge would have to progress.
Meaning you would need easier enemies to fight at the beginning of your game, and finding ones with increasing difficulty later on? Absolutely.
Doesn't need continually increasing player stats to do that. In fact, should be easier to do without.
This could cause more tactical game play between players and require a much higher skill based to be desired by groups. However, the challenge would have to progress.
Meaning you would need easier enemies to fight at the beginning of your game, and finding ones with increasing difficulty later on? Absolutely.
Doesn't need continually increasing player stats to do that. In fact, should be easier to do without.
So all challenges should be the same? Even if my character damage, life, stats and etc never changed. I would defeat the same challenge with the same tactics over and over again and I would be very bored. There would have to be an underlying factor to grind the same challenge over and over for me to want to continue to play the game. I think tthis system would work fine with different sets of challenges for the player. If your character doesn't change, something else will have to. The environment, the enemy or some other x factor.
This could cause more tactical game play between players and require a much higher skill based to be desired by groups. However, the challenge would have to progress.
Meaning you would need easier enemies to fight at the beginning of your game, and finding ones with increasing difficulty later on? Absolutely.
Doesn't need continually increasing player stats to do that. In fact, should be easier to do without.
So all challenges should be the same? Even if my character damage, life, stats and etc never changed. I would defeat the same challenge with the same tactics over and over again and I would be very bored. There would have to be an underlying factor to grind the same challenge over and over for me to want to continue to play the game. I think tthis system would work fine with different sets of challenges for the player. If your character doesn't change, something else will have to. The environment, the enemy or some other x factor.
This could cause more tactical game play between players and require a much higher skill based to be desired by groups. However, the challenge would have to progress.
First of all, that actually doesn't take place in progression based games, because your character's strength increases at the same rate that the level of difficulty of the content you are trying to do increases. However, it could be included in a game without progression, very easily. There could be regions with monsters and dungeons with bosses that have less forgiving AI than you find in the starter areas.
I 100% agree with the notion of the AI being more challenging. Would hate to fight a dragon that fights like that rat I killed.
Here, let me give you an example of how the challenge could scale. Let's say that every player and enemy in the game has 5 abilities and 100 health, just to simplify it. This doesn't have to be the case. Different stats and abilities can be involved in determining difficulty level. I'm not saying different stats and abilities can't exist, just that player stats and abilities don't change (also not saying every player will have the same stats and abilities, there can be different classes, in fact there has to be for the trinity to exist).
A rat, in the starter area could have
Bite- 5 points of damage, 3 second cooldown
Claw Swipe- 1 point of damage to all targets in mele range in front of it, 3 second cooldown
Pounce- stuns target for 2 seconds, 10 second cooldown
Lick Wounds- heals 5 points of damage on self, 5 second cooldown
Scamper- quickly runs randomly around, preventing all damage for 3 seconds, 10 second cooldown
While a dragon in a difficult rated dungeon could have
Bite- 5 points of damage, 3 second cooldown
Breathe fire- 1 point of damage to all targets in mele range in front of it, 3 second cooldown
Ancient Tongue- stuns target for 2 second, 10 second cooldown
Lick Wounds- heals 5 points of damage on self, 5 second cooldown
Fly- flies into the air, preventing all damage for 3 seconds, 10 second cooldown
The difference would be that the rat is too stupid to use anything but bite 90% of the time, and doesn't always use it as soon as it is on cooldown. The dragon, however, would be much more inclined to chose the most appropriate move to use, and never waste a cooldown.
Originally posted by Burdoc101 Could you list examples of MMOs without progression @OP?
What type of progression? Gear? Skills though.
The argument usually revolves around what gear does what in a form of carrot chasing.
Personally, I'm fine with building/crafting in itself. Don't need 24/7 paranoia to feel excited. Liked that MUD game and having to temper a weapon for 3hrs and pray it has the good stats. As long as it doesn't feel grindy, and there's some reward for time and effort, it's worthwhile. Why do all these games have to have 1000001 updates every 90 days so people can't be bored?
Spending 3 hours crafting a weapon, with no guarantee it will have the stats you want, and you don't think that's a grind?
That is the very definition of grind!!
The progression in MMOs is simple, to get use to your character and perfect your skills, all while developing social contacts and a reputation as a good player.
If your in an MMO for any other reason, then your in the wrong game.
So all challenges should be the same? Even if my character damage, life, stats and etc never changed. I would defeat the same challenge with the same tactics over and over again and I would be very bored. There would have to be an underlying factor to grind the same challenge over and over for me to want to continue to play the game. I think tthis system would work fine with different sets of challenges for the player. If your character doesn't change, something else will have to. The environment, the enemy or some other x factor.
No, doesn't mean at all that challenges have to be the same. You can have encounters of various difficulties, so you can, with increasing skill (as a player, not as a character) look for more difficult challenges to keep yourself interested.
The problem of repetition isn't really part of this discussion, it happens in progression based systems as well. Heck, it's pretty much part of their definition.
Ok, now that we've established that monsters' and boss' difficulty levels' are not restricted without progression, let's talk about the difficulty of the dungeon itself. This is a thing that you typically don't see in MMORPG's anymore.
Let me be perfectly clear about what I am referring to, in an effort to hopefully avoid any further misunderstandings. I am talking about the difficulty of the dungeon itself. Not of the monsters in the dungeon, not of the boss in the dungeon, the difficulty of the dungeon itself.
Did you get that?
Ok, good. What is this all about? Puzzles. If you are at this moment thinking anything similar to "No one would want to be bothered with them" or "They would just get in the way" please keep reading before you comment.
There is a role in rpgs that is often neglected. The dude who activates the mechanisms, disarms the traps, and generally makes it possible for the rest of the party to proceed through the dungeon itself. You might call him a rogue, you might call him a scout, I don't care what you call him as long as you know what I'm talking about. Hey, that rhymed, lol.
Easy rated dungeons could have no puzzles or simple puzzles. The harder the dungeon, the harder the puzzles. Puzzles could be randomized so that it's not the same boring solution every time. Did you catch that? Puzzles could be randomized so that it's not the same boring solution every time.
This does not mean that the dungeon itself has to be randomized, just that there are a bunch of different possible obstacles that can appear in a bunch of different possible places in the dungeon. And more can be added as content updates.
Some puzzles might require one player to solve, while others might require the whole raid to cooperate.
Each puzzle could also not only open up the way, but reveal a chest full of gold for the party to share.
If you have been keeping up with all of this, you might be wondering what exactly the gold in the game would be used for.
There could be all kinds of consumables that could be bought from npcs in the towns, ranging from simple health potions, to potions that turn your character into a unicorn for 5 minutes, just for fun.
There could also be random toys that you could get to mess around with while waiting for the rest of your party or raid.
There could be decorations you can buy for your house, and depending on the complexity of the player housing system, you could also use your money for actually building your house as well.
You could use money to hire npcs to guard you, teleport you places, or do other random services for you.
You could use money to play random minigames, where you could win random prizes.
You could buy mounts
You could buy and sell all of these things on the auction house, and even play the market to try to get rich.
And here's the best part of all:
You could buy weapons and armor and different outfits and costumes, that are all just for looks. If you are a mage, but want to wield a sword, well then you will shoot lightening out of the tip of that sword. If you are a warrior and want to wield a staff, then you will bash your enemies upside the head with that staff. You can also wear a tutu, if you like, because your thick skin is what is protecting you. If you want to run around as a mage in full armor, go ahead, it's not gonna do you any good, because you'll still get the wind knocked outta you when that 50 foot ogre throws you across the room, because you aren't built to take a beating. How will people know who's what class, if not by their weapons and armor? Instead of the name above the head of the character Bob just saying Bob, it would say Mage Bob, if he were a mage. The health bars could also be color coded.
What weapon you are wielding could change the animations for your abilities, but it would not effect their effectiveness.
An unarmed warrior would have boring punching and kicking animations for all of his moves, but a warrior with an axe will be a little more flashy. Wearing the right armor would also make the animations look cooler. A mage with flowing robes would have those robes flutter around while he is casting a spell. A warrior with spiked armor could tackle an enemy, impaling it with his own body.
There could even still be epic gear obtained from dungeons, but still just for looks. You rip out that dragon's skull, and wear it as a helmet, or use the leg of a giant spider as a staff.
Everything in the game would be tradeable, but there would still be achievements and titles to distinguish truly accomplished players from rich noobs.
And, of course, all of these things could be expanded upon with content updates.
You could get trophies from defeating bosses, which you can display in your house. You could set up events where friends or guild members or even random players are invited to your house to play random minigames to win prizes. There could even be a new random cue system, the random house party finder. You could store outfits and weapons and toys, and generally anything you don't want to carry around with you, because your house is your bank. You could also just stuff something into a chest. Ideally, you would have complete control of the design of your house, including hidden passageways and secret rooms.
This could cause more tactical game play between players and require a much higher skill based to be desired by groups. However, the challenge would have to progress.
First of all, that actually doesn't take place in progression based games, because your character's strength increases at the same rate that the level of difficulty of the content you are trying to do increases. However, it could be included in a game without progression, very easily. There could be regions with monsters and dungeons with bosses that have less forgiving AI than you find in the starter areas.
The difference between the two is that, in your scenario, you've now forced a skill progression on the player, whereas in most modern MMOs, the player chooses his rate of progression and content difficulty by the level he chooses to complete it at.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
This could cause more tactical game play between players and require a much higher skill based to be desired by groups. However, the challenge would have to progress.
First of all, that actually doesn't take place in progression based games, because your character's strength increases at the same rate that the level of difficulty of the content you are trying to do increases. However, it could be included in a game without progression, very easily. There could be regions with monsters and dungeons with bosses that have less forgiving AI than you find in the starter areas.
The difference between the two is that, in your scenario, you've now forced a skill progression on the player, whereas in most modern MMOs, the player chooses his rate of progression and content difficulty by the level he chooses to complete it at.
That's not what's going on at all. There is nothing besides the players curiosity driving them into new dungeons. If they find that they are not skilled enough to do them yet, they can continue doing the lower difficulty dungeons, which don't give as much gold and have less cool looking trophies, etc until they feel more confident to try something harder.
Originally posted by sargos7 Mmo does not exclude mmorpg. I am saying there is not a single mmo that does not have progression that is successful (as in popular) and that every new mmo is an mmorpg, even though there is a substantial community that is crying out for an mmo without progression.
Where?
Substantial =/= six guys on a forum. If this market exists, someone will make an attempt to capture it.
Point a game designer at where they are hiding, and wait. Filling a new market is how you create a Behemoth.
Originally posted by sargos7 Mmo does not exclude mmorpg. I am saying there is not a single mmo that does not have progression that is successful (as in popular) and that every new mmo is an mmorpg, even though there is a substantial community that is crying out for an mmo without progression.
Where?
Substantial =/= six guys on a forum. If this market exists, someone will make an attempt to capture it.
Point a game designer at where they are hiding, and wait. Filling a new market is how you create a Behemoth.
This comment doesn't surprise me at all, considering the date you joined this site. I'm not recommending you become a necromancer but there are plenty of dead debates about this subject on this site. I'm merely bring some fresh meat to the table.
This could cause more tactical game play between players and require a much higher skill based to be desired by groups. However, the challenge would have to progress.
First of all, that actually doesn't take place in progression based games, because your character's strength increases at the same rate that the level of difficulty of the content you are trying to do increases. However, it could be included in a game without progression, very easily. There could be regions with monsters and dungeons with bosses that have less forgiving AI than you find in the starter areas.
The difference between the two is that, in your scenario, you've now forced a skill progression on the player, whereas in most modern MMOs, the player chooses his rate of progression and content difficulty by the level he chooses to complete it at.
That's not what's going on at all. There is nothing besides the players curiosity driving them into new dungeons. If they find that they are not skilled enough to do them yet, they can continue doing the lower difficulty dungeons, which don't give as much gold and have less cool looking trophies, etc until they feel more confident to try something harder.
Correct. You have just put progression on your terms instead of the character's. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for playing an MMO without the RPG progression component and going with player skill based systems like what you propose.
Puzzle Pirates does that rather effectively.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Originally posted by sargos7 Mmo does not exclude mmorpg. I am saying there is not a single mmo that does not have progression that is successful (as in popular) and that every new mmo is an mmorpg, even though there is a substantial community that is crying out for an mmo without progression.
Where?
Substantial =/= six guys on a forum. If this market exists, someone will make an attempt to capture it.
Point a game designer at where they are hiding, and wait. Filling a new market is how you create a Behemoth.
This comment doesn't surprise me at all, considering the date you joined this site. I'm not recommending you become a necromancer but there are plenty of dead debates about this subject on this site. I'm merely bring some fresh meat to the table.
Actually, I'll second Antiquated's point and question. If the market exists, devs will attempt to capture it. However, if there is data showing that is exists, I'd really like to see it.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Originally posted by sargos7 Mmo does not exclude mmorpg. I am saying there is not a single mmo that does not have progression that is successful (as in popular) and that every new mmo is an mmorpg, even though there is a substantial community that is crying out for an mmo without progression.
Where?
Substantial =/= six guys on a forum. If this market exists, someone will make an attempt to capture it.
Point a game designer at where they are hiding, and wait. Filling a new market is how you create a Behemoth.
This comment doesn't surprise me at all, considering the date you joined this site. I'm not recommending you become a necromancer but there are plenty of dead debates about this subject on this site. I'm merely bring some fresh meat to the table.
Actually, I'll second Antiquated's point and question. If the market exists, devs will attempt to capture it. However, if there is data showing that is exists, I'd really like to see it.
Ok, the question is stupid. No company finds their customers, they put out advertisements, and the customers find them.
I will grant you the point, though. You want evidence that there is a market, and I'm sure a corporation would want that evidence before funding such a project too. I hate to keep playing the same cards here, but look at Minecraft.
Originally posted by sargos7 Mmo does not exclude mmorpg. I am saying there is not a single mmo that does not have progression that is successful (as in popular) and that every new mmo is an mmorpg, even though there is a substantial community that is crying out for an mmo without progression.
Where?
Substantial =/= six guys on a forum. If this market exists, someone will make an attempt to capture it.
Point a game designer at where they are hiding, and wait. Filling a new market is how you create a Behemoth.
This comment doesn't surprise me at all, considering the date you joined this site. I'm not recommending you become a necromancer but there are plenty of dead debates about this subject on this site. I'm merely bring some fresh meat to the table.
Actually, I'll second Antiquated's point and question. If the market exists, devs will attempt to capture it. However, if there is data showing that is exists, I'd really like to see it.
Ok, the question is stupid. No company finds their customers, they put out advertisements, and the customers find them.
I will grant you the point, though. You want evidence that there is a market, and I'm sure a corporation would want that evidence before funding such a project too. I hate to keep playing the same cards here, but look at Minecraft.
Minecraft is a good example of how people want a solo or personal group creative LEGO experience. It is not a tasked-based game, it is a tool-filled toy. Yes, players like housing. We know that.
Do you feel that it is compelling enough standalone content to create an entire MMO around?
If you feel that it needs the dungeon, quest and economy components as you describe in your first post, do you not feel those mechanics and systems would violate the design choices that have made Minecraft successful?
Are you suggesting that a version of UO consisting of nothing but its housing component would do well as an MMO?
"Ok, the question is stupid. No company finds their customers, they put out advertisements, and the customers find them."
If you truly believe that and are not trolling, then advertising and marketing are topics you probably shouldn't try to speak authoritatively on in the future.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Minecraft is a good example of how people want a solo or personal group creative LEGO experience. It is not a tasked-based game, it is a tool-filled toy. Yes, players like housing. We know that.
Do you feel that it is compelling enough standalone content to create an entire MMO around?
If you feel that it needs the dungeon, quest and economy components as you describe in your first post, do you not feel that breaks those mechanics and systems would violate the design choices that have made Minecraft successful?
Are you suggesting that a version of UO consisting of nothing but its housing component would do well as an MMO?
You don't know much about Minecraft.
Why are you saying that including more than one thing in a game would break the mechanics?
Why are you asking me about taking features out of a game?
Are you just trying to find something to argue about or something to use to discredit this idea, or are you actually here to discuss it?
"Ok, the question is stupid. No company finds their customers, they put out advertisements, and the customers find them."
If you truly believe that and are not trolling, then advertising and marketing are topics you probably shouldn't try to speak authoritatively on in the future.
I did not say companies did not study their customers.
Minecraft is a good example of how people want a solo or personal group creative LEGO experience. It is not a tasked-based game, it is a tool-filled toy. Yes, players like housing. We know that.
Do you feel that it is compelling enough standalone content to create an entire MMO around?
If you feel that it needs the dungeon, quest and economy components as you describe in your first post, do you not feel that breaks those mechanics and systems would violate the design choices that have made Minecraft successful?
Are you suggesting that a version of UO consisting of nothing but its housing component would do well as an MMO?
You don't know much about Minecraft.
Why are you saying that including more than one thing in a game would break the mechanics?
Why are you asking me about taking features out of a game?
Are you just trying to find something to argue about or something to use to discredit this idea, or are you actually here to discuss it?
sargos, I'm asking you a valid question. You stated in your first post that by progression, you are speaking solely about combat progression, correct?
So, if you contend that Minecraft is proof that "there is a substantial community that is crying out for an mmo without progression" and claim Minecraft is that proof, then I'm simply asking if whether or not you l feel that the mechanics and systems you present in the OP - quests, dungeons, economy - would violate the design choices that have made Minecraft successful?
Yes, there are mobs to kill in Minecraft, but isn't the combat of Minecraft the most trivial part and least significant to its success?
I'm not trying to discredit your ideas at all, rather asking questions to try to understand your idea better, as I'm not seeing the connection you are drawing from one thing to another.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
sargos, I'm asking you a valid question. You stated in your first post that by progression, you are speaking solely about combat progression, correct?
So, if you contend that Minecraft is proof that "there is a substantial community that is crying out for an mmo without progression" and claim Minecraft is that proof, then I'm simply asking if whether or not you l feel that the mechanics and systems you present in the OP - quests, dungeons, economy - would violate the design choices that have made Minecraft successful?
Yes, there are mobs to kill in Minecraft, but isn't the combat of Minecraft the most trivial part and least significant to its success?
I'm not trying to discredit your ideas at all, rather asking questions to try to understand your idea better, as I'm not seeing the connection you are drawing from one thing to another.
I'll be fair, and explain to you why it is not a valid question. The Minecraft community has made a mod for an economy, and all of the serious servers have it. The Minecraft community has also created servers and custom maps with quests and dungeons, and many of those are really popular.
Guess what else the Minecraft community has made? It's a mod called MCMMO, which basically adds in skills with levels based on all the actions you can do in the game, such as chopping down a tree increasing woodcutting. And guess how popular it is? It's not. It does have a decent following, but the majority of the community is against it.
How do I know this? Server stats from dozens of different sites who's whole purpose is to provide server stats in an easily filterable and searchable format. The stats are actually taken directly from the servers- it's part of the server code, an option that can be, and typically is enabled. Such stats include what mods the server has. Then there's other stats that are available even without that option enabled, such as the number of players logged in.
And just because the combat is not complicated does not mean it is not central to the game. It is. And it can be challenging too.
sargos, I'm asking you a valid question. You stated in your first post that by progression, you are speaking solely about combat progression, correct?
So, if you contend that Minecraft is proof that "there is a substantial community that is crying out for an mmo without progression" and claim Minecraft is that proof, then I'm simply asking if whether or not you l feel that the mechanics and systems you present in the OP - quests, dungeons, economy - would violate the design choices that have made Minecraft successful?
Yes, there are mobs to kill in Minecraft, but isn't the combat of Minecraft the most trivial part and least significant to its success?
I'm not trying to discredit your ideas at all, rather asking questions to try to understand your idea better, as I'm not seeing the connection you are drawing from one thing to another.
I'll be fair, and explain to you why it is not a valid question. The Minecraft community has made a mod for an economy, and all of the serious servers have it. The Minecraft community has also created servers and custom maps with quests and dungeons, and many of those are really popular.
Guess what else the Minecraft community has made? It's a mod called MCMMO, which basically adds in skills with levels based on all the actions you can do in the game, such as chopping down a tree increasing woodcutting. And guess how popular it is? It's not. It does have a decent following, but the majority of the community is against it.
How do I know this? Server stats from dozens of different sites who's whole purpose is to provide server stats in an easily filterable and searchable format. The stats are actually taken directly from the servers- it's part of the server code, an option that can be, and typically is enabled. Such stats include what mods the server has. Then there's other stats that are available even without that option enabled, such as the number of players logged in.
And just because the combat is not complicated does not mean it is not central to the game. It is.
You're bringing up aspects outside of the combat progression, and I'm not questioning that at all. You're also saying 'the stats show' but not linking to any of them, which is kind of odd but since they supposedly show something unrelated to the topic that's kind of moot.
If you feel those are relevant then we go back to the statement your post is based around:
"A lot of people seem to think that a successful mmo without [combat] progression is not possible. I disagree."
My question is then - Can you link to where you see this abundance of people that believe that, as games such as There, Kaneva, Second Life, and A Tale in the Desert have been around for almost as long as MMOs have.
Now, if you are, in fact, talking about combat-based MMOs, then, again, Minecraft is irrelevant unless you have some kind of data showing that people are playing Minecraft primarily because of the combat. Your contention that combat is core to Minecraft is false, as one can toggle off the combat and enjoy the actual core features just the same. Many do.
So let's nail down what your stance is here so that we're all on the same page:
- There is a large group of people that believe that a combat-based mmo without combat progression is not possible.
- A combat-based MMO without combat progression can be successful
- There is a substantial community that is crying out for an MMO without combat progression
Is that an accurate view of what you are presenting in this thread?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
This comment doesn't surprise me at all, considering the date you joined this site. I'm not recommending you become a necromancer but there are plenty of dead debates about this subject on this site. I'm merely bring some fresh meat to the table.
Nice try, but you missed. I've been here for years.
Easy dismissal of a question you have no answer to?
Given your previous responses, you feel that the Minecraft audience is big enough to do the job. Okay, how/why does another game company pry the Minecraft fans away from Minecraft? They seem happy enough where they're at--so, as a developer, what more do you offer them to steal the show and the cash?
You can't just offer the same; WoWClone result. You need to offer them the things they already find attractive...plus...??
Comments
Precisely.
<.<
So all challenges should be the same? Even if my character damage, life, stats and etc never changed. I would defeat the same challenge with the same tactics over and over again and I would be very bored. There would have to be an underlying factor to grind the same challenge over and over for me to want to continue to play the game. I think tthis system would work fine with different sets of challenges for the player. If your character doesn't change, something else will have to. The environment, the enemy or some other x factor.
>.< no...
<.<
I 100% agree with the notion of the AI being more challenging. Would hate to fight a dragon that fights like that rat I killed.
Here, let me give you an example of how the challenge could scale. Let's say that every player and enemy in the game has 5 abilities and 100 health, just to simplify it. This doesn't have to be the case. Different stats and abilities can be involved in determining difficulty level. I'm not saying different stats and abilities can't exist, just that player stats and abilities don't change (also not saying every player will have the same stats and abilities, there can be different classes, in fact there has to be for the trinity to exist).
A rat, in the starter area could have
<.<
Spending 3 hours crafting a weapon, with no guarantee it will have the stats you want, and you don't think that's a grind?
That is the very definition of grind!!
The progression in MMOs is simple, to get use to your character and perfect your skills, all while developing social contacts and a reputation as a good player.
If your in an MMO for any other reason, then your in the wrong game.
No, doesn't mean at all that challenges have to be the same. You can have encounters of various difficulties, so you can, with increasing skill (as a player, not as a character) look for more difficult challenges to keep yourself interested.
The problem of repetition isn't really part of this discussion, it happens in progression based systems as well. Heck, it's pretty much part of their definition.
Ok, now that we've established that monsters' and boss' difficulty levels' are not restricted without progression, let's talk about the difficulty of the dungeon itself. This is a thing that you typically don't see in MMORPG's anymore.
Let me be perfectly clear about what I am referring to, in an effort to hopefully avoid any further misunderstandings. I am talking about the difficulty of the dungeon itself. Not of the monsters in the dungeon, not of the boss in the dungeon, the difficulty of the dungeon itself.
Did you get that?
Ok, good. What is this all about? Puzzles. If you are at this moment thinking anything similar to "No one would want to be bothered with them" or "They would just get in the way" please keep reading before you comment.
There is a role in rpgs that is often neglected. The dude who activates the mechanisms, disarms the traps, and generally makes it possible for the rest of the party to proceed through the dungeon itself. You might call him a rogue, you might call him a scout, I don't care what you call him as long as you know what I'm talking about. Hey, that rhymed, lol.
Easy rated dungeons could have no puzzles or simple puzzles. The harder the dungeon, the harder the puzzles. Puzzles could be randomized so that it's not the same boring solution every time. Did you catch that? Puzzles could be randomized so that it's not the same boring solution every time.
This does not mean that the dungeon itself has to be randomized, just that there are a bunch of different possible obstacles that can appear in a bunch of different possible places in the dungeon. And more can be added as content updates.
Some puzzles might require one player to solve, while others might require the whole raid to cooperate.
Each puzzle could also not only open up the way, but reveal a chest full of gold for the party to share.
<.<
If you have been keeping up with all of this, you might be wondering what exactly the gold in the game would be used for.
There could be all kinds of consumables that could be bought from npcs in the towns, ranging from simple health potions, to potions that turn your character into a unicorn for 5 minutes, just for fun.
There could also be random toys that you could get to mess around with while waiting for the rest of your party or raid.
There could be decorations you can buy for your house, and depending on the complexity of the player housing system, you could also use your money for actually building your house as well.
You could use money to hire npcs to guard you, teleport you places, or do other random services for you.
You could use money to play random minigames, where you could win random prizes.
You could buy mounts
You could buy and sell all of these things on the auction house, and even play the market to try to get rich.
And here's the best part of all:
You could buy weapons and armor and different outfits and costumes, that are all just for looks. If you are a mage, but want to wield a sword, well then you will shoot lightening out of the tip of that sword. If you are a warrior and want to wield a staff, then you will bash your enemies upside the head with that staff. You can also wear a tutu, if you like, because your thick skin is what is protecting you. If you want to run around as a mage in full armor, go ahead, it's not gonna do you any good, because you'll still get the wind knocked outta you when that 50 foot ogre throws you across the room, because you aren't built to take a beating. How will people know who's what class, if not by their weapons and armor? Instead of the name above the head of the character Bob just saying Bob, it would say Mage Bob, if he were a mage. The health bars could also be color coded.
What weapon you are wielding could change the animations for your abilities, but it would not effect their effectiveness.
An unarmed warrior would have boring punching and kicking animations for all of his moves, but a warrior with an axe will be a little more flashy. Wearing the right armor would also make the animations look cooler. A mage with flowing robes would have those robes flutter around while he is casting a spell. A warrior with spiked armor could tackle an enemy, impaling it with his own body.
There could even still be epic gear obtained from dungeons, but still just for looks. You rip out that dragon's skull, and wear it as a helmet, or use the leg of a giant spider as a staff.
Everything in the game would be tradeable, but there would still be achievements and titles to distinguish truly accomplished players from rich noobs.
And, of course, all of these things could be expanded upon with content updates.
<.<
A bit more on the player housing.
You could get trophies from defeating bosses, which you can display in your house. You could set up events where friends or guild members or even random players are invited to your house to play random minigames to win prizes. There could even be a new random cue system, the random house party finder. You could store outfits and weapons and toys, and generally anything you don't want to carry around with you, because your house is your bank. You could also just stuff something into a chest. Ideally, you would have complete control of the design of your house, including hidden passageways and secret rooms.
<.<
The difference between the two is that, in your scenario, you've now forced a skill progression on the player, whereas in most modern MMOs, the player chooses his rate of progression and content difficulty by the level he chooses to complete it at.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
That's not what's going on at all. There is nothing besides the players curiosity driving them into new dungeons. If they find that they are not skilled enough to do them yet, they can continue doing the lower difficulty dungeons, which don't give as much gold and have less cool looking trophies, etc until they feel more confident to try something harder.
<.<
Where?
Substantial =/= six guys on a forum. If this market exists, someone will make an attempt to capture it.
Point a game designer at where they are hiding, and wait. Filling a new market is how you create a Behemoth.
This comment doesn't surprise me at all, considering the date you joined this site. I'm not recommending you become a necromancer but there are plenty of dead debates about this subject on this site. I'm merely bring some fresh meat to the table.
<.<
Correct. You have just put progression on your terms instead of the character's. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for playing an MMO without the RPG progression component and going with player skill based systems like what you propose.
Puzzle Pirates does that rather effectively.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Actually, I'll second Antiquated's point and question. If the market exists, devs will attempt to capture it. However, if there is data showing that is exists, I'd really like to see it.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Ok, the question is stupid. No company finds their customers, they put out advertisements, and the customers find them.
I will grant you the point, though. You want evidence that there is a market, and I'm sure a corporation would want that evidence before funding such a project too. I hate to keep playing the same cards here, but look at Minecraft.
<.<
Minecraft is a good example of how people want a solo or personal group creative LEGO experience. It is not a tasked-based game, it is a tool-filled toy. Yes, players like housing. We know that.
Do you feel that it is compelling enough standalone content to create an entire MMO around?
If you feel that it needs the dungeon, quest and economy components as you describe in your first post, do you not feel those mechanics and systems would violate the design choices that have made Minecraft successful?
Are you suggesting that a version of UO consisting of nothing but its housing component would do well as an MMO?
"Ok, the question is stupid. No company finds their customers, they put out advertisements, and the customers find them."
If you truly believe that and are not trolling, then advertising and marketing are topics you probably shouldn't try to speak authoritatively on in the future.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
You don't know much about Minecraft.
Why are you saying that including more than one thing in a game would break the mechanics?
Why are you asking me about taking features out of a game?
Are you just trying to find something to argue about or something to use to discredit this idea, or are you actually here to discuss it?
<.<
I did not say companies did not study their customers.
<.<
sargos, I'm asking you a valid question. You stated in your first post that by progression, you are speaking solely about combat progression, correct?
So, if you contend that Minecraft is proof that "there is a substantial community that is crying out for an mmo without progression" and claim Minecraft is that proof, then I'm simply asking if whether or not you l feel that the mechanics and systems you present in the OP - quests, dungeons, economy - would violate the design choices that have made Minecraft successful?
Yes, there are mobs to kill in Minecraft, but isn't the combat of Minecraft the most trivial part and least significant to its success?
I'm not trying to discredit your ideas at all, rather asking questions to try to understand your idea better, as I'm not seeing the connection you are drawing from one thing to another.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I'll be fair, and explain to you why it is not a valid question. The Minecraft community has made a mod for an economy, and all of the serious servers have it. The Minecraft community has also created servers and custom maps with quests and dungeons, and many of those are really popular.
Guess what else the Minecraft community has made? It's a mod called MCMMO, which basically adds in skills with levels based on all the actions you can do in the game, such as chopping down a tree increasing woodcutting. And guess how popular it is? It's not. It does have a decent following, but the majority of the community is against it.
How do I know this? Server stats from dozens of different sites who's whole purpose is to provide server stats in an easily filterable and searchable format. The stats are actually taken directly from the servers- it's part of the server code, an option that can be, and typically is enabled. Such stats include what mods the server has. Then there's other stats that are available even without that option enabled, such as the number of players logged in.
And just because the combat is not complicated does not mean it is not central to the game. It is. And it can be challenging too.
<.<
You're bringing up aspects outside of the combat progression, and I'm not questioning that at all. You're also saying 'the stats show' but not linking to any of them, which is kind of odd but since they supposedly show something unrelated to the topic that's kind of moot.
If you feel those are relevant then we go back to the statement your post is based around:
"A lot of people seem to think that a successful mmo without [combat] progression is not possible. I disagree."
My question is then - Can you link to where you see this abundance of people that believe that, as games such as There, Kaneva, Second Life, and A Tale in the Desert have been around for almost as long as MMOs have.
Now, if you are, in fact, talking about combat-based MMOs, then, again, Minecraft is irrelevant unless you have some kind of data showing that people are playing Minecraft primarily because of the combat. Your contention that combat is core to Minecraft is false, as one can toggle off the combat and enjoy the actual core features just the same. Many do.
So let's nail down what your stance is here so that we're all on the same page:
Is that an accurate view of what you are presenting in this thread?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Progression is building upon something that contributes to game play. It doesn't have to be combat. I can be economic. It can be trade. Etc.
Nice try, but you missed. I've been here for years.
Easy dismissal of a question you have no answer to?
Given your previous responses, you feel that the Minecraft audience is big enough to do the job. Okay, how/why does another game company pry the Minecraft fans away from Minecraft? They seem happy enough where they're at--so, as a developer, what more do you offer them to steal the show and the cash?
You can't just offer the same; WoWClone result. You need to offer them the things they already find attractive...plus...??