Originally posted by Bladestrom As it should be, mmorpg's should be niche and stop trying to be all things to all men - that's just stupidity and greed. Maybe then people who don't get mmorpg's will no longer feel the need to complain in forums that are aimed at mmorpg as mmorpg's will stop trying to aim at fans fro Multiple genre including non- rpg.
And MMORPGs could then largely cease to exist. Seriously. They are the hardest, most complex type of video game to build. Feature per feature they are the most expensive. Shutting out a large audience with the goal of being niche would just kill them. Or they would all be small and buggy like Mortal Online.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
They are large and expensive because they try to provide every feature that is popular in every game. I totally agree mmorpg are incredibly expensive to make - that's why it is important to aim for a market - not all markets.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Originally posted by Bladestrom They are large and expensive because they try to provide every feature that is popular in every game. I totally agree mmorpg are incredibly expensive to make - that's why it is important to aim for a market - not all markets.
What makes you think MMORPGs aren't aiming for particular markets right now? They are. It's just not the niche market you want them to aim at.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
some people like the thrill of not knowing when they might be "pvpd".
some people like pvp but only in confined areas.
others like pvp only in defined equalized matches (arena)
still others like "economic pvp" such as one can do in eve (a corp tries to set the price of a commodity by hoarding it; profit ensues)
and of course plenty of people don't like pvp in their MMO at all.
none of the above people are bad people, none are playing the wrong way and thankfully there are games for all of us.
might i suggest darkfall, eve, archeage, or the upcoming albion and camelot unchained to the OP.
RIP Ribbitribbitt you are missed, kid.
Currently Playing EVE, ESO
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.
Lizardsbones if you are incapable of entering a conversation without finishing with a personal attack don't bother. I don't need a game to an for my niche - j don't own a niche, and enjoy many mmorpg games righ now. Maybe you should actually read my posts since you attacked me by identifying game dev practices I agree with.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
The problem with PKing is that it creates player interactions. You don't want that in MMORPGs, try to add more instances, phasing and separations between players.
Some of you love it. A lot of you hate it. But let's be honest Pkers adds a thrilling element to any game. It also makes room for anti-pking, and the battle rages on.
I've been playing Path Of Exile recently. Although it's very much a copy / paste of diablo 2, it's excellent and extremely addicting. And extremely fun. But where is the hostile button when we level up and get bored? Even Diablo 2 had that.
It's really not so much about griefing other people, although I understand it is for many. It's the atmosphere that's created. It's hostile, unpredictable, and imho fun.
But more and more I'm seeing games are chopping the balls off of PvP. IT should be an essential in any RPG as much as grouping up.
Grinding mobs, getting awesome loot are two fun things. But eventually your character hits endgame, and without PvP, well, it's over with.....
What do you guys think? Also, anyone know of a good game with the pvp I seek?
Hitting End game with PvP does not mean its over, goodness no. I like PvP but more controlled environment like battle grounds etc.
The problem you have here is that PKing does not remain pure, it used to be pure, but no more. There is nothing satisfying nor rewarding about being killed by someone 20 more levels above you, nor you being killed by 10 players as you venture out, nor those players camping your corpse or smaller quest hub communities. They do it, because its easy and they get a mild enjoyment out of it to suit the tedium that must be present in their lives.
If you could keep PKing pure it would be wonderful, this is why nobbers in MMO's ruin it and why games like Dark Souls embrace it.
3) Originally posted by Bladestrom Lizardsbones if you are incapable of entering a conversation without finishing with a personal attack don't bother. I don't need a game to an for my niche - j don't own a niche, and enjoy many mmorpg games righ now. Maybe you should actually read my posts since you attacked me by identifying game dev practices I agree with.
2) Originally posted by Bladestrom They are large and expensive because they try to provide every feature that is popular in every game. I totally agree mmorpg are incredibly expensive to make - that's why it is important to aim for a market - not all markets.
1) Originally posted by Bladestrom As it should be, mmorpg's should be niche and stop trying to be all things to all men - that's just stupidity and greed. Maybe then people who don't get mmorpg's will no longer feel the need to complain in forums that are aimed at mmorpg as mmorpg's will stop trying to aim at fans fro Multiple genre including non- rpg.
The above quoted posts are not in order. The editor is kind of cr@p when trying to do stuff like this.
Huh. Guess I hit a nerve there.
MMORPGs are not trying to be all things to all men. They aren't trying to provide every feature that is popular from every game. If you can point out a game that has or has even tried to have all the features from all the games, I'd love to see what that looks like. Now, are individual developers trying to add new features and options because that's how you compete? Yes, definitely. If they didn't the only MMORPG option would be Ultima Online and UO clones.
MMORPGs are large and expensive because they are large and expensive. As the cost of building video games has gone up, the cost of building MMORPGs has gone up more. It doesn't matter what kind of MMORPG is being built. To actually get even a standard set of features in there will cost millions of dollars. To get a very nice set of features and to give the game a good polish will cost additional millions of dollars. It's just really expensive to produce an MMORPG.
Why would you think that developers and investors would invest in a genre that suddenly contracted and lost players? All those people who don't "get" MMORPGs? Without some sort of major backing, MMORPGs do not get developed. Even with major financial backing, getting them developed is iffy. Do you think people will develop MMORPGs as a hobby? Nobody does that now, so would they do it then? How would it even work? Kickstarter?
The Repopulation is a pretty niche game. The MMORPG genre is pretty niche, but The Repopulation is even more niche. They have had as many as 50 people on staff working to develop that game, and it's been in development for like 9 years. If those people are only working full time and not overtime, that's a 100,000 work-hours a year. For 9 years. That is a massive undertaking and they aren't doing anything particularly new. It's really cool, but it's not really new. MMORPGs are just massive games to produce. Losing all the people who don't "get" MMORPGs is not going to help the genre.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Let's be honest here for a moment for all the non-honest players out there in the world. Majority of PvPers are cheating in some regard whether from scripting to other type of hacks. Most people who are pro-pvp are in this category, argue it all you like it's a fact.
When Destiny released there were already people cheating in the crucible only a few in the beginning, now that number has increased dramatically.
Whenever you have an online game that is competitive you are going to have the dishonest players show up in droves. This is a main reason why most honest people do not want nor like PvP. If everyone was forced to play honestly without using their hack of choice then it would be different but that is never going to happen.
This in short is the only acceptable answer to your question that you have posed.
You can always make the argument that war/combat isn't going to ever be "truly fair/balanced."
If you throw a punch and I duck, did I cheat?
But I've had some of my most fun and entertaining fights in UO, WoW, etc. when we were at a disadvatange and still won the pvp fight.
Maybe what I'd simply like is a hardcore mode, siege perilous in every game I enter. Just seems too often the games end up being a grind to lvl up and the end.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on that. Vocal minority or not, I think Trammel killed the game for lots of people even if it did peak in subscribers around the same time.
Quick factual correction:
Subscribers peaked 3 years after trammel, not around the same time. For more reference's sake, as you can see from the charts, UO was around 3 years old when Trammel first came out (and at that point, its subscription growth rate was apparently just about to decrease to 0). Subscriber numbers wouldn't peak until 3 years later after that. Although the "peak" was actually only slightly higher than UO's "levelled out" subscription numbers. Basically, UO had practically stopped growing, then Trammel came out, UO's subscriber numbers almost doubled in a year showing a huge growth increase compared to what it was shortly before trammel, and then they stayed there for 3 years, finally increasing a little bit more at the end.
...and then WoW came out. LOL. I'm trying to remember if Age of Shadows was around that time or earlier (if AoS came later, then that'll prove nothing because... well, WoW. Come to think about it, I'm pretty sure WoW came first from my memory of that era. AoS was likely developed in reaction to it). So I guess if anything "killed" UO, it was WoW.
I think lots of MMOs would love if they had some thing they could do to double their subscribers in the span of a year and keep that retention for 3 years+ (or whenever another WoW comes along to kill it). Then again, the (perfectly valid) lesson they probably got from that was "don't even bother starting with no-alternate-option open world PvP in the first place"
Well then I guess this comes down to personal taste, because when Wrath Of the Lich King came out, I thought it was awful and ruined the game. I thought Vanilla and Burning Crusade were much better. However, it managed to rope a lot of new players thanks to how much more spoonfed the rewards were. So at this point, WoW may have peaked in playerbase, however the game for me wasnt that great.
I wish we could split the thread arguments into what makes a good game, rather than "how are the companies going to milk what's left....." There's lots of ways companies can turn up their money and population, whilst at the same time wrecking the game long term and driving off it's fanbase. Keep in mind also that players with time invested arent going to walk away from 4 years + of progression very easily so the RPG genre has a slight edge in dragging players along for another year.
I wish so many people here werent using "population" as their main ruler for a game.
Pointing out a large population in my mind doesnt mean quality gaming. Maybe I'm way out in left field on this, but I think some readers here will understand what I mean...
We'll just have to agree to disagree on that. Vocal minority or not, I think Trammel killed the game for lots of people even if it did peak in subscribers around the same time.
Quick factual correction:
Subscribers peaked 3 years after trammel, not around the same time. For more reference's sake, as you can see from the charts, UO was around 3 years old when Trammel first came out (and at that point, its subscription growth rate was apparently just about to decrease to 0). Subscriber numbers wouldn't peak until 3 years later after that. Although the "peak" was actually only slightly higher than UO's "levelled out" subscription numbers. Basically, UO had practically stopped growing, then Trammel came out, UO's subscriber numbers almost doubled in a year showing a huge growth increase compared to what it was shortly before trammel, and then they stayed there for 3 years, finally increasing a little bit more at the end.
...and then WoW came out. LOL. I'm trying to remember if Age of Shadows was around that time or earlier (if AoS came later, then that'll prove nothing because... well, WoW. Come to think about it, I'm pretty sure WoW came first from my memory of that era. AoS was likely developed in reaction to it). So I guess if anything "killed" UO, it was WoW.
I think lots of MMOs would love if they had some thing they could do to double their subscribers in the span of a year and keep that retention for 3 years+ (or whenever another WoW comes along to kill it). Then again, the (perfectly valid) lesson they probably got from that was "don't even bother starting with no-alternate-option open world PvP in the first place"
Well then I guess this comes down to personal taste, because when Wrath Of the Lich King came out, I thought it was awful and ruined the game. I thought Vanilla and Burning Crusade were much better. However, it managed to rope a lot of new players thanks to how much more spoonfed the rewards were. So at this point, WoW may have peaked in playerbase, however the game for me wasnt that great.
I wish we could split the thread arguments into what makes a good game, rather than "how are the companies going to milk what's left....." There's lots of ways companies can turn up their money and population, whilst at the same time wrecking the game long term and driving off it's fanbase. Keep in mind also that players with time invested arent going to walk away from 4 years + of progression very easily so the RPG genre has a slight edge in dragging players along for another year.
I wish so many people here werent using "population" as their main ruler for a game.
Pointing out a large population in my mind doesnt mean quality gaming. Maybe I'm way out in left field on this, but I think some readers here will understand what I mean...
Games are basically just a collection of preferences. There is no global "makes a good game" feature other than "no bugs". Nearly everything else that can go into an MMORPG can be argued as good or bad by players. Well, unless you get down to really basic things like "being able to walk". That kind of thing. That's why "population" is the main rule for judging whether or not a game is good. Games have targets to meet, and if they meet the population target, they've done good. After that, it's all about retention. However, this is all relative to the goals. If a game's goal is 50K people and 100K people show up, that game did outstanding, even though compared to SWTOR the game is tiny.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I wish so many people here werent using "population" as their main ruler for a game.
Pointing out a large population in my mind doesnt mean quality gaming. Maybe I'm way out in left field on this, but I think some readers here will understand what I mean...
This is why gaming has sort of lost innovation. People aren't willing to take risks and instead copy popular games, maybe put a slight spin on it.
I personally think forced PvP is fun, it's realistic, and never gets old. The point is, it's not scripted. This will never be "popular" in the MMO world as someone already said, PvP fans tend to gravitate towards other genres.
I think that open PvP should eventually be on equal footing, no gear-treadmill at max level. However I don't think a level 1 should have a chance against a max level player like in GW2. I don't like pick up and play PvP because I feel there is no connection to you character, it doesn't feel as epic or grand, or something..
Now Playing: Bless / Summoners War Looking forward to: Crowfall / Lost Ark / Black Desert Mobile
I personally think forced PvP is fun, it's realistic, and never gets old. The point is, it's not scripted.
And i personally think forced pvp is not fun, and realism has little place in games, and when a game gets old, play the next one. And oh ... i like scripted SP games like the new sherlock holmes games.
Most PVP seems to be just ganking, someone higher level or with better gear killing low levels/low geared people.
PVP should be equal, or close to it. But somehow the loudest PVP advocates can't seem to play games like that. Dark Fall most obviously. It's everything PVPers say they want, but really don't. They just want to gank people.
I wish so many people here werent using "population" as their main ruler for a game.
Pointing out a large population in my mind doesnt mean quality gaming. Maybe I'm way out in left field on this, but I think some readers here will understand what I mean...
This is why gaming has sort of lost innovation. People aren't willing to take risks and instead copy popular games, maybe put a slight spin on it.
In the case of what happened with UO and forced PvP, it's not so much "aren't willing to take risks" as it is "learned from the lessons of the past"
MMOs tried forced PvP (not just UO, but other games that tried it too). Turned out that it only caters to a very niche population. So they stopped. That's not "not taking risks". That's "learned a lesson".
(or, arguably, in some cases they simply cut the "RPG" part of the PvP out, and ended up with the much more successful MOBAs)
PVP should be equal, or close to it. But somehow the loudest PVP advocates can't seem to play games like that. Dark Fall most obviously. It's everything PVPers say they want, but really don't. They just want to gank people.
well, most of the pvp supporters are already playing e-sport type games, and probably don't care enough about MMO pvp to come here and complain.
PVP should be equal, or close to it. But somehow the loudest PVP advocates can't seem to play games like that. Dark Fall most obviously. It's everything PVPers say they want, but really don't. They just want to gank people.
well, most of the pvp supporters are already playing e-sport type games, and probably don't care enough about MMO pvp to come here and complain.
Yea, if you're looking for PvPers who don't care about ganking or having inherent advantages from better gear or higher levels or more friends, you'll probably find them in other places like MOBAs and FPS's.
After all, why bother dealing with that stupid PvE grind, that annoying questing, and that constant worry of having your class nerfed for the sake of PvE balance when you can just play an FPS or MOBA and not deal with that sort of thing?
PVP should be equal, or close to it. But somehow the loudest PVP advocates can't seem to play games like that. Dark Fall most obviously. It's everything PVPers say they want, but really don't. They just want to gank people.
well, most of the pvp supporters are already playing e-sport type games, and probably don't care enough about MMO pvp to come here and complain.
Yea, if you're looking for PvPers who don't care about ganking or having inherent advantages from better gear or higher levels or more friends, you'll probably find them in other places like MOBAs and FPS's.
After all, why bother dealing with that stupid PvE grind, that annoying questing, and that constant worry of having your class nerfed for the sake of PvE balance when you can just play an FPS or MOBA and not deal with that sort of thing?
Wow, this thread got a lot more replies than I expected. Good conversation.
I think what probably works best is simply having PvP servers, and then PvE servers. I'm not necessarily saying PvP should be forced on people. Some people want to play the PvE and coop only, I completely get this...
I'm just disappointed that some games lately have completely gone the opposite direction and either had no PvP, or some handcuffed version of it. I've always built my characters and toons around going into pvp in games like diablo, UO, WoW, etc....
We'll just have to agree to disagree on that. Vocal minority or not, I think Trammel killed the game for lots of people even if it did peak in subscribers around the same time.
Quick factual correction:
Subscribers peaked 3 years after trammel, not around the same time. For more reference's sake, as you can see from the charts, UO was around 3 years old when Trammel first came out (and at that point, its subscription growth rate was apparently just about to decrease to 0). Subscriber numbers wouldn't peak until 3 years later after that. Although the "peak" was actually only slightly higher than UO's "levelled out" subscription numbers. Basically, UO had practically stopped growing, then Trammel came out, UO's subscriber numbers almost doubled in a year showing a huge growth increase compared to what it was shortly before trammel, and then they stayed there for 3 years, finally increasing a little bit more at the end.
...and then WoW came out. LOL. I'm trying to remember if Age of Shadows was around that time or earlier (if AoS came later, then that'll prove nothing because... well, WoW. Come to think about it, I'm pretty sure WoW came first from my memory of that era. AoS was likely developed in reaction to it). So I guess if anything "killed" UO, it was WoW.
I think lots of MMOs would love if they had some thing they could do to double their subscribers in the span of a year and keep that retention for 3 years+ (or whenever another WoW comes along to kill it). Then again, the (perfectly valid) lesson they probably got from that was "don't even bother starting with no-alternate-option open world PvP in the first place"
Well then I guess this comes down to personal taste, because when Wrath Of the Lich King came out, I thought it was awful and ruined the game. I thought Vanilla and Burning Crusade were much better. However, it managed to rope a lot of new players thanks to how much more spoonfed the rewards were. So at this point, WoW may have peaked in playerbase, however the game for me wasnt that great.
I wish we could split the thread arguments into what makes a good game, rather than "how are the companies going to milk what's left....." There's lots of ways companies can turn up their money and population, whilst at the same time wrecking the game long term and driving off it's fanbase. Keep in mind also that players with time invested arent going to walk away from 4 years + of progression very easily so the RPG genre has a slight edge in dragging players along for another year.
I wish so many people here werent using "population" as their main ruler for a game.
Pointing out a large population in my mind doesnt mean quality gaming. Maybe I'm way out in left field on this, but I think some readers here will understand what I mean...
Games are basically just a collection of preferences. There is no global "makes a good game" feature other than "no bugs". Nearly everything else that can go into an MMORPG can be argued as good or bad by players. Well, unless you get down to really basic things like "being able to walk". That kind of thing. That's why "population" is the main rule for judging whether or not a game is good. Games have targets to meet, and if they meet the population target, they've done good. After that, it's all about retention. However, this is all relative to the goals. If a game's goal is 50K people and 100K people show up, that game did outstanding, even though compared to SWTOR the game is tiny.
Ya but here's the thing, I dont really agree with the "population ruler" being what qualifies a good game. Katy Perry and Bieber might be the most popular music, but the quality of it is shit. More people might eat McDonald's than eat Fried Calamari, etc....
Building an rpg around population can really sink the game long term, UO being just one example of it. The only people who should be using population as a ruler, are the fat cats out at Vivendi and the stock market. And that isnt you or me actually playing it.
That is exactly what most of the MMORPG players did. And now the market of MMORPG is smaller then before 2 years. All that games with broken worlds, pve servers, and safe environment, from WoW to GW2 and ESO, just killing the genre. In fact most of the players are PvP, but not pve players. See how many people are playing LoL and WoW, and then tell me how the pve players are majority. No, they are not.
PvP is more popular than PvE if we are talking general gaming yes.
The problem is that it isn't in MMOs. And it really isn't the PvE focused games that takes that away either, it is the fact that almost all MMOs have mechanics that doesn't work as well for PvP.
The thing is that the level mechanics together with gear focus means that the players who usually win a 1 on 1 fight is first the one with highest level and secondly the one with best gear. The best player should be ale to win far more often even if he/she is below in stats and gear.
In a FPS game the best players win most of the time, that is why FPS PvP is fun. Getting killed constantly with zero chance for 2 months so you yourself can kill people below you easily is what is killing the PvP part of the genre, not care bear mechanics.
Funny enough would GW2s mechanics work excellent in an open PvP game if you just could find a way to keep the zerging down. And that is something that should be done with carrots, not stick. Give large rewards to anyone beating the odds, small to anyone doing an easy win. Yes, Risk Vs reward is also something that could be done better in PvP MMOs.
Comments
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
And MMORPGs could then largely cease to exist. Seriously. They are the hardest, most complex type of video game to build. Feature per feature they are the most expensive. Shutting out a large audience with the goal of being niche would just kill them. Or they would all be small and buggy like Mortal Online.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
What makes you think MMORPGs aren't aiming for particular markets right now? They are. It's just not the niche market you want them to aim at.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
some people like the thrill of not knowing when they might be "pvpd".
some people like pvp but only in confined areas.
others like pvp only in defined equalized matches (arena)
still others like "economic pvp" such as one can do in eve (a corp tries to set the price of a commodity by hoarding it; profit ensues)
and of course plenty of people don't like pvp in their MMO at all.
none of the above people are bad people, none are playing the wrong way and thankfully there are games for all of us.
might i suggest darkfall, eve, archeage, or the upcoming albion and camelot unchained to the OP.
RIP Ribbitribbitt you are missed, kid.
Currently Playing EVE, ESO
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.
Dwight D Eisenhower
My optimism wears heavy boots and is loud.
Henry Rollins
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
The problem with PKing is that it creates player interactions. You don't want that in MMORPGs, try to add more instances, phasing and separations between players.
Hitting End game with PvP does not mean its over, goodness no. I like PvP but more controlled environment like battle grounds etc.
The problem you have here is that PKing does not remain pure, it used to be pure, but no more. There is nothing satisfying nor rewarding about being killed by someone 20 more levels above you, nor you being killed by 10 players as you venture out, nor those players camping your corpse or smaller quest hub communities. They do it, because its easy and they get a mild enjoyment out of it to suit the tedium that must be present in their lives.
If you could keep PKing pure it would be wonderful, this is why nobbers in MMO's ruin it and why games like Dark Souls embrace it.
The above quoted posts are not in order. The editor is kind of cr@p when trying to do stuff like this.
Huh. Guess I hit a nerve there.
MMORPGs are not trying to be all things to all men. They aren't trying to provide every feature that is popular from every game. If you can point out a game that has or has even tried to have all the features from all the games, I'd love to see what that looks like. Now, are individual developers trying to add new features and options because that's how you compete? Yes, definitely. If they didn't the only MMORPG option would be Ultima Online and UO clones.
MMORPGs are large and expensive because they are large and expensive. As the cost of building video games has gone up, the cost of building MMORPGs has gone up more. It doesn't matter what kind of MMORPG is being built. To actually get even a standard set of features in there will cost millions of dollars. To get a very nice set of features and to give the game a good polish will cost additional millions of dollars. It's just really expensive to produce an MMORPG.
Why would you think that developers and investors would invest in a genre that suddenly contracted and lost players? All those people who don't "get" MMORPGs? Without some sort of major backing, MMORPGs do not get developed. Even with major financial backing, getting them developed is iffy. Do you think people will develop MMORPGs as a hobby? Nobody does that now, so would they do it then? How would it even work? Kickstarter?
The Repopulation is a pretty niche game. The MMORPG genre is pretty niche, but The Repopulation is even more niche. They have had as many as 50 people on staff working to develop that game, and it's been in development for like 9 years. If those people are only working full time and not overtime, that's a 100,000 work-hours a year. For 9 years. That is a massive undertaking and they aren't doing anything particularly new. It's really cool, but it's not really new. MMORPGs are just massive games to produce. Losing all the people who don't "get" MMORPGs is not going to help the genre.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
You can always make the argument that war/combat isn't going to ever be "truly fair/balanced."
If you throw a punch and I duck, did I cheat?
But I've had some of my most fun and entertaining fights in UO, WoW, etc. when we were at a disadvatange and still won the pvp fight.
Maybe what I'd simply like is a hardcore mode, siege perilous in every game I enter. Just seems too often the games end up being a grind to lvl up and the end.
Well then I guess this comes down to personal taste, because when Wrath Of the Lich King came out, I thought it was awful and ruined the game. I thought Vanilla and Burning Crusade were much better. However, it managed to rope a lot of new players thanks to how much more spoonfed the rewards were. So at this point, WoW may have peaked in playerbase, however the game for me wasnt that great.
I wish we could split the thread arguments into what makes a good game, rather than "how are the companies going to milk what's left....." There's lots of ways companies can turn up their money and population, whilst at the same time wrecking the game long term and driving off it's fanbase. Keep in mind also that players with time invested arent going to walk away from 4 years + of progression very easily so the RPG genre has a slight edge in dragging players along for another year.
I wish so many people here werent using "population" as their main ruler for a game.
Pointing out a large population in my mind doesnt mean quality gaming. Maybe I'm way out in left field on this, but I think some readers here will understand what I mean...
Games are basically just a collection of preferences. There is no global "makes a good game" feature other than "no bugs". Nearly everything else that can go into an MMORPG can be argued as good or bad by players. Well, unless you get down to really basic things like "being able to walk". That kind of thing. That's why "population" is the main rule for judging whether or not a game is good. Games have targets to meet, and if they meet the population target, they've done good. After that, it's all about retention. However, this is all relative to the goals. If a game's goal is 50K people and 100K people show up, that game did outstanding, even though compared to SWTOR the game is tiny.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
This is why gaming has sort of lost innovation. People aren't willing to take risks and instead copy popular games, maybe put a slight spin on it.
I personally think forced PvP is fun, it's realistic, and never gets old. The point is, it's not scripted. This will never be "popular" in the MMO world as someone already said, PvP fans tend to gravitate towards other genres.
I think that open PvP should eventually be on equal footing, no gear-treadmill at max level. However I don't think a level 1 should have a chance against a max level player like in GW2. I don't like pick up and play PvP because I feel there is no connection to you character, it doesn't feel as epic or grand, or something..
Looking forward to: Crowfall / Lost Ark / Black Desert Mobile
and you realize that devs have no obligations to cater to you, or me .. and that they are free .. in a free market .. to cater to anyone?
Most PVP seems to be just ganking, someone higher level or with better gear killing low levels/low geared people.
PVP should be equal, or close to it. But somehow the loudest PVP advocates can't seem to play games like that. Dark Fall most obviously. It's everything PVPers say they want, but really don't. They just want to gank people.
R.I.P. City of Heroes and my 17 characters there
In the case of what happened with UO and forced PvP, it's not so much "aren't willing to take risks" as it is "learned from the lessons of the past"
MMOs tried forced PvP (not just UO, but other games that tried it too). Turned out that it only caters to a very niche population. So they stopped. That's not "not taking risks". That's "learned a lesson".
(or, arguably, in some cases they simply cut the "RPG" part of the PvP out, and ended up with the much more successful MOBAs)
well, most of the pvp supporters are already playing e-sport type games, and probably don't care enough about MMO pvp to come here and complain.
Yea, if you're looking for PvPers who don't care about ganking or having inherent advantages from better gear or higher levels or more friends, you'll probably find them in other places like MOBAs and FPS's.
After all, why bother dealing with that stupid PvE grind, that annoying questing, and that constant worry of having your class nerfed for the sake of PvE balance when you can just play an FPS or MOBA and not deal with that sort of thing?
Succinctly and accurately put Tiamat
Wow, this thread got a lot more replies than I expected. Good conversation.
I think what probably works best is simply having PvP servers, and then PvE servers. I'm not necessarily saying PvP should be forced on people. Some people want to play the PvE and coop only, I completely get this...
I'm just disappointed that some games lately have completely gone the opposite direction and either had no PvP, or some handcuffed version of it. I've always built my characters and toons around going into pvp in games like diablo, UO, WoW, etc....
Ya but here's the thing, I dont really agree with the "population ruler" being what qualifies a good game. Katy Perry and Bieber might be the most popular music, but the quality of it is shit. More people might eat McDonald's than eat Fried Calamari, etc....
Building an rpg around population can really sink the game long term, UO being just one example of it. The only people who should be using population as a ruler, are the fat cats out at Vivendi and the stock market. And that isnt you or me actually playing it.
PvP is more popular than PvE if we are talking general gaming yes.
The problem is that it isn't in MMOs. And it really isn't the PvE focused games that takes that away either, it is the fact that almost all MMOs have mechanics that doesn't work as well for PvP.
The thing is that the level mechanics together with gear focus means that the players who usually win a 1 on 1 fight is first the one with highest level and secondly the one with best gear. The best player should be ale to win far more often even if he/she is below in stats and gear.
In a FPS game the best players win most of the time, that is why FPS PvP is fun. Getting killed constantly with zero chance for 2 months so you yourself can kill people below you easily is what is killing the PvP part of the genre, not care bear mechanics.
Funny enough would GW2s mechanics work excellent in an open PvP game if you just could find a way to keep the zerging down. And that is something that should be done with carrots, not stick. Give large rewards to anyone beating the odds, small to anyone doing an easy win. Yes, Risk Vs reward is also something that could be done better in PvP MMOs.