Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Themepark MMORPG are the easiest to replicate...

So why do so many themepark lovers love to tell other people play other games types that have nothing to do with MMORPG. 

A battle royale is nothing at all like a sandbox FFA PvP MMORPG. 

Destiny, Warframe, The Division, Anthem are very much like themepark MMORPG.

Should anytime someone suggest a new themepark, vertical progression or bad state of themeparks tell them to play coop RPGs/loot em shooters?
GdemamiRhoklawAgent_Joseph
«1

Comments

  • DauzqulDauzqul Member RarePosts: 1,980
    Comparing any game that has less than 100 people per server to any MMO is just silly. Sandbox or not, the population must be in the thousands, on the same server, to be considered a MMO.   MAssive Multiplayer!
    anemoGdemamiAgent_JosephScorchienMaurgrim
  • anemoanemo Member RarePosts: 1,894
    Meanwhile I can load up Steam and have more "Arc"/Survival-a-Like games than even the dumping ground that is Steam knows what to do with.

    Practice doesn't make perfect, practice makes permanent.

    "At one point technology meant making tech that could get to the moon, now it means making tech that could get you a taxi."

  • Vermillion_RaventhalVermillion_Raventhal Member EpicPosts: 4,099
    Dauzqul said:
    Comparing any game that has less than 100 people per server to any MMO is just silly. Sandbox or not, the population must be in the thousands, on the same server, to be considered a MMO.   MAssive Multiplayer!
    I know.  I just wish it was against forum rules to follow up any idea out of the norm with a play another genre response.  Mostly comes from those who like status quo.  Status quo of themepark MMORPG can be emulated.  I mean minus lag inducing main cities everything from quest, classes, dungeons and raids can be done. 
    Gdemami
  • anemoanemo Member RarePosts: 1,894
    Dauzqul said:
    Comparing any game that has less than 100 people per server to any MMO is just silly. Sandbox or not, the population must be in the thousands, on the same server, to be considered a MMO.   MAssive Multiplayer!
    I like the site's old definition of an MMO which was something like:  servers able to handle 500 players, the ability to walk to those players, and some form of persistence.
    AlBQuirky

    Practice doesn't make perfect, practice makes permanent.

    "At one point technology meant making tech that could get to the moon, now it means making tech that could get you a taxi."

  • AAAMEOWAAAMEOW Member RarePosts: 1,354
    edited May 2019


    Should anytime someone suggest a new themepark, vertical progression or bad state of themeparks tell them to play coop RPGs/loot em shooters?
    I thought it is already happening.  There isn't many large budget western generic themepark any more.  

    Not to mention those games you mention in other genre have much more people and probably easier to design than a mmorpg.

    And to your original topic.  At least themepark mmorpg have a template to replicate.  Developer probably don't even know what sandbox pve games to copy...  The last mainstream PvE sandbox is SWG?
  • AdamantineAdamantine Member RarePosts: 4,430
    Well, actually a hundred players per server is already a perfectly valid MMORPG.

    I think the technical limit of what can be managed with a highly parallel architecture and the fastest internet connections is something like ten thousand players, but depending upon your game code and upon the hardware you can afford only being able to handle a hundred per server would still be perfectly valid.

    In fact if you have a nontrivial game, and then run it on a private server, so its just regular PC hardware and a regular internet connection, a hundred players will typically already bring your hardware to its knees.

    Massive Multiplayer means theres many players that do not interact with each other, such as in a regular multiplayer game in which the logged in players stay in the general area of each other, and it means the gameworld is also massive, i.e. theres plenty space for different groups to explore without ever meeting everybody else (but they can meet others at any point), and it also means persistency, you dont lose your character when you log off, instead its saved, and there is no game end as such, except of course when the game is shut down.



    I would definitely prefer a battle royale over a FFA PvP MMORPG with full loot. Full loot is just not a good idea in a game thats supposed to give longterm motivation. You lose an important way to improve your  character. But if there isnt full loot, I dont get the fuss over FFA PvP. Just make servers who offer that to people who want it. There, done. Everybody is happy.

    EVE manages full loot, but its not really FFA PvP. You have save zones and less save zones in EVE, so you can manage risk vs reward. EVE also has permadeath, but you can circumvent this completely with having clones. So yeah, you can make games that have these features, as long as you dont blindly just add them out of ideology and think about what you're doing.



    GdemamiKyleran
    Please set a sig so I can read your posting even if somebody "agreed" etc with it. Thanks.
  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 36,357

    A battle royale is nothing at all like a sandbox FFA PvP MMORPG. 

    Many survival games are exactly like you describe, except for that "one thing."

    I assume you are playing them regularly, yes?

    "See normal people, I'm not one of them" | G-Easy & Big Sean

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing FO76 at the moment.

    Fools find no pleasure in understanding, but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon






  • GaladournGaladourn Member RarePosts: 1,810
    ... and the hardest to make enjoying and fun.
  • Vermillion_RaventhalVermillion_Raventhal Member EpicPosts: 4,099
    Well, actually a hundred players per server is already a perfectly valid MMORPG.

    I think the technical limit of what can be managed with a highly parallel architecture and the fastest internet connections is something like ten thousand players, but depending upon your game code and upon the hardware you can afford only being able to handle a hundred per server would still be perfectly valid.

    In fact if you have a nontrivial game, and then run it on a private server, so its just regular PC hardware and a regular internet connection, a hundred players will typically already bring your hardware to its knees.

    Massive Multiplayer means theres many players that do not interact with each other, such as in a regular multiplayer game in which the logged in players stay in the general area of each other, and it means the gameworld is also massive, i.e. theres plenty space for different groups to explore without ever meeting everybody else (but they can meet others at any point), and it also means persistency, you dont lose your character when you log off, instead its saved, and there is no game end as such, except of course when the game is shut down.



    I would definitely prefer a battle royale over a FFA PvP MMORPG with full loot. Full loot is just not a good idea in a game thats supposed to give longterm motivation. You lose an important way to improve your  character. But if there isnt full loot, I dont get the fuss over FFA PvP. Just make servers who offer that to people who want it. There, done. Everybody is happy.

    EVE manages full loot, but its not really FFA PvP. You have save zones and less save zones in EVE, so you can manage risk vs reward. EVE also has permadeath, but you can circumvent this completely with having clones. So yeah, you can make games that have these features, as long as you dont blindly just add them out of ideology and think about what you're doing.



    What you think people should play and what players are interested in are totally different. I have never seen the point of themepark MMORPG.  I would rather play a looter shooter/coop RPG if they had high fantasy version.  They are straight to the point of getting loot and generate groups quickly. 

    For all intents and purposes they play the same as themepark with smaller amounts of people.  I don't pop up in threads saying play them when someone brings up their themepark ideas or desires for classics.  Themepark is much closer to a looter shooter than an alternative MMORPG idea is to a FPS.

    It doesn't even have to be asking for PvP.  Desire to play MMORPG without the grind or levels or whatever isn't main stream has always been followed by people saying play FPS, then MOBA and now BR.  Even the Second Life thing is just obnoxious.

    You can't just slap FFA on a PVE game say here.  It has to be designed from the ground up.  I think most people here know what they want.  If they wanted BR they would be playing one not discussing all the merits of sandbox which is drastically different. 
    Gdemami
  • Vermillion_RaventhalVermillion_Raventhal Member EpicPosts: 4,099
    Kyleran said:

    A battle royale is nothing at all like a sandbox FFA PvP MMORPG. 

    Many survival games are exactly like you describe, except for that "one thing."

    I assume you are playing them regularly, yes?
    I have played survival games and they all have huge grinds nor real kingdom building or NPCs and etc.  Just not the same.  

    I assume you play looter shooters.  They have multiplayer, quest, dungeons, loot, levels, grind, raids. 
    Gdemami
  • Vermillion_RaventhalVermillion_Raventhal Member EpicPosts: 4,099
    Dauzqul said:
    Comparing any game that has less than 100 people per server to any MMO is just silly. Sandbox or not, the population must be in the thousands, on the same server, to be considered a MMO.   MAssive Multiplayer!
    I know.  I just wish it was against forum rules to follow up any idea out of the norm with a play another genre response.  Mostly comes from those who like status quo.  Status quo of themepark MMORPG can be emulated.  I mean minus lag inducing main cities everything from quest, classes, dungeons and raids can be done. 
    Isn't that kinda like the pot calling the kettle black?  I've been on these forums for over a decade and I can assure you that the open sandbox, full loot FFA pvp crowd has been telling the PvE crowd  where to go for as long as I have been on these forums.  To sit there and say themepark MMORPG can be emulated better than sandbox is just non-sense.  It seems every day a new BR/survival sandbox  opens.
    I have been on these forums for a long time.  This isn't even my original account.  Yes I will say the mainstream has always told other people to play other games from FPS, MOBA and now BR.

    BR is a FPS with 100 players.  Nothing like a MMORPG.  Survival is close but not the same.  Maybe you can mention this if Amazon's 10k player survival game comes out.

    Looter shooters/co-op RPG have everything MMORPG have except a real open world.  Many themepark don't have that either.  It just has less players in any area.  Considering the state of interactions in themeparks these days it doesn't mean much.  


  • JeffSpicoliJeffSpicoli Member EpicPosts: 2,849
    I don't really see it OP, on these forums at least. Can you give me specific examples with games
    • Aloha Mr Hand ! 

  • AAAMEOWAAAMEOW Member RarePosts: 1,354
    Can the OP even tell people want sandbox game to replicate? 

    Because other than FFA full loot pvp, I don't see any main stream ones.  
  • AAAMEOWAAAMEOW Member RarePosts: 1,354
    edited May 2019
    So why do so many themepark lovers love to tell other people play other games types that have nothing to do with MMORPG. 

    A battle royale is nothing at all like a sandbox FFA PvP MMORPG. 

    Destiny, Warframe, The Division, Anthem are very much like themepark MMORPG.

    Should anytime someone suggest a new themepark, vertical progression or bad state of themeparks tell them to play coop RPGs/loot em shooters?
    I dont' understand what you are trying to convey.  You are mad because developer keep making themepark MMO?  And you fail to see the point of themepark MMO games because destiny or warframe do it better?

    Ya I agree destiny, warframe, witcher 3, league of legend, diablo 3, do the individual part much better.  But I can experience all those type of gameplay in one single game.

    Post edited by AAAMEOW on
  • Vermillion_RaventhalVermillion_Raventhal Member EpicPosts: 4,099
    AAAMEOW said:
    So why do so many themepark lovers love to tell other people play other games types that have nothing to do with MMORPG. 

    A battle royale is nothing at all like a sandbox FFA PvP MMORPG. 

    Destiny, Warframe, The Division, Anthem are very much like themepark MMORPG.

    Should anytime someone suggest a new themepark, vertical progression or bad state of themeparks tell them to play coop RPGs/loot em shooters?
    I dont' understand what you are trying to convey.  You are mad because developer keep making themepark MMO?  And you fail to see the point of themepark MMO games because destiny or warframe do it better?

    Ya I agree destiny, warframe, witcher 3, league of legend, diablo 3, do the individual part much better.  But I can experience all those type of gameplay in one single game.

    My point is that since I have been on this forums people have always pushed alternative genre on people when they talk about non mainstream ideas.  There is a post about levelless MMORPG.  People suggested battle royale.  

    Gdemami
  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 12,175
    Vermillion_Raventhal said:
    My point is that since I have been on this forums people have always pushed alternative genre on people when they talk about non mainstream ideas.  There is a post about levelless MMORPG.  People suggested battle royale.  

    ....and rightfully so, there is no need for every stupid idea posted on these boards.
    Steelhelm
  • Vermillion_RaventhalVermillion_Raventhal Member EpicPosts: 4,099
    Gdemami said:
    Vermillion_Raventhal said:
    My point is that since I have been on this forums people have always pushed alternative genre on people when they talk about non mainstream ideas.  There is a post about levelless MMORPG.  People suggested battle royale.  

    ....and rightfully so, there is no need for every stupid idea posted on these boards.
    Right all we need is more people wanting the same thing for 15 years and stifling new ideas.

    And since you are post police I guess you are taking your own advice and a vow of silence.  


    Gdemami
  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 36,357
    Kyleran said:

    A battle royale is nothing at all like a sandbox FFA PvP MMORPG. 

    Many survival games are exactly like you describe, except for that "one thing."

    I assume you are playing them regularly, yes?
    I have played survival games and they all have huge grinds nor real kingdom building or NPCs and etc.  Just not the same.  

    I assume you play looter shooters.  They have multiplayer, quest, dungeons, loot, levels, grind, raids. 
    Just not same...as what? I suspect you are looking for the modern incarnation of UO, SB or AC Darktide.

    If so, DFO is the closest, perhaps MO but I assume you are avoiding them for "reasons."

    For the record the number of MMORPGs I've actually enjoyed can be counted on one hand, with fingers left over. (All created 2004 and earlier of course)

    I did think ArcheAge had potential until Trion screwed the pooch on its monetization along with PA being unable to get the hacking under some semblance of control.

    Survival games don't do it for me, not a fan of punching bushes nor crafting which tends to dominate their gameplay.

    Looter shooters I've never really tried, not so good at the shooting part, though I did enjoy Half Life 1 / 2 years ago and all of the recent Fallout titles but probably not really the same.

    "See normal people, I'm not one of them" | G-Easy & Big Sean

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing FO76 at the moment.

    Fools find no pleasure in understanding, but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon






  • Vermillion_RaventhalVermillion_Raventhal Member EpicPosts: 4,099
    edited May 2019
    Kyleran said:
    Kyleran said:

    A battle royale is nothing at all like a sandbox FFA PvP MMORPG. 

    Many survival games are exactly like you describe, except for that "one thing."

    I assume you are playing them regularly, yes?
    I have played survival games and they all have huge grinds nor real kingdom building or NPCs and etc.  Just not the same.  

    I assume you play looter shooters.  They have multiplayer, quest, dungeons, loot, levels, grind, raids. 
    Just not same...as what? I suspect you are looking for the modern incarnation of UO, SB or AC Darktide.

    If so, DFO is the closest, perhaps MO but I assume you are avoiding them for "reasons."

    For the record the number of MMORPGs I've actually enjoyed can be counted on one hand, with fingers left over. (All created 2004 and earlier of course)

    I did think ArcheAge had potential until Trion screwed the pooch on its monetization along with PA being unable to get the hacking under some semblance of control.

    Survival games don't do it for me, not a fan of punching bushes nor crafting which tends to dominate their gameplay.

    Looter shooters I've never really tried, not so good at the shooting part, though I did enjoy Half Life 1 / 2 years ago and all of the recent Fallout titles but probably not really the same.

    I have played DF and MO and the games are just bad to me.  Nothing to do with the playstyle.  I just don't like the game.  Not sure why PvP crowd is forced to play bad games just because it's PvP.  Bad is bad.  I couldn't stand Wildstar either.   

    Looter shooters aren't bad.  They can be grindy but your shooting accuracy doesn't have to be the best.  Try warframe which is kind of like space ninjas and F2P.  It's a good starter one.  I wish the had high fantasy versions of them. 

    I like Archeage honestly.  Just not enough land and as you said P2W killed it.  
    KyleranGdemami
  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 36,357
    Eve style game with a fantasy theme, or at least proper avatars and activites would be my ideal MMORPG, but nothing really like that on the near horizon,  Dual Universe perhaps. 
    Steelhelm

    "See normal people, I'm not one of them" | G-Easy & Big Sean

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing FO76 at the moment.

    Fools find no pleasure in understanding, but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon






  • UngoodUngood Member EpicPosts: 4,223
    My point is that since I have been on this forums people have always pushed alternative genre on people when they talk about non mainstream ideas.  There is a post about levelless MMORPG.  People suggested battle royale.  

    Hello Everyone.. That was Me.

    yes.. he's crying about something I said to him, I suggested a Battle Royal game to them, because he was looking for a Multiplayer game that had Zero Grind, Zero Leveling, and was all about Player Skill.

    That is a Battle Royal game, in the purest form.

    The main reason why I suggested that kind of game, is because THEY had expressed the features THEY were looking for and those games provide them exactly.
    GdemamiKyleran
    Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 12,175
    edited May 2019
    Right all we need is more people wanting the same thing for 15 years and stifling new ideas.


    ...like I said, just the stupid ones. Good ideas get implemented, that is how industry is moving forward.


    Also, it is good practice not to speak for others, so next time just use "me" properly instead of "we". It will help you keep perspective and avoid self-delusion.

  • Vermillion_RaventhalVermillion_Raventhal Member EpicPosts: 4,099
    Ungood said:
    My point is that since I have been on this forums people have always pushed alternative genre on people when they talk about non mainstream ideas.  There is a post about levelless MMORPG.  People suggested battle royale.  

    Hello Everyone.. That was Me.

    yes.. he's crying about something I said to him, I suggested a Battle Royal game to them, because he was looking for a Multiplayer game that had Zero Grind, Zero Leveling, and was all about Player Skill.

    That is a Battle Royal game, in the purest form.

    The main reason why I suggested that kind of game, is because THEY had expressed the features THEY were looking for and those games provide them exactly.
    Lol, if you think you are the first person?  It used to be more in the lines of play Quake.  Nothing is new. I just tire of it. 

    BR is not a MMO.  It is a twitched based FPS with a twist of minecraft.  Nothing to do with a MMORPG without grind.  There is no game world.  Just FPS that I can't play well anymore.  

    Funny when I recommend a looter shooter screams and moans from the heavens that its not a MMO come down.  They have all the trappings of MMORPG. Game world, grouping, loot, leveling, raids are all there.  Those who defend mainstream ideas act like there are men in black suits listening ready to take their progression away because of forum post.

    The idea of levelless MMORPG is basically here.  Developers just hold on to enough to not spook people who would be traumatized by lack of vertical progression.  


     
    GdemamiSteelhelm
  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 36,357
    What about Planetside 1 / 2, level less MMOs as I recall, WWII Online, one of the first MMOs with no levels.
    AlBQuirky

    "See normal people, I'm not one of them" | G-Easy & Big Sean

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing FO76 at the moment.

    Fools find no pleasure in understanding, but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon






  • Vermillion_RaventhalVermillion_Raventhal Member EpicPosts: 4,099
    Gdemami said:
    Right all we need is more people wanting the same thing for 15 years and stifling new ideas.


    ...like I said, just the stupid ones. Good ideas get implemented, that is how industry is moving forward.


    Also, it is good practice not to speak for others, so next time just use "me" properly instead of "we". It will help you keep perspective and avoid self-delusion.

    Genre is basically dead lol.  I think we is safe.  But I think discussing the same 15 year old ideas on a forum would be bad.  Or are you one of those people think men in black are listening and will make these discussions into games?
    Gdemami
Sign In or Register to comment.