Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
My thoughts on "end game" and how to remove grind
Scottc
Member Posts: 680
I've thought for a long time that endgame is a flaw in the design of MMORPGs. To reach endgame is the grind in most games, end game is the top level content that a majority of the players are working at. The top level content continues to get higher and higher separating the new player from the veteran with expansion packs and patches that create new more powerful content. I believe this to be a flaw.
I think the grind is a product of the very nature of progression of MMORPGs, and thus it would not exist if a game were designed differently. I think this serves one purpose: to get the player emotionally attached to his time investment in the game. The ones who survive the grind aren't likely to quit, and that's why you see a lot of complaints on boards for most MMORPGs. People don't want to quit and give up their investment, it gives the developers a bit more room to push when making changes to the game without risking subscription count.
The problem with this is that it is an enemy to new players of MMORPGs, as the bar gets set higher and higher, new players have a difficult time getting into the game. Some companies like Blizzard lessen it by making it easier to level as they release new expansion packs, but you still have the same horrific grind once you reach the expansion pack's content. Sometimes they'll also try to "mask" the grind by turning killing 500 of a monster to level up into simple bite sized tasks like "kill 5 boars" that they facetiously call quests.
Now I don't think that to remove the grind or "endgame" you have to remove progression, but only to change the nature of how progression affects the game world. One such way would be to maximize the effects of skill and level gain early on while having them taper off at later levels, so the damage gain between level 1 and 2 is the same as the damage gain between level 70 and 80, thus allowing players to start playing together at diverse level ranges while still providing bonuses to long term players, and something to strive for.
My other thought is to remove the linear progression that all goes straight up to higher damage, higher health, etc etc, and instead diversify. Make players pick and choose. Why add a new sword to your game that is going to make all the other swords useless? How about a sword that proves to be useful in certain situations, against certain monsters or armors. An enchanted fire sword that does extra damage against leather armor and forest golems, but does poorly against metal armors will make players equip themselves based on what they intend to encounter. Likewise, an anti magic sword that cuts through magic buffs will be useful against mages who wear light armor but enchant themselves heavily, but not against a warrior or a rogue who is good at dodging attacks.
There are many bonuses to designing a game in this way, one of them is that new players can get into the action very quickly, find themselves playing with veterans without a lot of work, and many different niches and playstyles will be opened up by the sheer variety in the game are just three bonuses I can think of.
Your thoughts?
Comments
Would hate to have all this writing go to waste, I'm going to bump this once tonight, and once tomorrow and then let it be.
This whole progression/end game thing has been something that has been on my mind quite a bit.
I enjoy progression. I enjoy leveling. But it does separate the community and in many cases leaves vast areas of the game world as barren wastelands after the game has run several years.
Then devs create mentor programs which essentially seem to negate the whole idea of leveling.
On top of that it seems that players are only ever interested in getting to "end game" because they believe that's where the real fun is. This is horrible as it essentially throws away a good part of the game.
I'll have to think more on your suggestion.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I don't know.
Is grinding really a bad thing? If you're constantly exploring and discovering new things, grinding can be interesting and memorable. I remember exploring EQ when I was new to it. I remember exploring new zones for the first time, I can still remember all of that..
Grinding is only bad when the MMORPG is really dumbed down and trivial, like in WoW. They're always holding your hand, how are you going to have fun exploring when you don't explore. Or have fun leveling, when there are markers telling you where to go?
In WoW, it should probably not have a grind, unless they made leveling substantially more difficult or more interesting.
They really shouldn't have leveling systems though unless they made the game actually challenging.
I'd be interested in seeing a gear-based MMORPG. Everyone starts at the same level, and the developers can just focus on putting raid encounters in the game instead of focusing on putting in 5000 "kill 5 boar" type quests and useless lore that no one reads.
See Asheron's Call 1.
It had many of the features you talk about with NO end game raiding.
The max level at release was considered unattainable so there was no race to get there, it was completely about the journey.
Situational weapons provide different results.(Hollow weapons that cut completely through magical defesive buffs to name just one)
No classes. Your damage didn't scale automatically when you leveled, but scaled based upon how you distributed experience points into skill and attributes.
IMO, UO/AC1 is the direction the MMO genre should've maintained. Unfortunately, EQ1, and then later WoW reinforced the idea of RAID, RAID, RAID, at end game much to the detriment of the genre and the communities within each game.
Einherjar_LC says: WTB the true successor to UO or Asheron's Call pst!
You have some good points.
There are of course other ways to kill the grind, you don't have to have levels and you certainly don't need 80 or more of them. You can also make better low level content instead of saving the best stuff for the highest, in the modern MMOs leveling have become boring work.
If the whole game is fun you won't have to rush to the top, but that demands well written quests for the whole game, not the usual "kill x rats" type.
Or you could cut off all levels and xp altogether and have all character improvement come from gear instead, or the other way around by making all gear the same and put all the effort in improving your character. Those things will not take the grind away but will at least change the both xp and gear grind into one.
Crafting grind is another thing that should be fixed, crafting could be so much more fun.
Some games have actually taken away most of the grind, Guildwars is a good example for this. But increasing the number of levels for each expansion is the thing that will eventually kill the game, that was one of the reasons why EQ didn't have a chance when Wow released.
If you look at WoW, it almost meets your last few lines. The game play from 1-80 is no where near a grind and can be done fairly quickly (under a month). The rest of the game is just a perpetual gear grind based on raiding or pvp.
As for the rest of your post I do agree. Grinding is bad and noticable when there isnt really anything to do to distract you from the fact that you are grinding. Back when EQ was released the grind wasnt really easily noticed at first because the game was new (pretty much the first of its type in the genre) and there was a great sense of the unknown. You didnt have data-mining databases telling you what was in store for you when you got to this level or that level as you do today. Sadly these databases and strat sites make the grind seem worse, even though they are trying to make it easier on the player, because it strips away the whole 'not knowing whats next' feeling. Instead you are left working toward a known goal which makes the grind more noticable.
I can almost bet that if EQ were released today instead of 10 years ago, people who played the game at launch and loved it (as I did) would find the game to be a huge grind fest.
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
If you look at WoW, it almost meets your last few lines. The game play from 1-80 is no where near a grind and can be done fairly quickly (under a month). The rest of the game is just a perpetual gear grind based on raiding or pvp.
As for the rest of your post I do agree. Grinding is bad and noticable when there isnt really anything to do to distract you from the fact that you are grinding. Back when EQ was released the grind wasnt really easily noticed at first because the game was new (pretty much the first of its type in the genre) and there was a great sense of the unknown. You didnt have data-mining databases telling you what was in store for you when you got to this level or that level as you do today. Sadly these databases and strat sites make the grind seem worse, even though they are trying to make it easier on the player, because it strips away the whole 'not knowing whats next' feeling. Instead you are left working toward a known goal which makes the grind more noticable.
I can almost bet that if EQ were released today instead of 10 years ago, people who played the game at launch and loved it (as I did) would find the game to be a huge grind fest.
The games PVE content is too trivial for people like me. They made the PVE content too easy for everyone.
It should be designed so that 95%
of people at the endgame can't beat the PVE content. The other 5% can do most of the PVE content but there should also be impossible-type encounters that require lots of skill/effort. There's just no MMORPG like that anymore.
People who played EQ at any time thought it was a grind, but it wasn't as boring as WoWs grinds are, because EQ grinds you can socialize with other players, and the PVE was a bit more demanding because of randomized spawn timers / random NPC spawns / trains etc.
I loved AC1.
If you look at WoW, it almost meets your last few lines. The game play from 1-80 is no where near a grind and can be done fairly quickly (under a month). The rest of the game is just a perpetual gear grind based on raiding or pvp.
As for the rest of your post I do agree. Grinding is bad and noticable when there isnt really anything to do to distract you from the fact that you are grinding. Back when EQ was released the grind wasnt really easily noticed at first because the game was new (pretty much the first of its type in the genre) and there was a great sense of the unknown. You didnt have data-mining databases telling you what was in store for you when you got to this level or that level as you do today. Sadly these databases and strat sites make the grind seem worse, even though they are trying to make it easier on the player, because it strips away the whole 'not knowing whats next' feeling. Instead you are left working toward a known goal which makes the grind more noticable.
I can almost bet that if EQ were released today instead of 10 years ago, people who played the game at launch and loved it (as I did) would find the game to be a huge grind fest.
The games PVE content is too trivial for people like me. They made the PVE content too easy for everyone.
It should be designed so that 95%
of people at the endgame can't beat the PVE content. The other 5% can do most of the PVE content but there should also be impossible-type encounters that require lots of skill/effort. There's just no MMORPG like that anymore.
People who played EQ at any time thought it was a grind, but it wasn't as boring as WoWs grinds are, because EQ grinds you can socialize with other players, and the PVE was a bit more demanding because of randomized spawn timers / random NPC spawns / trains etc.
I agree here as well.
Thing is, WoW took the foundation of EQ and made it more accessible to a wider playerbase. Then they kept making it more and more accessible to the point it became easy as hell for people who have been playing MMOs long before WoW came out. In doing so they lost a fair amount of the social aspect of MMOs (everyone is in a hurry to get where they want to be that they rarely bother talking to others anymore).
Blizzard then tried to make people happy by adding in hard mode dungeons. To players like me its not what a lot of players meant by 'needing a challenge'. Sure the mobs are harder and takes a bit more co-ordination than the normal modes, but its still the same fight.
One thing I really miss is something that could be found in old EQ and games like Anarchy Online. Random spawn contested raid mobs/NPCs and contested raid bosses. I like instances for the whole 'quick game' feel and sometimes for the very scripted lore portions of the game, but random spawn, almost damn near impossible to kill world bosses were a fun challenge, specially when you have to fight other groups to the boss.
As for trains and training... its a touchy subject for me.... I still experience a nervous twitch when thinking about them :P
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
So MMORPGs to you are merely grind and eternal progression through raids? Isn't there something you like doing aside from killing endless boss monsters? I think the cornerstone of a good MMORPG is good game mechanics for the solo player, freedom to dodge, move around in combat, use the environment to your advantage, heal without cooldowns, because once you have these, you can make the content more challenging by making it much easier to die, since the player now has a chance to intervene in what would be an inevitable death in any other game.
Once you have a game like that, you don't have to rely on an eternal flow of big boss monsters to keep things interesting, you can create small monsters that die easily but also have the ability to kill you with minimal hits. This allows you to have challenging content that can be solo'd so when your raid buddies aren't around, you can still play the game if you want to and enjoy it.
I'd prefer a game focus on creating interesting dungeons and quests that don't revolve entirely around killing some big boss monsters and have the boss monsters be a rare thing.
Edit: Ugh, just saw your signature: "Yes, games that I play to pass the time should be time-consuming. That's why I play them."
The way I feel is that games I play to pass the time should be fun... You don't have to sacrifice quality to be able to enjoy something for vast amounts of time. You just need to add more dynamics that change the state of the game. I've find that the more factors a game has influencing it, the more replay value it has. For example, a deathmatch FPS like Quake could only be fun for an hour or two per day, but something like Gloom had so much more variety compared to Quake in terms of playstyles and the general game state with bases and structures constantly being moved around and replaced, trying to figure out where the enemies spawn points moved to so you could exterminate them. I could play that game for many different hours because the game state had so many moving parts that were always in motion, and it always felt like I was playing a new game even if the basic game mechanics were already known to me.
Also consider Real Time Strategy games where you also have many moving pieces, you never know what the enemy is up to, and there are so many different possibilities that you can replay those games for years and continually see strategies and moves that surprise you.
So I think the key to high replay value is to move toward more compelling, interesting, and involving basic game mechanics (stuff that involves the player, input that they give that affects their character's actions) while moving toward a more dynamic gamestate with more moving parts, such as allowing players to build cities and structures in the world, and AI that can do more than sit still or walk around randomly until you can attack it, such as attacking cities, building their own cities (RTS games have AI that build their own cities, don't tell me this can't be done), and even fighting eachother. There's no reason this stuff isn't possible when MMORPGs run on what is essentially a super computer.
Another great subject topic by Scottc.
I just arrived so Im going to write my repply after I wake up.
1) So MMORPGs to you are merely grind and eternal progression through raids?
2) Isn't there something you like doing aside from killing endless boss monsters?
3) There's no reason this stuff isn't possible when MMORPGs run on what is essentially a super computer.
While this does not involve me, I'll jump in anyways because I'm entitled by no authority but my own to reply. In other words, I think I know something when I probably don't. If you think I might know something, read on. If not, ignore my post.
You didn't need to read that, by the way, and you probably just now understood what I typed since I pointed it out.
You might have already subconsciously assumed that my post was or was not worth reading before you finished the first statement, because you, if you're like the majority, are programmed to scan for hooks and move on when a subject seems uninteresting or unrelated to your interests after the first few words.
Just an experiment, tell me if it worked.
Be honest! I won't laugh at you if it did.
So, about those questions!
1) They shouldn't be. What we've gone and done is quantize video game activities in such a way that they are now only enjoyed by the linear-minded achiever types, or the occasional lore buff (the types who like stories and movies).
If you want to make an optimal MMORPG from the model we're using now, yes, that is what the game is: you chase carrots forever. Essentially what is needed for that is an infinite carrot generator, AKA unlimited content. Professional procedural content hasn't been successfully implemented yet because the voodoo programming behind such awkward automated heuristics is still far from being diverse enough or even marginally functional.
2) Yes. Drawing, designing games, modeling, writing music, going to work (sometimes), hanging out with friends, posting on forums, etc.
I am a non-achiever. I don't do what I do for glory or great carrots of success, I do it to experiment with possibilities and have fun.
3) You'd be surprised how much memory a single user soaks up while playing on a private server. The packets have to be just the right size (no larger than 64 bytes, but if they're smaller they can be cushioned with filler), and there is a capacity to how many users can be interacting with each other at one time (somewhere around 67 before the server lags horrendously, but this depends on user vs. server location, as well as possible interactions with other users). Is this a programming issue? No, it's a hardware issue. A BIG hardware issue.
Bandwidth is simply too limited right now, so unless you plan to use peer-to-peer networks to help with that, you're stuck with the old fashioned server architecture that forces our MMOGs to work the way they do.
You want to know what really sucks, though? If you did decide to go P2P, users could freely scrutinize and modify the packets they send and receive because it's impossible to maintain security on a network that not only includes other users with possibly malicious intent, but also nothing but private nodes that you do not and cannot legally control. You'd essentially have to PAY the users not to play with the packets since you're using their computer as a node for your game.
So what can be done?
First of all, you must minimize malicious intent.
You know how we've been handling it up until now: we blow a wad on a ton of private servers and we get people to pay to use them securely. We punish hackers and exploiters and try to keep the peace with an employed network police force; just like a little country with its own laws. And guess what? Just like in reality, that does not work! People still cheat and hack despite all consequences you heap on to deter them! Bah humbug!
So we've got to think of a new solution to the amusing oxymoron that is network security. So long as there are laws to break and goals to achieve through unnecessarily difficult means (our games are chock-full of such things by virtue of being a repeatable challenge), there will a path of least resistance and someone will find it. So to counter this, we eliminate laws - we make lawless games. Yes, a game with no rules means no consequences.
OH NOES, MY CONCEPT OF FUN IS BEING CHALLENGED!!! NO RULES MEANS NO FUN!!!
Hold on. What's that? You enjoy activities besides video games? Do you have friends or family? Are they ever fun to engage with? Do they offer enjoyment for no repayment? Yes? Good! That means you're a healthy human being and have some degree of intrinsic desire! Congratulations!
This also means you can enjoy games with no rules.
So really, it comes down to this: instead of designing a bunch of games around pointless grinds with equally pointless goals, we make a game with no rules that everyone fantasizes about playing.
Can you guess what that game is?
Hint: it's what we're all doing right now.
It is the game of game development.
Only a lot of you are not playing it yet, possibly because there is no intuitive tutorial or interface and the better tools of the trade are highly exclusive.
I 100% agree with this.
The first AAA funded company to to look as AC1 and take it's systems and build from them stands to make a very good ROI for a long time.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Chavez y Chavez
How was AC1's cap considered "unattainable"? How did they accomplish this?
Well, the cap was lvl 120. AC1 didn't have the linear content that is prevalent in Themepark games today. THere was no way a player could take a broad look at the cities/areas in a game and get a sense of "by this time/city/area I will be at cap. Neither was the craptacular (personal view, others are more than welcome to like it) idea of "end-game". Players weren't "pushed" by some sense of having to make max level to start "playing the game". Finding new loot in the wonderfully done for the most part (90%) dungeons was playing the game and the playerbase embraced that.
Also to this that Turbine added significant content via the game's main storyline every month (over it's lifetime I think they have only missed 2-3 months) that kept people engaged with doing the content, not trying to rush off to some "end-game".
Dereth was/is also a BIG world. It is literally the last game where I could stand in the middle of town X, spin my character around is circles using the arrow key, close my eyes for a bit and then stop spinning my character and just take off running and exploring in that direction. That Turbine team did a good job of planting things out in the middle of nowhere for us to find. It honestly is the last game that game me a sense of truly exploring. All games sense then seem small.
There doesn't have to be something every 2 minutes. It's like the people who always have to be talking. If there is a moment of silence they think the world is going to end. Sometimes those moment's of silence yield the greatest experiences yet those too busy talking just to hear a sound miss them.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Chavez y Chavez
Hmm, well that doesn't sound too unattainable, but it seems high for that kind of game.
I'm all up for making low-midgame last longer... as long as there's enough content to last for those 120 levels, and it's not all focused in the end of the game. That's the way to do it.
But still, one day you're going to hit that cap (except if the devs somehow manage to create enough content that you won't level faster than they put out that content, but that sounds like a crazy amount of content to create).
By then there's gotta be something to do by the end of the game as well, or players will get bored. I'm not sure if AC's system can answer to that dilemma.
And to be more on topic, I don't think there is a perfect system either. I know there are two types of endgame around right now (although one is favored by huge majority of MMO's), but both systems have significant flaws.. and honestly, as much as I've been thinking about how to "fix" those issues, I haven't figured out how to do it. That doesn't mean that it can't be done, but I don't think it's possible to do as the endgame structure is right now. Something revolutionary needs to be created for that to happen, so I hope the developers have more imagination than I do (and as they've proved many times before, they sure do- so I'm cautiously optimistic).
It is impossible to create an mmorpg without grind. Grinding exists to slow players down or just to keep them busy at the endgame.
The reason this is done is very simple: it is impossible to develop new content faster than players can play through.
No it isn't. Just make the content difficult, or make it so that the content requires progression between the endgame instances.
For instance, make a zone that requires high resistances, but have previous raid zones drop resistance gear. Things like that can slow progression of players.
The reason people plow through content is it's too easy though, if companies provided more difficult raid content, where success isn't guaranteed, they wouldn't have the problem.
They just need to make content really difficult again, they can remove grinds if the raid encounters are near impossible.
Maybe add one of the variety alternate advancement points as well to your idea that gives players little enhancements to their character but nothing that would put a huge gap between other players. That way everyone could always play together.
If people want level treadmills and need help just moving their character around the screen the devs will do it. Not many fully immersion where players decide their characters fate anymore. Console play is being implemented into the majority of MMOs. Instead of a dynamic world to explore that is changing people are whining for a more static console rpg feel where there is a handful of options when a character maxes level, items, and progression. If they want to make steady income they have to appeal to the lowest common denominator. You see it with all types of media entertainment, movies, music, etc...
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
2) Isn't there something you like doing aside from killing endless boss monsters?
3) There's no reason this stuff isn't possible when MMORPGs run on what is essentially a super computer.
While this does not involve me, I'll jump in anyways because I'm entitled by no authority but my own to reply. In other words, I think I know something when I probably don't. If you think I might know something, read on. If not, ignore my post.
You didn't need to read that, by the way, and you probably just now understood what I typed since I pointed it out.
You might have already subconsciously assumed that my post was or was not worth reading before you finished the first statement, because you, if you're like the majority, are programmed to scan for hooks and move on when a subject seems uninteresting or unrelated to your interests after the first few words.
Just an experiment, tell me if it worked.
Be honest! I won't laugh at you if it did.
So, about those questions!
1) They shouldn't be. What we've gone and done is quantize video game activities in such a way that they are now only enjoyed by the linear-minded achiever types, or the occasional lore buff (the types who like stories and movies).
If you want to make an optimal MMORPG from the model we're using now, yes, that is what the game is: you chase carrots forever. Essentially what is needed for that is an infinite carrot generator, AKA unlimited content. Professional procedural content hasn't been successfully implemented yet because the voodoo programming behind such awkward automated heuristics is still far from being diverse enough or even marginally functional.
2) Yes. Drawing, designing games, modeling, writing music, going to work (sometimes), hanging out with friends, posting on forums, etc.
I am a non-achiever. I don't do what I do for glory or great carrots of success, I do it to experiment with possibilities and have fun.
3) You'd be surprised how much memory a single user soaks up while playing on a private server. The packets have to be just the right size (no larger than 64 bytes, but if they're smaller they can be cushioned with filler), and there is a capacity to how many users can be interacting with each other at one time (somewhere around 67 before the server lags horrendously, but this depends on user vs. server location, as well as possible interactions with other users). Is this a programming issue? No, it's a hardware issue. A BIG hardware issue.
Bandwidth is simply too limited right now, so unless you plan to use peer-to-peer networks to help with that, you're stuck with the old fashioned server architecture that forces our MMOGs to work the way they do.
You want to know what really sucks, though? If you did decide to go P2P, users could freely scrutinize and modify the packets they send and receive because it's impossible to maintain security on a network that not only includes other users with possibly malicious intent, but also nothing but private nodes that you do not and cannot legally control. You'd essentially have to PAY the users not to play with the packets since you're using their computer as a node for your game.
So what can be done?
First of all, you must minimize malicious intent.
You know how we've been handling it up until now: we blow a wad on a ton of private servers and we get people to pay to use them securely. We punish hackers and exploiters and try to keep the peace with an employed network police force; just like a little country with its own laws. And guess what? Just like in reality, that does not work! People still cheat and hack despite all consequences you heap on to deter them! Bah humbug!
So we've got to think of a new solution to the amusing oxymoron that is network security. So long as there are laws to break and goals to achieve through unnecessarily difficult means (our games are chock-full of such things by virtue of being a repeatable challenge), there will a path of least resistance and someone will find it. So to counter this, we eliminate laws - we make lawless games. Yes, a game with no rules means no consequences.
OH NOES, MY CONCEPT OF FUN IS BEING CHALLENGED!!! NO RULES MEANS NO FUN!!!
Hold on. What's that? You enjoy activities besides video games? Do you have friends or family? Are they ever fun to engage with? Do they offer enjoyment for no repayment? Yes? Good! That means you're a healthy human being and have some degree of intrinsic desire! Congratulations!
This also means you can enjoy games with no rules.
So really, it comes down to this: instead of designing a bunch of games around pointless grinds with equally pointless goals, we make a game with no rules that everyone fantasizes about playing.
Can you guess what that game is?
Hint: it's what we're all doing right now.
It is the game of game development.
Only a lot of you are not playing it yet, possibly because there is no intuitive tutorial or interface and the better tools of the trade are highly exclusive.
FYI Heuristics are a set of rules for what amounts to pattern detection, you've misused the word. You also seem to base your numbers off of a single VPS, possibly dedicated server for private servers. You can't really compare that to an MMORPG which uses a cluster of servers. Also your post seems completely off topic and unrelated to the discussion.
Heuristic, or the definition I use, means "an adjective for experience-based techniques that help in problem solving, learning and discovery." I simply turned it into a noun (heuristics) to mean the same as Artificial Intelligence, which involves heuristic methods. Whether you know it or not, procedural content generation requires a very complex AI, or as I would call it - voodoo heuristics.
From what I know about servers, clusters, or "super computers" as you call them, follow the same rules as smaller private networks. The number of users connected to a server and the number of interactions between those users is an n^n problem. The more players there are, the more interactions there are between players, and the more time it takes to process those interactions.
What are the exact limits? It depends on your hardware, but the most I have ever seen is EVE with some 1000 users connected and interacting simultaneously in Jita. The area is notoriously laggy, and that's while the server is only calculating positional data between players - when users decide to fire up the combat system, the server goes even slower and has even crashed in the past because of it.
Look at how simple EVE's mechanics are, especially in the user space: all objects are merely floating about in 3D space with no costly operations (such as continuous collision detection) involved.
Yet you propose that all other games can afford to run more expensive operations for even more simultaneous users? What planet are you from? I'd like to borrow some of that alien technology, if you don't mind.
The post is not off-topic in the slightest. You wanted to get rid of the grind to end game and I am suggesting the only possible general method that will allow it.
You describe details in game mechanics, you crunch numbers and drill into specifics, but you don't realize yet that game development is not cheap. The price for failure is very, very steep in the AAA game market. Speculating on such weighty experiments only leads to further speculation through hesitation or more failure if action were to be taken on the advice.
If you feel like making your own MMORPG and testing your theories, by all means you're welcome to do it (and I'm sure you didn't need me to tell you that). However, if you think you can revolutionize the industry with a few remarks about what details should or should not be included in a game, you are greatly mistaken.
When a formula doesn't work, you experiment until it does work or you try a new approach, right? Well the formula is extremely expensive and time consuming to experiment with. That means it needs to be optimized before you can go on testing theories.
Now, I mentioned that maybe you should make your own MMORPG to test your ideas. Why haven't you done that yet?
Is it because you're lazy? Is it because you can't find anybody who is willing to devote themselves to such an experiment? Of course not... unless you're going to say you're lazy, then you've got me there, but that's not the point.
I believe you, and anyone else discussing this topic, have not started creating their own games because the process seems too complex and expensive to try. It's not like the video industry where you can pick up a camcorder and walk out into the wilderness to make a film, which you can then post on YouTube and get a billion hits.
Developing a game is not as simple as that. However, it should be - and happily, it could be.
More possible than cheaper servers and greater internet bandwidth is the technology that inspired Spore - which was centered around mass amateurization in player-created content through intuitive and inexpensive tools.
Going one step further, and it is completely possible, we could have mass amateurization in player-created games. If you take those tools and connect all the players together with a universal platform, such as YouTube, you essentially get a massive network of users who work together and do whatever they want for fun.
To solve bandwidth problems, you could make it a P2P network because it is a place of sharing, not of competition.
By creating a network and highly accessible tools, you are setting the stage for inexpensive mass experimentation. So essentially, I am proposing a platform to allow amateur developers to test their rapidly developed prototypes and share them with others for pennies on the dollar with minimal effort, which consequently is the same as creating an ideal MMORPG with no grind or end game.
So how relevant is my post? Well, how relevant is a setting in which players play the roles of game developers and create games for challenge and fun? Is that not an MMORPG without a grind to an end game?
The only infinitely playable game is one in which we may never know the ultimate answer. That is the only reason anyone would continue to play a game - to experience and explore the unknown of a new world.
So let's take the problems we have in the real world and apply them to a digital one. If they may never be solved, we have a game that will live forever (or only so long as the question is relevant to anyone's interests - that question being: "what is a fun video game?" makes me optimistic, since an expandable game development platform and toolkit will either give rise to the ultimate video game, or be played as a game that never ends).
I get the impression that my posts are too long to read... or maybe I'm globally disliked (nah, I only wish I was that infamous).
Whatever the reason, it's a shame that the information I have to share goes unheeded. If you don't understand it, just say something! I'll try my best to reiterate.
I don't understand all the anti-raiding sentiment in this thread - I love raiding, and I like PvP, crafting, community, all that good stuff but hate grinding and dailies and blah blah.
Can't we just make an MMORPG that has a model similar to like a FPS like COD4? You are competitive even in the beginning, but you keep playing for all of the little perks and it takes a long time to achieve all of those perks. You play for fun and for the "journey" not to be max level or to have all the weapons unlocked.
Make an MMORPG with levels maybe, but the levels don't make you incredibly stronger than the newbies, like a level one is somewhat competitive with an end game person. I like the idea about making gear tailored to encounters - that would be beneficial to the crafting area of the game, and if one was serious about raiding they would obtain the gear that is appropriate for the raid, but this would not translate to PvP so that PvP success is based solely on player skill, cooperation, etc.
Have a good quest line from start to finish, instead of all this "go kill 20 boars for some stupid reason" crap. Maybe just make ONE quest line from start to finish, that can be done in a variety of ways with a variety of different outcomes. Like Chrono Trigger you get this main story, but it has like 13 different endings and there are bunch of different ways you can do it and one choice in the story will affect the rest of the story. Make it completely able to be done by soloing, but give benefits (like faster leveling) to those who want to do it as a group. Maybe implement ideas from other MMOs such as being able to hire NPCs to group with, or a form of the mentor system from EQ2/Vanguard. I say even make it possible to level up from PvP like what was done in Warhammer, but without instanced PvP.
And like I've mentioned before make a game where one part of the world focuses on PvE, the other part of the world focuses on PvP - and you can get from level 1 to the last level in either place (or ranks, or skills, whatever you want to call it), and crafting/gathering is available in both places. Everyone would be happy and the only "grinding" you would have to do is for crafting and cosmetic things, or things that don't affect game play (mounts, player housing, pets, player cities, outfits, etc.)
--------------------------
Playing:
FFXIV, TERA, LoL, and HoTS
My Rig:
GPU: GeForce GTX 770, CPU: i7-4790K, Memory: 16 GB RAM
Why can't we have a dynamic world to explore, and some kind of progression with options and everything?
--------------------------
Playing:
FFXIV, TERA, LoL, and HoTS
My Rig:
GPU: GeForce GTX 770, CPU: i7-4790K, Memory: 16 GB RAM