Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Why do I have to become more powerful?

1235

Comments

  • BadSpockBadSpock Member UncommonPosts: 7,957

    Originally posted by Cuathon

    Originally posted by BadSpock

    eh?

    Point is, you can't fly every ship type at once. Only one ship at a time.

    So it doesn't matter if you can fly a Titan when you are flying a Frigate.

    Titan beats frigate. A player who can use a titan wins 1v1 against anyone who can't. If you could field 10000 titans than it doesn't matter if you have 10000 tier 3 battleships because you lose. Vertical progression based on economic strength.

    You are stuck on a specific game used as a reference, a game with terrible, terrible design balance.

    I'd go as far to say that EvE tries very hard to have horizontal progression, but screws it up royally with one of the most severe vertical power progressions of any MMORPG ever made.

  • BadSpockBadSpock Member UncommonPosts: 7,957

    Originally posted by Cuathon

    It doesn't matter how you design it! Horizontal progression is an illusion. If I am progressed "horizontally" with more utility and equal power and you have less utility and equal power the player with more utility wins.

    That is where skill comes in doesn't it?

    FPS games are a fairly good example of horizontal progression.

    Sure as you "level up" in Call of Duty you get access to new guns and other tech, but the player who can shoot better, faster, and has a better tactical awareness and knowledge of the map/surroundings etc. will still have a huge advantage.

  • BadSpockBadSpock Member UncommonPosts: 7,957

    Pure 100% horizontal progression is an illusion, I will concede that point and appologize if I implied that was what I am talking about.

    There is always some sort of measurable gain when compared.

    The real point is the more you try to minimize that, the better.

    *edit* I did say 100% horizontal progression in my OP, which was a mistake and I appologize - 100% horizontal is not possible if you want to still call it progression.

     

  • CuathonCuathon Member Posts: 2,211

    Originally posted by BadSpock

    Originally posted by Cuathon



    It doesn't matter how you design it! Horizontal progression is an illusion. If I am progressed "horizontally" with more utility and equal power and you have less utility and equal power the player with more utility wins.

    That is where skill comes in doesn't it?

    FPS games are a fairly good example of horizontal progression.

    Sure as you "level up" in Call of Duty you get access to new guns and other tech, but the player who can shoot better, faster, and has a better tactical awareness and knowledge of the map/surroundings etc. will still have a huge advantage.

    So basically twitch? Twitch isn't fair for people who weren't arbitrarily born with better twitch.

    In any case that is just an example of very minimal vertical progression. If you had very small increase in gun stats on the same gun or some guns were just slightly better in stats than others it would be the same thing.

    Having a minimal amount of progression is not horizontal, its just approaching infinitely non existent progression.

    Horizontal progression is a lie. Its just another name for no progression.

    And how would that work in an RPG where you are fighting dragons and demons anyways? It wouldn't. in an FPS you are only fighting humans who also don't ever progress in any meaningful way.

    Whyare you wasting time on rpgs when you could play fps games?

  • AdamTMAdamTM Member Posts: 1,376

    Originally posted by Cuathon

    Originally posted by BadSpock


    Originally posted by FrostWyrm


    Originally posted by BadSpock



    "Oh I'm sorry, you can't play with us. You aren't high enough level and/or have good enough gear."

    That ^ = MMO fail.

    How is this different from "Oh I'm sorry, you can't play with us. You don't have the right skills."?

    Depends on how you define "skills."

    If you are talking about skill progression like Swordsmanship 1-100 than it is the exact same thing as levels, just with a different name.

    Also, if one player can use a tier 3 battleship and you can only use a tier 3 frigate, you are going to lose. There is still vertical progression. Because having more options means you win, just like having my brute force.

    This is completely false, it depends how the ships are equiped.

    I can fly circles around your battleship in a T3 frigate 1v1 untill you either run out of ammo/energy and i can start slowly eating away at your enormous HP-pool and you are dead. Same with a Titan, try hitting anything with very large guns that is the size of a frigate.

    Ship-hull in EVE is horizontal progression.

    image
  • BadSpockBadSpock Member UncommonPosts: 7,957

    Originally posted by Cuathon

    So basically twitch? Twitch isn't fair for people who weren't arbitrarily born with better twitch.

    In any case that is just an example of very minimal vertical progression. If you had very small increase in gun stats on the same gun or some guns were just slightly better in stats than others it would be the same thing.

    Having a minimal amount of progression is not horizontal, its just approaching infinitely non existent progression.

    Horizontal progression is a lie. Its just another name for no progression.

    And how would that work in an RPG where you are fighting dragons and demons anyways? It wouldn't. in an FPS you are only fighting humans who also don't ever progress in any meaningful way.

    Whyare you wasting time on rpgs when you could play fps games?

    I actually don't like twitch combat all too much, especially in MMOs lol

    What I am trying to illustrate/describe and how it would work in a RPG is, well, it'd take pages upon pages and I won't subject this thread to reading it.

    You have already made the "real" point - "Having a minimal amount of progression"

  • BadSpockBadSpock Member UncommonPosts: 7,957

    In the world I see....

    You don't gain stats as you level - you don't get more HP and more MP etc. but you might learn ways to better manage and maintain the limited supply you have.

    You're gear doesn't get "better" you simply specialize it more to your specific play style.

    Slow, hard hitting or quick and constant.

    Fast an illusive or slow and stalwart.

    Up front burst or long haul survivability etc.

    Each with a trade off.

    You don't simply get "better," you don't simply get more and more of everything.

    You get more of some and less of others.

    So is there progression there? Yes. Is there a vertical climb in relative power? Yes.

    But is it as glaringly obvious and artificially linear as 99% of MMORPG's on the market? No.

    Again, would take pages to fully flesh it out, but I think you get the point.

  • Creslin321Creslin321 Member Posts: 5,359

    Originally posted by BadSpock

    Originally posted by Cuathon

    So basically twitch? Twitch isn't fair for people who weren't arbitrarily born with better twitch.

    In any case that is just an example of very minimal vertical progression. If you had very small increase in gun stats on the same gun or some guns were just slightly better in stats than others it would be the same thing.

    Having a minimal amount of progression is not horizontal, its just approaching infinitely non existent progression.

    Horizontal progression is a lie. Its just another name for no progression.

    And how would that work in an RPG where you are fighting dragons and demons anyways? It wouldn't. in an FPS you are only fighting humans who also don't ever progress in any meaningful way.

    Whyare you wasting time on rpgs when you could play fps games?

    I actually don't like twitch combat all too much, especially in MMOs lol

    What I am trying to illustrate/describe and how it would work in a RPG is, well, it'd take pages upon pages and I won't subject this thread to reading it.

    You have already made the "real" point - "Having a minimal amount of progression"

     Guild Wars 1 is a fairly good example of horizontal progression.  You get max level really fast (like a day), and then progression is all about getting the skills you want from different monsters.

    You can only have 8 skills equipped at a time, so getting more skills (typically) does not directly increase your power, it just gives you options for another build, another playstyle.

    For example, with my elementalist, once I got a good elite skill "Savannah Heat" I was "good" at serving the role of AoE nuker.  But if I wanted to play a more protective role, I would have to unlock a lot of earth skills to do it.  Unlocking these didnt' make me a better AoE nuker at all because I couldn't equip the skills at the same time.  But it gave me the option to play a protective role.

    Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?

  • BadSpockBadSpock Member UncommonPosts: 7,957

    Originally posted by Creslin321

    Originally posted by BadSpock

    I actually don't like twitch combat all too much, especially in MMOs lol

    What I am trying to illustrate/describe and how it would work in a RPG is, well, it'd take pages upon pages and I won't subject this thread to reading it.

    You have already made the "real" point - "Having a minimal amount of progression"

     Guild Wars 1 is a fairly good example of horizontal progression.  You get max level really fast (like a day), and then progression is all about getting the skills you want from different monsters.

    You can only have 8 skills equipped at a time, so getting more skills (typically) does not directly increase your power, it just gives you options for another build, another playstyle.

    For example, with my elementalist, once I got a good elite skill "Savannah Heat" I was "good" at serving the role of AoE nuker.  But if I wanted to play a more protective role, I would have to unlock a lot of earth skills to do it.  Unlocking these didnt' make me a better AoE nuker at all because I couldn't equip the skills at the same time.  But it gave me the option to play a protective role.

    Ding ding ding we have a winner!

    I was going to use GW and GW2 as an example of well designed horizontal progression, only based off of what I know, but my first hand knowledge of GW1 is sparse at best so I thought I'd best leave it to more experienced hands.

  • CuathonCuathon Member Posts: 2,211

    Originally posted by BadSpock

    Originally posted by Creslin321


    Originally posted by BadSpock

    I actually don't like twitch combat all too much, especially in MMOs lol

    What I am trying to illustrate/describe and how it would work in a RPG is, well, it'd take pages upon pages and I won't subject this thread to reading it.

    You have already made the "real" point - "Having a minimal amount of progression"

     Guild Wars 1 is a fairly good example of horizontal progression.  You get max level really fast (like a day), and then progression is all about getting the skills you want from different monsters.

    You can only have 8 skills equipped at a time, so getting more skills (typically) does not directly increase your power, it just gives you options for another build, another playstyle.

    For example, with my elementalist, once I got a good elite skill "Savannah Heat" I was "good" at serving the role of AoE nuker.  But if I wanted to play a more protective role, I would have to unlock a lot of earth skills to do it.  Unlocking these didnt' make me a better AoE nuker at all because I couldn't equip the skills at the same time.  But it gave me the option to play a protective role.

    Ding ding ding we have a winner!

    I was going to use GW and GW2 as an example of well designed horizontal progression, only based off of what I know, but my first hand knowledge of GW1 is sparse at best so I thought I'd best leave it to more experienced hands.

    But thats not true. Some builds are just better even in GW.

    I guess if you are dumb you can let yourself be deluded that its somehow different? Why even have progression at all in that case?

     

  • Creslin321Creslin321 Member Posts: 5,359

    Originally posted by Cuathon

    Originally posted by BadSpock

    Originally posted by Creslin321

    Originally posted by BadSpock

    ...

     Guild Wars 1 is a fairly good example of horizontal progression.  You get max level really fast (like a day), and then progression is all about getting the skills you want from different monsters.

    You can only have 8 skills equipped at a time, so getting more skills (typically) does not directly increase your power, it just gives you options for another build, another playstyle.

    For example, with my elementalist, once I got a good elite skill "Savannah Heat" I was "good" at serving the role of AoE nuker.  But if I wanted to play a more protective role, I would have to unlock a lot of earth skills to do it.  Unlocking these didnt' make me a better AoE nuker at all because I couldn't equip the skills at the same time.  But it gave me the option to play a protective role.

    Ding ding ding we have a winner!

    I was going to use GW and GW2 as an example of well designed horizontal progression, only based off of what I know, but my first hand knowledge of GW1 is sparse at best so I thought I'd best leave it to more experienced hands.

    But thats not true. Some builds are just better even in GW.

    I guess if you are dumb you can let yourself be deluded that its somehow different? Why even have progression at all in that case?

     

     Yes, some builds are better than others in GW1, that is true.  What is also true is that, that fact is completely irrelevant to the arguemnt.

    Let me spell this out.

    I can get all the skills and equipment required to make a build that is hypothetically the "best" at the moment for AoE nuking if I'm an elementalist.  Once I do this, I will never be able to improve my ability to AoE nuke as an elementalist until the game is changed somehow, no matter what I do.

    But say I get bored of AoE nuking and I want to single target nuke instead.  So then I have to get the skills and equip that make me the "best" at single target nuking.  While in this role, I am not as good at AoE nuking, but I am the best at single target nuking.

    Now say I get bored of nuking all together and I want to play a protection role.  So I have to get all the skills to be the "best" at that.  Once I do this...I can play a protection role that is awesome at protection but terrible at nuking all together.

    Do you see how this works now????

    I progressed HORIZONTALLY.  I gained new OPTIONS, but did not increase my POWER at any one of those options.

    Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?

  • CuathonCuathon Member Posts: 2,211

    Originally posted by Creslin321

    Originally posted by Cuathon


    Originally posted by BadSpock


    Originally posted by Creslin321


    Originally posted by BadSpock

    ...

     Guild Wars 1 is a fairly good example of horizontal progression.  You get max level really fast (like a day), and then progression is all about getting the skills you want from different monsters.

    You can only have 8 skills equipped at a time, so getting more skills (typically) does not directly increase your power, it just gives you options for another build, another playstyle.

    For example, with my elementalist, once I got a good elite skill "Savannah Heat" I was "good" at serving the role of AoE nuker.  But if I wanted to play a more protective role, I would have to unlock a lot of earth skills to do it.  Unlocking these didnt' make me a better AoE nuker at all because I couldn't equip the skills at the same time.  But it gave me the option to play a protective role.

    Ding ding ding we have a winner!

    I was going to use GW and GW2 as an example of well designed horizontal progression, only based off of what I know, but my first hand knowledge of GW1 is sparse at best so I thought I'd best leave it to more experienced hands.

    But thats not true. Some builds are just better even in GW.

    I guess if you are dumb you can let yourself be deluded that its somehow different? Why even have progression at all in that case?

     

     Yes, some builds are better than others in GW1, that is true.  What is also true is that, that fact is completely irrelevant to the arguemnt.

    Let me spell this out.

    I can get all the skills and equipment required to make a build that is hypothetically the "best" at the moment for AoE nuking if I'm an elementalist.  Once I do this, I will never be able to improve my ability to AoE nuke as an elementalist until the game is changed somehow, no matter what I do.

    But say I get bored of AoE nuking and I want to single target nuke instead.  So then I have to get the skills and equip that make me the "best" at single target nuking.  While in this role, I am not as good at AoE nuking, but I am the best at single target nuking.

    Now say I get bored of nuking all together and I want to play a protection role.  So I have to get all the skills to be the "best" at that.  Once I do this...I can play a protection role that is awesome at protection but terrible at nuking all together.

    Do you see how this works now????

    I progressed HORIZONTALLY.  I gained new OPTIONS, but did not increase my POWER at any one of those options.

    You changed secondary classes or rolled an alt? Unless you did one of those things you are likely just have a worse character, which doesn't count as progression. And really even changing secondary classes doesn't allow you to have a high quality character with a totally different role.

  • AdamTMAdamTM Member Posts: 1,376

    Originally posted by Creslin321

    Originally posted by BadSpock


    Originally posted by Cuathon



    So basically twitch? Twitch isn't fair for people who weren't arbitrarily born with better twitch.

    In any case that is just an example of very minimal vertical progression. If you had very small increase in gun stats on the same gun or some guns were just slightly better in stats than others it would be the same thing.

    Having a minimal amount of progression is not horizontal, its just approaching infinitely non existent progression.

    Horizontal progression is a lie. Its just another name for no progression.

    And how would that work in an RPG where you are fighting dragons and demons anyways? It wouldn't. in an FPS you are only fighting humans who also don't ever progress in any meaningful way.

    Whyare you wasting time on rpgs when you could play fps games?

    I actually don't like twitch combat all too much, especially in MMOs lol

    What I am trying to illustrate/describe and how it would work in a RPG is, well, it'd take pages upon pages and I won't subject this thread to reading it.

    You have already made the "real" point - "Having a minimal amount of progression"

     Guild Wars 1 is a fairly good example of horizontal progression.  You get max level really fast (like a day), and then progression is all about getting the skills you want from different monsters.

    You can only have 8 skills equipped at a time, so getting more skills (typically) does not directly increase your power, it just gives you options for another build, another playstyle.

    For example, with my elementalist, once I got a good elite skill "Savannah Heat" I was "good" at serving the role of AoE nuker.  But if I wanted to play a more protective role, I would have to unlock a lot of earth skills to do it.  Unlocking these didnt' make me a better AoE nuker at all because I couldn't equip the skills at the same time.  But it gave me the option to play a protective role.

    Just like TSW :)

    image
  • BanaghranBanaghran Member Posts: 869

    You are arguing semantics, i like horizontal progression, which does not mean that it does not make a character more powerful, OPTIONS are also a advantage (dont make me relive 2009 again, please :) ).

    And apart of options themselves, consider, IF the devs create some sort of event, where you are tested in different roles and if you are good in a specific number of them, you get a uber sword which makes you more powerful in every one of them, you are now more powerful in the raw sense than the guy who has only one role.

    The games content is more important in considering the relative power of horizontal or vertical progression than anything else.

    Flame on!

    :)

  • FareasFareas Member Posts: 75

    Bloodline champions! I like playing that game because me and my team are the ones who become better not my characters. Most games add '' progression '' artificially by adding more and more gears and skills that are tied to a character. Having you and your team become better is what's cool about GW2 as well because that it doesn't rely on artificial power but on you in reality becoming better.

    What's cool is that in GW2 they have managed to make this true for the PvE as well in dungeons you have to be in synch with your party to make it through because they got rid of aggro mechanics so everyone needs to know how to use the skills they possess in the most effective manners it's pretty cool that they blur the barrier between PvP and PvE. If you never do PvP or PvE this time around you might be compelled to try the other.

  • Creslin321Creslin321 Member Posts: 5,359

    Originally posted by Cuathon

    Originally posted by Creslin321

    Originally posted by Cuathon

    Originally posted by BadSpock

    Originally posted by Creslin321

    Originally posted by BadSpock

    ...

     ...

    ?

     

     Yes, some builds are better than others in GW1, that is true.  What is also true is that, that fact is completely irrelevant to the arguemnt.

    Let me spell this out.

    I can get all the skills and equipment required to make a build that is hypothetically the "best" at the moment for AoE nuking if I'm an elementalist.  Once I do this, I will never be able to improve my ability to AoE nuke as an elementalist until the game is changed somehow, no matter what I do.

    But say I get bored of AoE nuking and I want to single target nuke instead.  So then I have to get the skills and equip that make me the "best" at single target nuking.  While in this role, I am not as good at AoE nuking, but I am the best at single target nuking.

    Now say I get bored of nuking all together and I want to play a protection role.  So I have to get all the skills to be the "best" at that.  Once I do this...I can play a protection role that is awesome at protection but terrible at nuking all together.

    Do you see how this works now????

    I progressed HORIZONTALLY.  I gained new OPTIONS, but did not increase my POWER at any one of those options.

    You changed secondary classes or rolled an alt? Unless you did one of those things you are likely just have a worse character, which doesn't count as progression. And really even changing secondary classes doesn't allow you to have a high quality character with a totally different role.

    Your words form sentences.

    But without knowledge.

    Nothing is said.

    Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?

  • KuinnKuinn Member UncommonPosts: 2,072

    Originally posted by Cuathon

    Originally posted by Kuinn


    Originally posted by FrostWyrm


    Originally posted by Kuinn


    Originally posted by UknownAspect


    Originally posted by FrostWyrm


    Originally posted by Kuinn



    I've never claimed RPG's should get rid of the usually used system of becoming more powerful by gaining levels, or making the games FPS/twitch based, while you keep bringing it up and arguing against while it has nothing to do with my posts at all, how irritating is that?

    You didn't but the OP did, and you said you completely agreed with him. If this isn't the case, then the error made was yours, not anyone else's.

    That was not my intended claim.  Perhaps I came off as too strong.  I understand  That numbers go up, and they've always been a factor, but I think it is ridiculous when it is the ONLY factor.  And is simply used as an artificial gate.  There is no need to have 100 levels when the same thing can be done in 40.

     

    Or have 100 levels, just get rid of the insanely steep power gain through every level, you get new abilities and talents, you dont need to get a bag full of stats on top of that, sure fine give stats, just not so damn much, it restricts the gameplay on so many levels having all the content + PvP based on "you have to be exactly lvl5-6 to do this/to fight this person, if you are under that you have no chance, if you are above that there's no point, no xp, no useful rewards" <- that's a bad and too restrictive system, very much a "handholding" type of mechanic to keep you on the rails while breaking world PvP in mmorpgs.

     

    I love leveling in my (mmo)RPG's, I just dont like how it affects everything around me, for having so ridicilously big numbers involved in it when they could be significantly smaller, or just ability and talent gains would work perfectly well for me too.

    So you'd like to see a game where you earn new skills, but your core abilities never change? Traveling, training, and all that should naturally make you a physically and mentally stronger being. New spells and weapon techniques alone do not an adventurer make. Not over the course of a lifelong journey.

     

     

    I hate to repeat my self but I've said a couple of times, like in that quote... that instead of gaining a shitloads of stats with the common super steep powergain based system, you could gain significantly less per level, making the game experience more balanced, the whole game world would be more accessible and world PvP more balanced.



    So you want to remove progression? Good to know.

     

    No, you understood something very wrong, like in every response you make. You dont understand what you are replying to.

  • jusomdudejusomdude Member RarePosts: 2,694

    Originally posted by Kuinn

    Originally posted by Cuathon


    Originally posted by Kuinn


    Originally posted by FrostWyrm


    Originally posted by Kuinn


    Originally posted by UknownAspect


    Originally posted by FrostWyrm


    Originally posted by Kuinn



    I've never claimed RPG's should get rid of the usually used system of becoming more powerful by gaining levels, or making the games FPS/twitch based, while you keep bringing it up and arguing against while it has nothing to do with my posts at all, how irritating is that?

    You didn't but the OP did, and you said you completely agreed with him. If this isn't the case, then the error made was yours, not anyone else's.

    That was not my intended claim.  Perhaps I came off as too strong.  I understand  That numbers go up, and they've always been a factor, but I think it is ridiculous when it is the ONLY factor.  And is simply used as an artificial gate.  There is no need to have 100 levels when the same thing can be done in 40.

     

    Or have 100 levels, just get rid of the insanely steep power gain through every level, you get new abilities and talents, you dont need to get a bag full of stats on top of that, sure fine give stats, just not so damn much, it restricts the gameplay on so many levels having all the content + PvP based on "you have to be exactly lvl5-6 to do this/to fight this person, if you are under that you have no chance, if you are above that there's no point, no xp, no useful rewards" <- that's a bad and too restrictive system, very much a "handholding" type of mechanic to keep you on the rails while breaking world PvP in mmorpgs.

     

    I love leveling in my (mmo)RPG's, I just dont like how it affects everything around me, for having so ridicilously big numbers involved in it when they could be significantly smaller, or just ability and talent gains would work perfectly well for me too.

    So you'd like to see a game where you earn new skills, but your core abilities never change? Traveling, training, and all that should naturally make you a physically and mentally stronger being. New spells and weapon techniques alone do not an adventurer make. Not over the course of a lifelong journey.

     

     

    I hate to repeat my self but I've said a couple of times, like in that quote... that instead of gaining a shitloads of stats with the common super steep powergain based system, you could gain significantly less per level, making the game experience more balanced, the whole game world would be more accessible and world PvP more balanced.



    So you want to remove progression? Good to know.

     

    No, you understood something very wrong, like in every response you make. You dont understand what you are replying to.



    Gamers tend to like being rewarded adequately for their efforts, tossing them a bone every once and awhile isn't real attractive. Then there's the part where all the hardcore players would cry when they got owned by a 'noob'.

    There are games that have more balanced type of play, and those are mainly fps. If you're gonna reward your players next to meaninglessly, you might as well not reward them at all.

  • CuathonCuathon Member Posts: 2,211

    Originally posted by Kuinn

    Originally posted by Cuathon


    Originally posted by Kuinn


    Originally posted by FrostWyrm


    Originally posted by Kuinn


    Originally posted by UknownAspect


    Originally posted by FrostWyrm


    Originally posted by Kuinn



    I've never claimed RPG's should get rid of the usually used system of becoming more powerful by gaining levels, or making the games FPS/twitch based, while you keep bringing it up and arguing against while it has nothing to do with my posts at all, how irritating is that?

    You didn't but the OP did, and you said you completely agreed with him. If this isn't the case, then the error made was yours, not anyone else's.

    That was not my intended claim.  Perhaps I came off as too strong.  I understand  That numbers go up, and they've always been a factor, but I think it is ridiculous when it is the ONLY factor.  And is simply used as an artificial gate.  There is no need to have 100 levels when the same thing can be done in 40.

     

    Or have 100 levels, just get rid of the insanely steep power gain through every level, you get new abilities and talents, you dont need to get a bag full of stats on top of that, sure fine give stats, just not so damn much, it restricts the gameplay on so many levels having all the content + PvP based on "you have to be exactly lvl5-6 to do this/to fight this person, if you are under that you have no chance, if you are above that there's no point, no xp, no useful rewards" <- that's a bad and too restrictive system, very much a "handholding" type of mechanic to keep you on the rails while breaking world PvP in mmorpgs.

     

    I love leveling in my (mmo)RPG's, I just dont like how it affects everything around me, for having so ridicilously big numbers involved in it when they could be significantly smaller, or just ability and talent gains would work perfectly well for me too.

    So you'd like to see a game where you earn new skills, but your core abilities never change? Traveling, training, and all that should naturally make you a physically and mentally stronger being. New spells and weapon techniques alone do not an adventurer make. Not over the course of a lifelong journey.

     

     

    I hate to repeat my self but I've said a couple of times, like in that quote... that instead of gaining a shitloads of stats with the common super steep powergain based system, you could gain significantly less per level, making the game experience more balanced, the whole game world would be more accessible and world PvP more balanced.



    So you want to remove progression? Good to know.

     

    No, you understood something very wrong, like in every response you make. You dont understand what you are replying to.



    No you don't understand what you are saying. Its not my fault you either can't use english properly or can't follow a logic path to its natural conclusion.

  • waynejr2waynejr2 Member EpicPosts: 7,768

    Originally posted by Tazlor

    Why are people so intent on playing MMORPGs when it's clear that they aren't interested in the genre? This is like asking why I have to shoot in a shooter.

    Good point.  They don't like what it is then they should look elsewhere.

    http://www.youhaventlived.com/qblog/2010/QBlog190810A.html  

    Epic Music:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1

    https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1

    Kyleran:  "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."

    John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."

    FreddyNoNose:  "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."

    LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"




  • Crunchy221Crunchy221 Member Posts: 489

    Originally posted by waynejr2

    Originally posted by Tazlor

    Why are people so intent on playing MMORPGs when it's clear that they aren't interested in the genre? This is like asking why I have to shoot in a shooter.

    Good point.  They don't like what it is then they should look elsewhere.

     Ive been wondering myself this for a long time.  Literally blows my mind that people could walk into a game genere and suggest they change it because they dont like it.

    I dislike soccer, i dont go onto FIFA forums and suggest they add contact, pads, and a quarterback.  If i did i would promptly get told to GTFO and would probably be IP banned.  Here its another story i guess.

    Can someone tell me why people play a mmorpg then complain about the RPG and suggest they remove the RPG from the game....only to have the developers agree and make it easier, quicker, and simpler?

    I could understand if the only online games avaliable were mmorpgs and they had no other choice....but theres so many alternatives that do exactly what people seem to ask for from RPG developers...and thats a glorified endgame with no progression with pvp based completely on player skill rather than character development choices and roles...and with no boring leveling and progression to get in your way....

  • RaysheRayshe Member UncommonPosts: 1,279

    Towards the OP, im gonna give you a VERY simple awnser, The Secret World.  Story Progression based not level based, no classes and if you dont want a certian Skill then don't try for it. if you like the way you are then you can play that. no one will force you to do otherwise.

    Because i can.
    I'm Hopeful For Every Game, Until the Fan Boys Attack My Games. Then the Knives Come Out.
    Logic every gamers worst enemy.

  • KuinnKuinn Member UncommonPosts: 2,072

    Originally posted by Cuathon

    Originally posted by Kuinn


    Originally posted by Cuathon



    So you want to remove progression? Good to know.

     

    No, you understood something very wrong, like in every response you make. You dont understand what you are replying to.



    No you don't understand what you are saying. Its not my fault you either can't use english properly or can't follow a logic path to its natural conclusion.

     

    If you read through my posts you know that I dont want to remove progression, if you think that I actually do want to remove progression from RPG's after all I've said, then you simply just dont understand, and that's why this conversation has no point, basically we havent even started since you hear all the time anything but what I have to say. It's like, I say blue and you hear yellow, to no end apparently.

  • BadSpockBadSpock Member UncommonPosts: 7,957

    It's not about removing progression from the MMORPG genre.

    It's about making it better.

    You know what kills community? Not being able to play with friends, dividing your playerbase between level appropriate zones.

    We've probably all played level based games, WoW, TOR etc. and what happens? After a while, there are a LOT of people in the "end game" max level zones and a fair amount in the first/early zones (alts, etc.) but very, very few people in between.

    Why?

    Linear statistcal progression. 

    Other things that kill community - faction locked classes and races. 

    Phased and instanced story content presented in a linear fashion - people at different stages of the same story, not able to play together because of phasing, instancing etc.

    These are the problems (a few among many) with the "modern" MMO - problems that devs have failed to acknowledge or deviate from since about 2004.

    Only game that has asked these questions, and provided answers -

    GW2. 

    I don't want to sound like a fan boy, but almost every problem I can define with the MMORPG genre since early 2000's, GW2 is seeking to find an answer to. Will they succeed? Will we, the players, actually enjoy it? 

    Only time wil tell. 

    But when I list out the things I would do to create a better, more MMO version of a MMORPG - my list looks a lot like the feature list from GW2.

  • CuathonCuathon Member Posts: 2,211

    Originally posted by Kuinn

    Originally posted by Cuathon


    Originally posted by Kuinn


    Originally posted by Cuathon



    So you want to remove progression? Good to know.

     

    No, you understood something very wrong, like in every response you make. You dont understand what you are replying to.



    No you don't understand what you are saying. Its not my fault you either can't use english properly or can't follow a logic path to its natural conclusion.

     

    If you read through my posts you know that I dont want to remove progression, if you think that I actually do want to remove progression from RPG's after all I've said, then you simply just dont understand, and that's why this conversation has no point, basically we havent even started since you hear all the time anything but what I have to say. It's like, I say blue and you hear yellow, to no end apparently.



    Lowering progression to an infinitesimally small amount is effectively the same as removing it.

    Its like a limit.

    The limit of f(x)=1/x

    x->infinity

    is is 0. The value of the equation is not and never will be actually infinity but it becomes infinitely close to zero.

     

     

Sign In or Register to comment.