Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
The changing times of MMO's
Clever_Glove
Member Posts: 996
Its been a big year for MMORPG's. This new generation of MMORPG's is changing the face of the game, and whats commercially viable. Before Regis counts down the ball drop in New York, lets take a moment to analyze these new trends in massively multiplayer on-line gaming.
Are you down with oom? (ya you know me!)
Down time is amount of time you sit waiting for something to happen. Normally its manna you wait on, but you can wait on other things as well. This has been a highly talked about subject, Brad McQuad founder of Everquest and now Sigil games, says "Some downtime is good... resting between fights, memming up, healing, strategizing for the next battle, using the restroom, grabbing a Dr. Pepper...." As many game makers are learning, players can talk, (allot) when you need to use the little gamers room, you say so and the group waits. There is no need to add artificial downtime for the sake of players bladder.
This year has had a huge trend towards down time reduction, being by eating in game food, very fast regen rates, pushing a magic refill my manna bar button or just simply poofing your bar to full after a battle. Pushing buttons if far more fun than not. This message seems to be clear in the most recent wave of new games.
The more time you spend playing the game, the less time you spend evaluating if you getting your moneys worth.
The 7 year twitch
As stated pushing buttons is far superior than not, but it's leading new games into becoming more twitchy. In older games a auto-fire joystick could often replace a human behind the keyboard, this is becoming no longer the case. You have a variety of skills to choose and you must pick the right button at the right time to maximize your effectiveness.
This is could be one of the more controversial routes for MMORPGs since they have historically been games aimed towards a leisurely style of play. Most would argue if they wanted to twitch they would play a FPS. While only taking baby steps in this direction, itll be interesting to see how much community will tolerate or how much it will segregate over this issue.
Only you can prevent forest fires
Is camping, like one dimensional combat a thing of the past? For those new to the MMORPG's camping is the process of picking a spot to pull to and pulling the same mob, or set of mobs over and over. For many I just summarized their first years playing a MMORPG.
Camping has become a staple of what is MMORPG. Like all common things its seldom evaluated if its a useful practice. It's gone on for far to long. Only recently have new games and existing games taken strides to reduce or eliminate camping.
Many things can be done about camping: quests, dynamic content, and my next speaking point: Instancing.
I'll stay on my side, you stay on yours
Nearly all current MMOs have introduced instancing. This has been deemed a bad thing by some. Richard Bartle had the following to say about instancing:
The thing is, this is not what virtual worlds are about. How can you have any impact on a world if you're only using it as a portal to a first-person shooter? How do you interact with people if they're battened down in an inaccessible pocket universe? Where's the sense of achievement, of making a difference, of being someone?
Nearly all features come down to how they are implemented, while I can agree with Bartle in theory, in application a much different reality unfolds. Just like in life, people suck, they are obnoxious, will try to distract you, steal your kill, and are unpleasant to smell. Instancing prevents much of the poor behavior weve come to hate inside a MMORPG. (such as leap froging to steal a big kill).
What sense of accomplishment does an instance have? A great deal of it, nothing is better than looking back at the horde of bodies on the ground and saying we rock.
What sense being someone? When you re-enter the persisted world with your new big glowy sword of uberness +2. Everyone will know how you got it and where, youll be a man (or woman) among men (or women).
Even games that rely heavily on instancing (ex: guild wars) do a good job of allowing you boost your achievements just by your presents.
MMOs only need to provide enough common areas to allow people to notice each other, meet and show off. This is enough to feed the competitive instinct for those whom image matters.
The worlds greatest Grinders
"The Grind" is the process of killing things over and over for no other reason than to gain exp. Doing the same repetitive task is often referred to as "That hell hole I go for 8 hours a day so I can pay my rent". Making people pay to preform a function they would normally get paid to do, doesn't increase ones desire to play. I'm happy players aren't standing for it any longer.
Game companies are adding in tasks/quests to help ease this grind and make it seem more meaningful. Killing ten orcs, not allot of fun. Killing orcs to get 10 teeth to turn in for a new neck item, loads of fun.
This is called a pellet. Games are made around feeding players pellets. By breaking up large tasks (leveling) into small quickly achievable tasks (quests) they create a constant sense of accomplishment.
Were seeing more inventive (and less painful) ways to feed players pellets. One new way to break up grinding has many players running scared due to years of poor implementation: PvP
The very best and worst of what gaming has to offer
While few are centering a entire game around PvP most have implemented it. People do crazy, whacky things all the time. PvP is a user created encounters, every time its different. This is great for game makers, it keeps interest in a game up while they can scurry around thinking up more static content for six months that players can exhausted weeks after its release.
In the past, companies have tried to get the Howard without the Stern. They push off users to place where no one will notice them, the E channel.
I do not support the concept of pushing out PvP to separate severs. This creates a system where you take all the worst elements associated with PvP, give them free reign and ponder why few have a good PvP experience.
This new generation of games has been working on new ways to interrogate PvP into the normal game. Most every new release has PvP in some form or another (beyond duels) available for all player to participate.
PvP has other benefits, mainly in class balance. If all classes are able to kill to all other classes in PvP odds are they will be even in PvE (or at least something like it).
This also eliminates the role of heal only classes. All classes must have a grab bag of tricks to deal with the abilities of other classes.
Slowly players will become more accepting of PvP, but it will take time. Old (PK) wounds run deep.
All by myself
Game makers are starting to pick-up on the concept people are social by nature. They do not need to be prod like steer so they can use group content. Like ducks they tend to flock, birds of a feather, kill together.
You gain nothing by forcing all players to group, other than a horde of 2-boxing players. Good for short term business, Bad for long term user communities.
"We're a game that's focused on grouping and on solo play, you know, more group oriented, more solo play..." John Blakely Senior lead for EQ2.
Its hard to argue with such a quote, newer games are trying to focus on environment where players can solo well, and creating some group content.
Solo is the new black for second generation games
Support this!
As anti-camping measures, dynamic twitchy combat is becoming the norm, support classes are changing. No longer are you forced to play a character that adds little to the group, but the group couldn't live without. New support classes come with a quanity of tricks, DPS, and variety.
It can be express mathematically:
Healing watching people kill = bad
Healing and killing = good.
And in conclusion
MMORPGs are only getting better and more refined, the future is bright for this ever growing genre. If you still playing an old game, now is the time to try something new. If your not playing one at, it's time to start. You don't want to by that person at the water cooler that has no idea what the others are talking about do you?
Sources:
Brad McQuad: http://www.sigilgames.com/000083.php#question48
Bartle: http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20041103/bartle_pfv.htm
John Blakely: http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/everquest2/preview_6092895.html
-=-=-=-=-
MMORPG's are like a first love, your compare every new relationship in the future to it. And even if a new game is better, it'll never be the same.
Bartle: A: 93% E: 55% S:3% K: 50% The Test. Learn what it means here.
Comments
-=-=-=-=-
Achievers realise that killers as a concept are necessary in order to make achievement meaningful and worthwhile (there being no way to "lose" the game if any fool can "win" just by plodding slowly unchallenged). -bartle
Bartle: A: 93% E: 55% S:3% K: 50% The Test. Learn what it means here.
Some Good points there Glove...
The simple fact is that I was about done with the Genre and had started going back to FPS prior to some of these new concepts. I personally think that the solo ability is a must for those of us who work many hours weekly. Nothing blows worse than trying to get a group around and agreed upon a course of action when you only have a couple hours at night. I am really looking forward to some of the up and coming MMO's like D&L (lotta new concepts here) and D&D Online (Classic remade). Have a great new year all.
Tacklebury --}>>>
Tacklebury --}>>>
I would agree with most of what you say except for the PVP. As I see it, while to some extents it is increasing in popularity, in many other respects as people grow older and more mature, they gravitate away from this style of gameplay.
While the dynamic of it can be fun, the reality is too many seek to exploit the rules to the detriment of other players, for instance using a bug in WoW now where preists can put a DoT effect on you and not have aggro from the neutral guards. However if you go to defend yourself from that priest, the guards will kill you.
The fact that people will stand over your corpse until you logout repeatedly killing you (and they deem this fun). Older more mature people don't enjoy this, they don't mind losing, but to have someone spend 2-3 hours just doing nothing but kill them is pointless. Therefore rather than participate, they've chosen to stop playing PVP becuase in the end this type of behaviour just isn't fun. It's no longer a game at that point it's just tiresome.
And the trend of these games hasn't been to change these aspects. While the game mechanics to allow this type of behaviour to continue, many poeple also try to include a spirit of sportsmanship, which is obviously nullified by these types of actions.
Games are a diversion, an escape from frustrations, win or lose. Corpse camping and other recognized griefing methods are nothing but frustrations that as time goes on, more and more are willing to leave the pvp behind to avoid it.
If you look at your post, everything about it is to ease frustrations and create a more enjoyable atmosphere. PVP and the current implementations of it just don't work in that direction. Heck EQ2 doesn't even have PVP nor will Dungeons and Dragons Online.
Tacklebury --}>>>
Tacklebury --}>>>
Excellent article, Clever_Glove. I'd love to see you use spellcheck a bit more, because the occasional spelling and gramatical errors take away from what is an otherwise insightful and sometimes very witty piece.
Good job.
www.greenblooded.com
BETA TESTING--RYL
Well.. I am going to sound like an echo...
You are 100% correct in everything you say EXCEPT the part about PvP. Regardless of what game devs would have you believe, PvP is NEVER about two equal sides seeing who really IS the best PvPer out there. Its all about some higher level character PKing a lower level character, often times over and over. PvP in a game means that someone can repeatedly abuse a Player vs Player system and INTENTIONALLY ruin someone else's fun just so they can get their jollies. PvP is never about skill, its about being a bully. Period.
Don't think folk like me are in the minority either. While we may not post or even chat about it all that much, we DO make our opinions known by voting with our dollars. Say what you want about PvP style games but the bottom line is they just don't bring in the kind of money that PvE (Player vs Enviroment) does. The games with the real staying power are all PvE style games. Any game can be popular for 6 months but if it wants to really succeed, then it can't be PvP because no one is going to pay $10 a month just so they can be bullied.
Sarnath,
While I fully agree with your statement regarding bullies, 'tis quite true, I am going to have to say it is wrong to say that PvP is -never- about fair competition. In many games, good players organize fair PvP battles for the sport of it. In Lineage, I was constantly PvPing other level 60s of equal power; it was what I did for fun. So, I am going to have to disagree with your statement that PvP is never about fair competition, because it is; however, usually it is about bulling, yes.
PVP can be done well. It can be done VERY well, n most parts of the group (clan, guild, etc) can be made to feel useful in their group, while all sides CAN be equal. But companies don seem to try hard enuff to make this happen.
I like wars. I *REALLY* like wars. But I don wanna be scared to get PKed while I'm trying to make money or lvl. That takes the fun out of it.
For PvP to work for me, I need: Set clans, guilds, or groups, with equal (or close to equal) player base. No exploits to let spies in, cuz then you get paranoid guild leaders who kick random ppl out for no reason, other than they think theyre a spy, also takes the spontaneity n fairness out of it. I need war ONOFF, no war on 247, I cant handle that. I need a penalty
eward system. Give players a reason to fight during war, give players a penalty if they PK out of war. Also, make sure no exploits duringoff war, so that players can not exploit to get watever reward for participating in the war, n obviously make it so theres no exploit for not getting penalty outside of war. (Example: Player gets fame for killing a person Even level or higher inside war. They can only get fame from that 1 person ONCE during the war, every other time they kill that person, no fame. So that ppl cannot exploit it n have frens in other sides to kill eachother over n over for fame.)
So far, I havent seen this in any game, n if it was smth similar, there were exploits, or things that made it not so fun.
Interesting post, with some good points. But I do have major disagreement on two points:
(1) I agree with the others on PvP, and I never understand why PvP proponents seem to feel it simply must be on every server in every game. It's still quite clear that a LOT of people want games without it, and they should have what they want. There should also be plenty of PvP games available, as well as games where it's your choice, like AO and DAOC.
Moreover, as others noted, most PvP out there is simply an illusion. People kid themselves that they are involved in some sort of fair contest. Personally, the last time I saw good PvP was years ago. Now most of it has turned into some schoolyard pretense ... ganking, unseen ambush, higher level, superior numbers, bigger guns .... sorry, where's the "game" there. But still, that's really fine for those who want that and enjoy it ... just keep it away from me and the hundreds of thousands of others who are not interested, and don't force us to get involved with this. When I feel like pitting my brain against another human being, I will do it on a level playing field ... not will all my friends helping me nor with some long range weapon while hidden in the trees.
And you really must recognize and accept that there are a lot of diehard game-players out here who simply do not want to kill other players - they don't enjoy it. I think it's still acceptable to feel that way.
(2) People may be generally social by nature, but not so much in gaming, unless you consider it "social" for people to be chatting while they are off soloing in different zones. It's been seen over and over that if you make it too feasible for people to solo their way through a game, they will do so. If's sort of a strange reversion back to box games, except that people play their box games at the same time in the same place. In order to preserve the best things about MMORPGs, there must be forced grouping.
Unfortunately, I fear that most game-makers agree with you, and the current result is that MMORPGs, once primarily the domain of adults, are more and more becoming kids games. To me that's sad. There are plenty of kids games out there and not too many for adults. But then I guess somebody will figure out that there's an adult market out there.
Great Post!
As for PvP, i so wish Blizzard would have implemented their dishonor code also against players...
But then, it do not make much sense from a game point of view at all (Why, I 60 level horde should NOT kill 20s of Alliance? they are still my enemies in the game lore, aren't they?. By the same token, let's say... Achilles should have just limited himself of watching the battle and just go and battle with Hector).
I think that level system and PvP do not give a perfect working combination. You either need a skill based system in wich a veteran player can, possibly, be killed by a not-so-veteran (like in SWG, if you were a super master architect and crafter, a guy with just master rifleman would kill you easily) or one a bit like Shadowbane where levels are not very important in PvP. Blizzard stated that in their pvp skill of the player counts, but i cannot play the game still, so i have no way to see if that is true or not.
Have a nice day.
"If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, if you teach him how to fish, you feed him for a lifetime"
Thats one of the reasons Im going to play PvE when I get my WoW box. It doesnt make sense that high lvls can kill low lvls over n over while theyre trying to lvl, but it doesnt make sense that a high lvl should have to run from a group of lvl 20s either. It doesnt make sense that ppl will camp other ppl's corpses, jus to kill them again when they try to resurrect. But how do you fix this?
I guess you could make it so that in PvP you can only be "claimed" by one person at a time.. But that would take the fun out of mass-wars. Another reason why I think war onoff is the best^^; Lvl 60 doesnt have to worry about running from lvl 20s. Lvl 5s don have to worry abt getting ganked off war.
Is there really that much of a need for PvP 247? I mean, will PvP players swear off a game, if theyre only allowed to PvP for say, 4 times a day for 1 hour each? Or time similar to this.. Any hardcore PvPers can answer this? Griefer don count
I dont disagree with anything you post! (pretty rare for peoples that know me)
However, I will precise that for the PvP, as long as the PvE players dont need to do PvP and can avoid it with no penalty at all, I agree. And you didnt mention anywhere that you want it enforced on players(be it in better PvE gear or whatever)...I have nothing against any activity, as long as it is not enforced(rewards can be enforcing).
However I think there will always be placed for unbalanced weak PvP class, that are extremely good specialists, they should be judged as an unecessary sacrifice by the average player, but still appealing to some players(having much better healing powers but no offense at all for exemple and weaker defense is a sacrifice almost nobody will make). I am not sure if those specialists should be the same for the raiding and grouping games, because a guild might NEED those weaks specialists and thereby you indirectly enforce them...but as far as grouping goes, those specialists are welcome(to have a weak and unstable healer that can heal you easily is a different challenge as having a conventional healer that may run oom easily, so in a group, it can be worked out easily to make the specialists more or less an equal, but for the guilds it is hard, really hard).
I would love to see speciality priests, wizards and pretty much all class...a priest of Rodcet Nife in EQ should heal better then anyone else(should not even think it could go OOM while healing, he can always heal again and slightly better then any other) and lose all damages and wear silk, which nobody will contest, however a priest of Rallos Zek should be doing much damage dealing but have a really poor mana regen as an awfull flaw(what about having no mana regen ever, buffs or not, but regain mana per damage done meleeing?), while killing a priest of Mithaniel Marr might prove almost as hard to kill as killing a tank however because he play fair, he take longer to do ANY action of some types, while Quellous might have some CC but much less HPS, and so on...but again, this work well for GROUPS, the raiding system would need a lot more working on this aspect.
- "Solo is, will always be, the main market. A MMORPG that succeed with little or no solo appeal is doing great considering they are ignoring the main player base.''
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
Are mmorpg's getting better? hard one to answer. It seems a lot harder to ditch the first generation of mmorpg's than the later. People find it a lot easier to cancel their CoH, Lineage 2, SWG, other accounts, than their Daoc, EQ and AO accounts.
Is it purely down to nostalgia or are these games better?......Hmm
Pan
Pan
If there was a way to stop mmorpgs getting tainted by people buying in game currency with RL $ then that would be my dream MMORPG. EQ2 is a good game, has a few anti-afk measures, but it falls flat by being popular enough to be invaded by people wanting to make or buy quick currency.
Personally I think anyone who multiboxes is lame, so remove that option, remove /follow, make macroing impossible, make software more receptive to suspicous activity. Introduce random elements that make afk-macroing more difficult or impossible. Big Kudos to Blizzard for banning people who used speed hacks and bots, thats a big step in the right direction.
I think WISH is a game to keep an eye on next year and hopefully we will see more mmorpgs taking a stronger stance against anyone who exploits or who abuses in game mechanics.
It is obvious from this post that you actually know nothing about PVP. It is not about bullying, ever. It is never unfair, just because you are a newbie, and they are a veteran doesn't make it uneven. They had to go through the same hardship during their newbie days, and eventually, if you stick with it you will become a veteran too and seek revenge against this person who caused you so much grief.
PVE games are so bland, shallow and repetitive I cannot play any of them ever again, even if I were paid to do so. There is no purpose behind anything you do. Do you really feel special for making it to the highest level in one of these games? Something that a monkey could do, given enough time.
Whats the point of being a Warrior in a world where you have no enemies? Randomly spawning monsters are not enemies, they are fodder, farmed for their experience value. PVP creates enemies, real enemies, you will have to defend yourself, and your allies from. You WILL feel a sense of accomplishment from saving your homeland from someone who you know could destroy it.
*Signature*The Pessimist says the cup is half empty. The Optimist says the cup is half full. The Pragmatist says the cup is half full of air. The Engineer says the cup is operating at 50% capacity. The Psychologist says the cup is your mother. The Punk Kid also says the cup is your mother. The Cricket Player says his cup is definately full. Everyone knows that Pamela Andersons cups are full. The Defendant says it was like that when he found it. Me, I just ask the waitress for a refill.
The PvP issue in MMORPG's tends to come from the combat systems, where often high level characters have no weaknesses and can't be beaten by better player skill. Some games have tried to solve this by giving more powerful characters in-built weaknesses (i.e. battleships in eve have a hard time dealing with groups of smaller ships) or by moving toward twitch based combat, but IMO its down to the devs to decide which aspect they are going to focus on, as the debate to whether or not to have pvp will never go away.
Im sure that 'The Sims in space' would have just as large (if not larger) a playerbase as something like 'Wing Commander/X-Wing-Online' - but try to mix the two together and you'd probably have a small pvp group arguing ad infinitum with the carebear group and devs frantically trying to balance both aspects (as eve has had).
---sig---
PvE in general is pretty lame, if you think long and hard about it. You are spending your time beating a severely gimped AI that would lose to a well trained monkey. Best not to think too long and hard why you are wasting time playing games in general actually...
First and foremost I applaud you for your attempt. HOWEVER - one glaring problem with your post is this: you supposedly "analyze" new trends in MMORPGs BUT you never once mention any single game that supports your claims. This is bad - this tends to imply these are just your wishes not actual trends at all.
Are you down with oom? (ya you know me!) - While I agree that I don't want a game with TOO much down time, some is good and necessary for a decent roleplay experience. In twitch FPS style games, I agree totally there should be no downtime (Rainbow Six for example), but an MMORPG is by definition a simulation of real life and while it is true we don't want to fully simulate EVERY real life aspect, there must be enough of a simulation for proper roleplay to exist. With no downtime the game become silly. However, to the point, I do not see any trend as you claim (and you don't give any data to support your claim this is a trend). For example (off the top of my head) UO (just about the very first MMORPG) had very little downtime - so how can the trend be toward less downtime as you suggest since the very first had almost none?
The 7 year twitch - Not really sure what you mean here. Again, UO (simple example of the first) required quite a bit of attention and button pushing (in a very good way) to succeed against anything near your level (and in PvP even more so). So again, where is your data on "trend". Now, IF you mean by this that you are talking about the supposed trend toward "player skill" versus "character skill" - then we might have a discussion.
Only you can prevent forest fires - Again, no data on your supposed trend. Again UO had virtually no camping so if anything the trend (if there is one) might be back towards the beginning of the genre. BTW, some people LOVE camping (I do not). However, quests (as one example you gave) have nothing to do with camping (or lack thereof). Camping (in general) has to do with the methods used for spawning MOBs in the game world coupled with the concepts of those MOBs dropping highly desired "items". It is these concepts (spawning and item drops) that must be properly addressed. I do not disagree that quests and instancing (properly designed and employed) are a good thing in games but they have little to do with the topic of camping (or not).
I'll stay on my side, you stay on yours - I agree. Instancing can be a very good thing and developers need to visit the concept and use it wisely to improve the gaming experience for all types of players.
The worlds greatest Grinders - Again, where is your data to support your "trend"? In my experience (over the years of MMORPG progression if it can be called that) is that developers ALWAYS give lip service to adding quests and content to counter the grind experience - but few if any every actually do much more than give lip service. Everquest for example touted quests in their literature, however, anybody who played the game knows that the quests were few and pitiful and did NOTHING at all to alleviate the grind. I could comment on other games, but they are all much the same - the quest system just becomes another grind as there is ever little or no real thought or immersion produced by the "questing grind".
The very best and worst of what gaming has to offer - Again, where is your data on games to show a "trend" and what precisely do you think the trend is? UO (again as a simple example) had full PvP from the very beginning - so how can there be a trend toward PvP as it already existed in the genre with UO? If anything (without doing real research), I see developers ping-ponging over the map. It looks to me like they are flailing around hoping to find something that may or may not exist. Why do developers like the idea of PvP? Simple - it is EASY for them because then players do the work for them - they don't have to keep coming up with complex AI and PVE content - in other words, developers are looking for the lazy and easy way out.
All by myself - I think you are missing something here. This topic is at odds with the previous one (PvP). So which is it? Are game developers "trending" toward games where PvP (and thus almost by definition) grouping up is a requirement to succeed or are they "trending" toward solo? Where is you data? When EQ first came out it was clearly focused on solo play - then more and more they "trended" (including many game mechanic changes) to push players to group play. UO was highly soloable (with some grouping added later). More and more I see MMORPGS making their games VERY group oriented by core design - but giving lip service to solo play. It is EASY for a designer (such as Bladely) to give lip service (we want it to be both solo and group play) but in my experience the design has mostly focused on group play (particularly at high end). Again, where is you trend data?
Support this! - I couldn't disagree more. It is not about being "forced" to play a support character that is very good at one thing but rather that is how the games SHOULD be designed. Again, an MMORPG is about players being able to ROLEPLAY the type of character they want to play - and many want to roleplay a specialist (doctor, healer, etc.). I have tried in almost every MMORPG to roleplay the pure healer - someone who is opposed to killing - but loves healing. NO game (except the original UO) has proper mechanics for me to be a healer and advance my character at the same time. UO was the only game where I could have a set of skills picked by myself (just like real life) - instead every other game forces me into a set "class" of skills defined by the developers. The forcing has NOTHING to do with anti-camping measures or the like (as you apparently suggest here) - it has to do with core game design of skills, advancement schemes, etc. Why does virtually every game force me to KILL something to gain experience? Killing has NOTHING to do with gaining experince - again, UO was the only game in my experince of MMORPGs that had the concept of how we gain skills correct - every other game has gone downhill.
And in conclusion - Again, there can be no conclusion because you never once gave any actual game data to demonstrate your supposed "trends" in MMORPGs. Still playing an old game (perhaps UO or AC) - in many cases they (while they do need upgrading in terms of graphics and overall technologies) had core concepts far more correct than current games. If anything, I hope that current games will "trend" back to those game concepts.
If all else in life fails you, buy a vowel.
If all else in life fails you, buy a vowel.
PVE games are so bland, shallow and repetitive I cannot play any of them ever again, even if I were paid to do so. There is no purpose behind anything you do. Do you really feel special for making it to the highest level in one of these games? Something that a monkey could do, given enough time.
Whats the point of being a Warrior in a world where you have no enemies? Randomly spawning monsters are not enemies, they are fodder, farmed for their experience value. PVP creates enemies, real enemies, you will have to defend yourself, and your allies from. You WILL feel a sense of accomplishment from saving your homeland from someone who you know could destroy it.
I agree 100% with you, I cant play a game knowing that in the end I wont be able to use my skills in PvP. The other day in Shadowbane i was with a group of guildmates leveling and getting cash when a group of 10 enemies tried to jump us. My heart started pumping, I was flying so un-noticed by most, in the end me and one other from my group were the only ones left. I wouldnt trade experiences like that for the coolest gear and the highest leveld guy in any PVE game ever. Its experiences like that I remember, I dont remember what the last mob i was fighting in DAoC nor do i care. But I do remember the last battle I had RvR. Its all the fond memories of guild fighting in UO, and solo pvp action that makes that game my favorite of all times, not fighting poison elementals in the deep caves. PvP is what brings a game to life for me and my friends.
Actually, I find this continuous play idea, where everything is refilled quickly with no downtime, spoils the idea of MMO's for me. MMO's have their origins from MU's, text based online roleplaying games, be they MUD's, MUSH's, MUX's, and so on. EverQuest was basically a MUD with a very flashy GUI (Graphical User Interface).
That was one of the things that made EverQuest so popular, is the socializing that went around the fringes of the game. Because of the downtime involved, people could chat, get to know each other, forge new friendships, make new enemies and generally have fun beyond the confines of what the game was programmed to do.
Having everything rushed doesn't give people time to type, and so the social aspect dissolves to the point where you're basically playing an FPS with stats. Take City of Heroes as an example. Theres practically no downtime in that game, one fight follows another, with the only break being the time moving from one mission to the next. People can't chat, theres very little interaction with your team-mates, so the community as a whole suffers - how can you have a community if nobody can talk to each other?
And that is why I don't agree with this 'speed it all up' thing, because I don't play MMO's just to get the next level, or beat X mob, or find Uber_Sword_12, I play it for the other people who fight alongside me. MMO's are great because they're social, not just 'blamblamblam' - take that away and whats the point?
......
And that is why I don't agree with this 'speed it all up' thing, because I don't play MMO's just to get the next level, or beat X mob, or find Uber_Sword_12, I play it for the other people who fight alongside me. MMO's are great because they're social, not just 'blamblamblam' - take that away and whats the point?
I couldn't agree more. People seem hellbent on making every game a fast action, wham-bam-thankyou-mam style of game. Roleplay games (from which MMORPGs derive) were never about wham-bam style of play and shouldn't be forced into that mold. Don't get me wrong - I enjoy a good FPS style game too, but that is NOT what a roleplay game is about.
Part of the problem is that most (if not all) MMORPGs today are centered (if not fully almost so) around killing. There are very few (if any) other options given the player, thus the desire to have them be wham-bam style. If all there is to do is fight, then I understand the desire to have little or no downtime. A good MMORPG, however, SHOULD offer the player many, many more options of things to do (which then automatically provides "downtime" from fighting). For example in UO when I was tired of fighting, I could take a break (downtime so to speak) and chop wood to fashion bows or collect ore to make weapons and armor, I could gather feathers or shear sheep for the useful items that gave my character - all of these things were fun and useful on their own and automatically provided "downtime from fighting" without actually stopping me from doing something in game and having fun and advancing my character. Again, because UO was truly skill based (not pseudo like other games) I was never wasting my time - I was always advancing my character.
Games MUST provide the player character with many, many different things to do - in that way the game does not need to artificially slow things down for the player.
If all else in life fails you, buy a vowel.
If all else in life fails you, buy a vowel.
I disagree with you, and I agree with Brad. Downtime is about balance. Some downtime is necessary, some is just plain nice for a breather. If you've developed a world that is rich in variety, full of challenges, and created an environment where social interaction is important, then downtime won't be spent mulling over your monthly $15, it will be spent organizing your next group, popping into town to check up on your shop, or meeting someone to trade goods or services with. There have to be points where you are not ready for another mob in order for battle to be difficult, and thus interesting, otherwise, in games that auto-fill your mana or allow you to munch down food to refill in a matter of seconds, there will be no challenge. Some games have already done this, and their continued popularity will likely reflect this issue in the long run if the developers stick too close to the casual-player philosophy that all downtime is evil. Brad is right 100%, and I'll be buying Vanguard for that very reason, among many others.
So your argument here is that the move toward more time-sensitive battle systems "twitchy" as you call them, is going to cause some sort of rift in the MMO community? I don't really see that happening. This sort of relates to the downtime issue, you admit you can't be pushing buttons all the time. I think you sort of hit it on the head when you mention that only baby steps have been taken in this direction, and that old games could be macro'd to death. I think they've pretty much found the necessary balance in EQ2 between making combat and crafting fun and interesting, requiring input and monitoring by an actual human, and moving toward the "twitch" style. I think that's a better description of the trend than the forecast of some rift in the community, but I applaud you for giving it as much thought as you obviously have. I just happen to disagree again.
I agree with you on this one. The first ideas on how to suck people into the game were to make advancement uber slow. Slow advancement is fine in my book, but there have to be intermediate rewards to keep you going. That's getting a bit off topic though. Essentially, this slowed progress took the form of camping as you described above. Now they're getting a bit more creative with it, and I like it too. Some games, however, have recently tried to solve this issue by making advancement very easy and too fast. I expect those games to have a much shorter shelf life than their contemporaries, but only the future will bear out whether I am right about that, or whether people would rather just play an MMO for 6 months and then relegate the rest of their playtime to avoiding griefers and finding fun ways to PvP. I personally don't find PvP any more exciting than working with PCs against game mechanics, but I guess those game mechanics have to be unknown and discoverable for that to be fun. Some games have handed 95% of the mechanics to you on a silver platter, and I disagree with that design decision too.
Instancing can and has been taken too far in my opinion in games that have come out of late. The key here is to provide a balance, and I agree with you that the accomplishment of an in-game goal does not require you to deal with 10 griefers on your way to that goal to give satisfaction and pride in your abilities and performance. Again, balance is key, and I think MMO developers know this is a big issue that will shpae the face of their community, which is the key to any successful MMO.
PvP is a crappy way to make up for lack of content and poor game design. I disagree with you, and I think we should continue to focus on letting PvP players congregate on their own servers. People who want to try it, or do it, will go there, others will not. Choice is the issue here, although griefers would have all your choices removed if possible, and every class would have invis, sneak, and a 50x backstab multiplier.
Suffice to say I think you are wrong about PvP. I'm not including the rest of your comments because I think others have covered your PvP ideas pretty well, but I would like, in closing, to say in the least condescending way possible, LOL!, in regards to your class balance comments.
Most of what you have written is very well thought out, I agree with some of it, some I don't as I have pointed out here. Overall thanks for the post it was a good read although I don't agree with all of it. I'm excited where the gaming industry is going too, and I think there will definitely be plenty of games out there so we can both find something to fall in love with. To each his own, and thank you for the time and thought you put into your post.
Habit is not to be flung out the window by any man, but coaxed down the stairs one step at a time. - Mark Twain
It is obvious from this post that you actually know nothing about PVP. It is not about bullying, ever. It is never unfair, just because you are a newbie, and they are a veteran doesn't make it uneven. They had to go through the same hardship during their newbie days, and eventually, if you stick with it you will become a veteran too and seek revenge against this person who caused you so much grief.
PVE games are so bland, shallow and repetitive I cannot play any of them ever again, even if I were paid to do so. There is no purpose behind anything you do. Do you really feel special for making it to the highest level in one of these games? Something that a monkey could do, given enough time.
Whats the point of being a Warrior in a world where you have no enemies? Randomly spawning monsters are not enemies, they are fodder, farmed for their experience value. PVP creates enemies, real enemies, you will have to defend yourself, and your allies from. You WILL feel a sense of accomplishment from saving your homeland from someone who you know could destroy it.
Saving your homeland from someone who COULD destroy it. Not killing lower lvls for fun.
How do you look at soldiers who will kill defenceless women n children during wars? Think of it the same way. Newbies are completely defenceless. They cant pose any threat to you. So why kill them, brag, wait for them to respawnclaim their bodywatever, jus to kill them again? These ppl should be punished in some way, jus as soldiers who rape n pillage should be punished.