Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Turn up difficulty on most, BINGO we have our mmorpg back.

1567810

Comments

  • cameltosiscameltosis Member EpicPosts: 2,583
    Just to stir the pot a bit


    On rails (linear) and off-the-rails (non-linear) is a separate thing to whether the game is sandbox or themepark.


    So, whether EQ was linear or not doesn't have any effect on whether it is a themepark or not.
    I still disagree. Mainly because I remember when the "on rails" comment came out. Right after the "Themepark" tag was applied (or maybe right along with it, if I missed it), and talking about EQ. 
    I remember because it hit me that it was a very good description of the -then- new topic, as far as MMORPGs go. 
    It was an old topic with text based, MUDs being Sandbox, and DICU being Themepark. 
    (I don't know if these terms were used during the text based games debates, and simply rolled over into the new animated games.)

    When you say "linear", the question is what was that referring to? And it was the extreme Level Power Gaps, which was way more than even Paper and Pencil D&D had. 
    "On rails" was about the Level Grind and dictated content by levels. 
    Linear Progression to an extreme. 
    Causing the same thing with gear. 
    And player groups being forced to wait in lines to get into the Dungeons that had the specific gear they deemed "needed" for 
    the next Level range Grouping. <-Themepark. <-On rails. <Level after level, gear after gear. 

    In a real life themepark, the rides themselves are linear - on rails, literally - but your experience in the park is non-linear, you can do the rides in whatever order you want.

    Similarly, in a themepark mmorpg, the rides are the quests and dungeons that you undertake, they are carefully curated to give you an experience, just like a rollercoaster ride. Whether the quests themselves have to be undertaken in a linear order or not doesn't change the fact that the majority of your time is spent doing activities directed by the devs.


    Levels, gear, powergaps doesn't enter the equation of whether it's a sandbox or a themepark. Likewise, linear progression (or not) has no bearing on the matter either.


    A sandbox feature is one where the devs give you tools (the sandpit, spade, buckets, flags etc) and then you choose how to use them (you can build a sandcastle, racetrack, animal, person or whatever). Your experience is not directed by someone else, you are not on rails.



    The reason why most themeparks are also considered to be on-rails is because themeparks are often based around story. When we are the actors in that story, its very hard to make that story anything other than linear, especially when combined with progression. Can't really jump back and forwards in time like you can in a book or film as it would mean undoing progression, taking you away from your current location, perhaps breaking up your group. So, devs stick to very linear stories, which results in linear quests, which results in a game that feels on-rails.

    But, if they got rid of over-arching storylines and just kept quests separate so you could do them in any order, it would still be a themepark if the majority of the time you're still doing quests and dungeons.

    Finally, no mmorpg is exclusively themepark or sandbox, they all have a mixture of both.
    (sigh)
    What you are saying is true, but there's an issue you are not considering.

    Themepark games, as they are built, reward players with Levels and leveled Gear. 
    They work under the theory that "more is better." 
    Huge Power Gaps, as a result.

    And that creates the problem of dividing players into Level Groupings. 
    It destroys the social aspects of the game outside of a player's small group that can Level along evenly with them.
    Absolutely destroys "Social" in anything wider than their small group, if they manage to have one they can keep together. 
    It turns "Massively Multiplayer" into just "Multiplayer" at best, "Solo" all too often. 

    That's a separate issue than Themepark vs. Sandbox, but it has an affect. 

    Sandbox games provide "tools" for players to: 
    - build with their imagination,
    - interact with the world. 
    That's the reward. 

    There are 2 ways that this reward is felt. 
    1. Individual reward, they can "build" for themselves. 
    2. Social reward. Where they can "build" for others, share what they've done with others. 
    And those others can be rewarded too, sometimes.

    So for as much damage as these Power Gaps do to the game's social interactions as a whole, they also affect the "reward" of the Sandbox elements. 
    Less "Social", less reward from sharing Sandbox creativity. 

    This has nothing to do with Classes. 
    You could take WoW, and by drastically reducing the Power Gaps, you could totally remove the bad effects of them on the Social interactions to players.
    You could add Sandbox Elements to WoW, and that would be a better game. But it would still suffer from the Player Divisions and loss of Social interaction. 

    I've tried for years to get folks around here to realize that. 
    But they just won't accept it. 
    They love them the Power Trips. 

    Hell, most of them won't even read this post. They don't want to hear from me. 
    Reality is a biatch. 
    It's slapping them in the face, with the slide of this industry, and they've got their heads in the sand. 



    You don't have to sell me on the negative effects of vertical progression and power gaps, I hate them! I'm a massive fan horizontal progression and wished it existed in mmos properly.


    I'm still a little bit confused about the point you're trying to make, so forgive me if I've got it wrong.



    I believe you are saying that one of the negative effects of vertical progression is that it encourages developers to design their worlds in a linear fashion, and also encourages linear themepark design because the linear telling of a story fits in with the linear nature of vertical progression?


    Am I close?
  • AmarantharAmaranthar Member EpicPosts: 4,172
    edited April 10



    You don't have to sell me on the negative effects of vertical progression and power gaps, I hate them! I'm a massive fan horizontal progression and wished it existed in mmos properly.


    I'm still a little bit confused about the point you're trying to make, so forgive me if I've got it wrong.



    I believe you are saying that one of the negative effects of vertical progression is that it encourages developers to design their worlds in a linear fashion, and also encourages linear themepark design because the linear telling of a story fits in with the linear nature of vertical progression?


    Am I close?
    Well, it's not the vertical progression itself.
    It's the Power Gaps. 
    Because the players are jumping ahead in Power so fast, everything else has to too. 
    And that's what causes the problems. 

    In effect, the Power Gaps are pulling the game apart, stretching the game/world into too many sectioned off portions. 

    - Content designated to fairly small groups of Power separation (level groups). 
    - Players separating from "friends" by the amounts of time they can play. 
    (Falling behind.) 
    - Guilds losing members that can't stay within range of other members.
    - Lack of Socialness as a result of not maintaining associations with known players.
    - Lack of Trust as a result of THAT. 
    - Leading to tendencies to play Solo.
    - Economy that's equally divided, so it doesn't function as an economy at all. 
    - Content that becomes meaningless as you progress past it. 
    - Content ahead of you that you can't use.
    - Leaving players with only a small part of the game that they can play at any one time. 
    - Same for gear, as above. 
    - Directions and controls, paint by numbers "world." 
    - etc., etc.


    Once upon a time....

  • AAAMEOWAAAMEOW Member RarePosts: 1,352
    Someone explain this to me, how is this easy content?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1E3pZ0y4dYE
  • UngoodUngood Member EpicPosts: 4,212
    Amaranthar
    cameltosis 

    Do either one of you have a game I could go play right now that can give me an example of what you are talking about as some horizontal game.
    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.
  • cameltosiscameltosis Member EpicPosts: 2,583
    Ungood said:
    Amaranthar
    cameltosis 

    Do either one of you have a game I could go play right now that can give me an example of what you are talking about as some horizontal game.

    The RPG genre is pretty lacking in horizontal progression as an overall design ethic, it tends to just be in small bits. For example, original LotRO's endgame had horizontal progression: the three endgame armour sets were all roughly equivalent in power, but each useful in their own way. That tends to be the way in RPGs - any form or horizontal progression only comes in small slices and usually just as alternate gearing options.


    Games with lots of skills but limited action bars (like ESO and Wildstar) have horizontal elements too. In those games, unlocking a skill doesn't necessarily make you more powerful - to use the skill, you have to stop using something else. Ofc, sometimes the new skills are genuinely more powerful, then it becomes vertical again. Plus the skills themselves leveling up is pure vertical progression...



    The place where horizontal progression is used the most is in online shooters like CoD and Battlefield. Whilst not completely flat in terms of power, the power gap between unlocks tends to be pretty damn small. So, instead of unlocking more powerful guns, you unlock stuff that is just "different" - better range, but worse fire rate; better accuracy, but less damage etc. This gives you lots and lots of options, lots of ways to find the perfect playstyle for you, without upsetting the balance.
  • UngoodUngood Member EpicPosts: 4,212
    Ungood said:
    Amaranthar
    cameltosis 

    Do either one of you have a game I could go play right now that can give me an example of what you are talking about as some horizontal game.

    The RPG genre is pretty lacking in horizontal progression as an overall design ethic, it tends to just be in small bits. For example, original LotRO's endgame had horizontal progression: the three endgame armour sets were all roughly equivalent in power, but each useful in their own way. That tends to be the way in RPGs - any form or horizontal progression only comes in small slices and usually just as alternate gearing options.


    Games with lots of skills but limited action bars (like ESO and Wildstar) have horizontal elements too. In those games, unlocking a skill doesn't necessarily make you more powerful - to use the skill, you have to stop using something else. Ofc, sometimes the new skills are genuinely more powerful, then it becomes vertical again. Plus the skills themselves leveling up is pure vertical progression...



    The place where horizontal progression is used the most is in online shooters like CoD and Battlefield. Whilst not completely flat in terms of power, the power gap between unlocks tends to be pretty damn small. So, instead of unlocking more powerful guns, you unlock stuff that is just "different" - better range, but worse fire rate; better accuracy, but less damage etc. This gives you lots and lots of options, lots of ways to find the perfect playstyle for you, without upsetting the balance.
    So basically you are both just talking hypotheticals.
    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.
  • AmarantharAmaranthar Member EpicPosts: 4,172
    edited April 10
    Ungood said:
    Amaranthar
    cameltosis 

    Do either one of you have a game I could go play right now that can give me an example of what you are talking about as some horizontal game.

    The RPG genre is pretty lacking in horizontal progression as an overall design ethic, it tends to just be in small bits. For example, original LotRO's endgame had horizontal progression: the three endgame armour sets were all roughly equivalent in power, but each useful in their own way. That tends to be the way in RPGs - any form or horizontal progression only comes in small slices and usually just as alternate gearing options.


    Games with lots of skills but limited action bars (like ESO and Wildstar) have horizontal elements too. In those games, unlocking a skill doesn't necessarily make you more powerful - to use the skill, you have to stop using something else. Ofc, sometimes the new skills are genuinely more powerful, then it becomes vertical again. Plus the skills themselves leveling up is pure vertical progression...



    The place where horizontal progression is used the most is in online shooters like CoD and Battlefield. Whilst not completely flat in terms of power, the power gap between unlocks tends to be pretty damn small. So, instead of unlocking more powerful guns, you unlock stuff that is just "different" - better range, but worse fire rate; better accuracy, but less damage etc. This gives you lots and lots of options, lots of ways to find the perfect playstyle for you, without upsetting the balance. 
    I think there's a wide range of strategic options that can be "learned" in Horizontal Progression. 
    I love the idea of Mages being able to learn to manipulate their spells like you said, give and take, so why not archers and other skills? Where it makes sense, of course.

    Plus the typical knowledge of your target's weaknesses and which weapon/attack types work best. 

    For normal Vertical progression, I'd like to see that limited to improved attack/success chances based on skill (which means more damage over time). 

    I'd also like to see lots of Special Moves/Attacks that do a little extra damage, plus can allow follow up attacks for greater effect, if you know one of them. 

    I'd like to see special powers that can augment a stat temporarily, at the cost of another stat. 
    So, you might be able to add half of your Endurance (reducing you HPs) to you Strength (improving your damage) for a few seconds. 
    Or allow you a chance to move a heavy object that you couldn't move normally. Or break down a sturdy door. 
    These should also come with typical stamina costs, as normal (recuperates soon). 

    Bathing in fresh Dragons blood to gain a small, permanent addition armor rating for your skin.   



    I think a lot of the Horizontal Progression abilities should be found in explorations in the world. Tradable/sellable if they are in transportable form. 

    I'd also like to see more imaginative things in such a game. 
    Suppose you find a Magical Tome. You have to read it to learn it's power. 
    But it's in an ancient unknown language, and you can't read it.
    So you get yourself a "voracious bookworm" and drop it in the tome. Let it sit for a RL day to eat the Tome's contents.
    Then you drop the "voracious bookworm" into a bottle of a brew (made by a player with the brewing skill) from a special cactus. 
    Let it ferment for 1 day and you can eat the worm and learn 50% of what the Tome would have taught you.
    Let it ferment longer, and each additional day it will teach you another 10%. Up to a maximum of 150%. But the worm can go bad after any day, ruining the attempt. 

    Just a few ideas to set the tone. 




    Once upon a time....

  • delete5230delete5230 Member EpicPosts: 6,512
    edited April 10



    You don't have to sell me on the negative effects of vertical progression and power gaps, I hate them! I'm a massive fan horizontal progression and wished it existed in mmos properly.


    I'm still a little bit confused about the point you're trying to make, so forgive me if I've got it wrong.



    I believe you are saying that one of the negative effects of vertical progression is that it encourages developers to design their worlds in a linear fashion, and also encourages linear themepark design because the linear telling of a story fits in with the linear nature of vertical progression?


    Am I close?
    Well, it's not the vertical progression itself.
    It's the Power Gaps. 
    Because the players are jumping ahead in Power so fast, everything else has to too. 
    And that's what causes the problems. 

    In effect, the Power Gaps are pulling the game apart, stretching the game/world into too many sectioned off portions. 

    - Content designated to fairly small groups of Power separation (level groups). 
    - Players separating from "friends" by the amounts of time they can play. 
    (Falling behind.) 
    - Guilds losing members that can't stay within range of other members.
    - Lack of Socialness as a result of not maintaining associations with known players.
    - Lack of Trust as a result of THAT. 
    - Leading to tendencies to play Solo.
    - Economy that's equally divided, so it doesn't function as an economy at all. 
    - Content that becomes meaningless as you progress past it. 
    - Content ahead of you that you can't use.
    - Leaving players with only a small part of the game that they can play at any one time. 
    - Same for gear, as above. 
    - Directions and controls, paint by numbers "world." 
    - etc., etc.


    Something else to be considered that I've been saying for years that I could never get people here to comprehend..... I think people here are more simple than we think but hay, they have good grammar and spelling but cant think beyond a rock.


    First noticed this in playing Rift with a friend...... we played like 5 nights in a row until he had to take a night off, ONE NIGHT !

    We were absolutely unable to play together at all for two reasons.
    Leveling was so fast I gained well over 10 levels without even trying.

    Quest hub to quest hub, I had no choice but to go back and play the exact same content.  Infact the programming programming was strange he couldn't do my stuff + 10 levels. 

    WHY ?

    The game was small !!!!!!!!!!......Every game made since is small.
    leveling to quickly, making it impossible to play with others. 



    Vanilla WoW, like it or not, you were always able to play with others +/- 5 levels, you also spent hours the same level, later level all day making friends along the way.


    Post edited by delete5230 on
    mmolou
  • UngoodUngood Member EpicPosts: 4,212
    I kinda like how GW2 handles this.

    You level up one time to get a feel for the game, learn your class and the like.. and when you get to max level , which is kinda easy all things said and done, they toss a bunch of leveling tomes at you so you never have to level up an alt again, I mean, you can if you want to, if you enjoy the process, but you don't need to.

    Basically, it sets the horizontal progression at cap.

    Given the game down-scales characters, you can't technically outlevel a zone, as such all zones remina open and viable even when you are max level, as such the world expands as you level, it does not bottleneck like most games.

    In some cases, for crafting, you need materials from those low-mid level zones, so players are always there farming and doing events.

    Your strengths and weakness are lined up with your Specification/Trait lines, which, as opposed to a level grind, they added in Elite Specializations. IE: Thief has Daredevil from HoT and Deadeye from PoF.  This unlocks a new weapon they can use and even gives them a unique class icon.

    It's pretty easy to get viable end game gear with Exotics, as the power jump to Ascended is not that massive, I mean it's there and you really feel it at the more demanding content like T3&T4 Fractals and WvW (which is PvP so any edge is felt), No clue about Raids in GW2, and fuck Anet for putting them into a game like GW2 to start with.

    But a lot of what people would perceive as power in GW2, comes from combos of Trait Lines, Weapon Choice, Gear Stats, Runes & Signals and to a much.. much lesser degree Infusions.

    But, this is not where it ends.

    All those things then get coupled with attack rotations as well as knowing how to use fields and finishers.

    What this means, is that even among players of the same level, with the same quality of gear, and same traits available to them.. there is a MASSIVE disparity in power, but the progression is horizontal.. and everyone is using the same stuff, just in different ways. 

    This is why there are many variants of each class, there is no ONE way to do it 'right' , and we are not just talking variants for each game mode, but many viable variants within each game mode.

    To give an example of this, I was running a T3 fractal yesterday, and in our group we had 4 Guardians and a Ranger (Druid Spec), but None of the Guards had remotely similar builds. We had a Burn Guard, A Medi Guard, A Shout Guard, and the 4th guy didn't talk.... so.. no idea what they were playing... anyway.

    The point being, While they were all Guards, all unique and different, and all were viable in the content given how fast we ripped the hell out of the dungeons. My point being that there was no one 'right' way to go in GW2. Which I think is what you are all are talking about wanting.

    That system in place where you have to make choices, but it is not up or down, it's more, side to side. Like in GW2, you have 7 Specializations available to you, and you can only pick 3.

    There are a slew of Runes available, some work better than others with specific builds and abilities, but there is no BiS Armor Rune. Equally so, There is no BiS Gear Stat at all in GW2, it's all about what you are doing and how you combo things.

    To give you an idea, using Weapon Sigils, while there is no BiS Sigil, Force & Impact are really solid catch alls an in high demand because they give a flat +5% damage, but that does not always make them the best rune, case in point, I use Torment and Demons Sigils on Dagger/Pistol, Trailblazer Thief with Torment Runes to match, Daredevil Elite Spec with Lotus dodge, which I am sure I just pissed off a lot of fellow GW2 WvW players saying that.. LOL.

    I am also sure there are a few GW2 WvW players saying "I eat shit like you! with my (Whatever the hell epic build that you play)

    While make no mistake, there are lot of wrong ways to go.. that can really gimp your character, there are a lot of choices you have before you and still remain viable.

    So GW2 kind of already does what it seems you think you want.

    That on rails story mode tho... 
    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.
  • cameltosiscameltosis Member EpicPosts: 2,583
    Ungood said:
    Ungood said:
    Amaranthar
    cameltosis 

    Do either one of you have a game I could go play right now that can give me an example of what you are talking about as some horizontal game.

    The RPG genre is pretty lacking in horizontal progression as an overall design ethic, it tends to just be in small bits. For example, original LotRO's endgame had horizontal progression: the three endgame armour sets were all roughly equivalent in power, but each useful in their own way. That tends to be the way in RPGs - any form or horizontal progression only comes in small slices and usually just as alternate gearing options.


    Games with lots of skills but limited action bars (like ESO and Wildstar) have horizontal elements too. In those games, unlocking a skill doesn't necessarily make you more powerful - to use the skill, you have to stop using something else. Ofc, sometimes the new skills are genuinely more powerful, then it becomes vertical again. Plus the skills themselves leveling up is pure vertical progression...



    The place where horizontal progression is used the most is in online shooters like CoD and Battlefield. Whilst not completely flat in terms of power, the power gap between unlocks tends to be pretty damn small. So, instead of unlocking more powerful guns, you unlock stuff that is just "different" - better range, but worse fire rate; better accuracy, but less damage etc. This gives you lots and lots of options, lots of ways to find the perfect playstyle for you, without upsetting the balance.
    So basically you are both just talking hypotheticals.


    I just gave you 5 games that use(d) horizontal progression for at least part of their progression mechanics.


    If you want to look to the future, Camelot Unchained is building it's whole game around horizontal progression. I believe that Crowfall is also aiming for mostly horizontal progression, but I've not been following CF closely and I know they changed their minds a few times already.


    Hardly hypothetical
  • AmarantharAmaranthar Member EpicPosts: 4,172
    Ungood said:
    Ungood said:
    Amaranthar
    cameltosis 

    Do either one of you have a game I could go play right now that can give me an example of what you are talking about as some horizontal game.

    The RPG genre is pretty lacking in horizontal progression as an overall design ethic, it tends to just be in small bits. For example, original LotRO's endgame had horizontal progression: the three endgame armour sets were all roughly equivalent in power, but each useful in their own way. That tends to be the way in RPGs - any form or horizontal progression only comes in small slices and usually just as alternate gearing options.


    Games with lots of skills but limited action bars (like ESO and Wildstar) have horizontal elements too. In those games, unlocking a skill doesn't necessarily make you more powerful - to use the skill, you have to stop using something else. Ofc, sometimes the new skills are genuinely more powerful, then it becomes vertical again. Plus the skills themselves leveling up is pure vertical progression...



    The place where horizontal progression is used the most is in online shooters like CoD and Battlefield. Whilst not completely flat in terms of power, the power gap between unlocks tends to be pretty damn small. So, instead of unlocking more powerful guns, you unlock stuff that is just "different" - better range, but worse fire rate; better accuracy, but less damage etc. This gives you lots and lots of options, lots of ways to find the perfect playstyle for you, without upsetting the balance.
    So basically you are both just talking hypotheticals.
    All new things are built on hypotheticals, aren't they? 

    Where else can it come from? 

    But I promise you this. If something like this ever gets built, you won't have to play it. lol


    Once upon a time....

  • KnightFalzKnightFalz Member RarePosts: 1,133
    Ungood said:
    Ungood said:

    I don't know if being free to wander to zones where there is nothing but death because you can't handle the content counts as functionally being able to go anywhere.

    Those that go to such places will head back to zones they can handle in short order so they can make some progress. Effectively they would still be routed through the game, would they not?
    Not really, like for example, if you played EQ, you would know that running from Free Port (Starting City) to Qyenos (Starting City) had many areas that were deadly, you could bypass a lot of them by taking the long way around, and in some cases, you could even partake into events and activities in areas well over or under your level range. But there was no absolute. 

    To use a great example. 

    East Freeport, was still a newbie zone, but, you had everything from Orc pawns (level 1 ish) to gryphons (Level 37+) in that zone, so.. you never really were "Safe" unless you could really outlevel a zone, and even then, not as easy as one may think, as even a green con mob, if there were about half a dozen of them, they were still going to kick your teeth in, unless you were an amazing solo class.

    And while East Karana was listed as 10 - 35, you could go there lower or higher level and still find things to do.

    Just like Froon and Choon in West Karana, they were quite the wake up call to a lot of starting players, but they were not alone, there was other places to find higher and lower level fights in West Karana, which left players the option to do things like hang around West Karana, or move to North, South, East.. most of the time, it was the mod density and exp gain that moved players in EQ, like the Lake of Ill Skilled Loot Whores Omen, was in the same level range as East Freeport, South Karana, Lake Rathe, and many others, but Ill Omen was always far more populated because for some reason or another, the mobs were easier to kill, more plentiful, and gave better loot and exp.. so everyone went there to farm and grind exp.. not because of the level range, which they could have their pick of many other zones.. because of loot.

    In short, if it was "Theme park" it gave a huge split on who could get on the rides, just saying.

    and Foon and Choon where always around to remind people that just because you were tall enough, does not mean you won't get stepped on.

    I played very little and did so long after the game was in it's prime. I'm sure it was much different back in the day. I did hear about that run.

    Generally, what I feel to be theme park is a game where the story runs the players, rather than the players driving the story.

    In ESO, I can adventure where I please in whatever order I like, so there is no defined path. However, regardless of where I choose to go I am still being led by the game's story. I can't genuinely change that story or the world at large by my actions. All I can do is go along for the ride, as though each chapter of the story is akin to a theme park attraction.

    For it to not be such the players must drive the story instead.
    Not sure about later times.. like I said, I left with PoP.

    But, when I started playing, the thing about EQ was it didn't have a "Story" you as a player were not a part of some story.

    By that, I mean in EQ there was nowhere anyone expected you to be, and nothing they expected you to do.

    I played very little of ESo, but it was kinda like in GW2, you have a story, you are part of an ongoing Saga, involving many other people, and series of events, and you go step 1 to Step 2, and so forth and so on. Even if you manage to bypass sections of the story by way of expansions or living world or other means, the Story still happened exactly as it was always going to happen, you had done all that you were going to do, regardless if you actually did it or not.

    Now, in contrast to that, EQ had its own lore, the world and areas all had a deep rich history to it , but, you as a player, were just one of many adventures in that world, and things went on around you, that you could partake in, or not, but there was no story that involved you.

    Players were left to make their own fun, do the quests they wanted to do, and pretty much set their own path in the game.

    Like for example, I made an ogre, and right out the door I ran off to freeport, and spent the next few levels doing quests to build faction so I could enter the city, there was nothing stopping me from doing this, and there was nothing I was missing out on by doing this. There was no story I was supposed to follow, quest line I was supposed to do, or anything else for that matter.

    Now to be fair, back then, at the early age of MMO's we were just ape shit excited to have such a cool ass game world that we could play when we wanted, with other people and not want to stab that one asshole who kept argining the rules all night, as such, the quest for power for the sake of power, to just go off and kill bigger badass things to.. well get more power.. was enough to keep us entertained for thousands upon thousands of hours over the course of many YEARS! 

    But EQ, while was the forefather of all the modern 3rd person MMO's, it was not anything like what we have today, it was much, much, simpler.

    This is why I am really at a loss when people tell me that EQ, was Themepark and on Rails. It's like they never played the game.

    As, I say I didn't play it too long. I wanted to play it longer, but there seemed to be some sort of flashing involved with the UI in combat and I couldn't find a way to get rid of it when searching online for a solution. That bothered my eyes a fair bit so I had to abandon the game. If I could find a way, I'd give it another go.

    The tutorial pretty much led me around but I don't know if what I did was part of the original experience. I suspect it may have  been added later. After that I  can't really remember much at all, other than interacting with NPCs being more involving than more recent games as far as discovering quests.

    ESO and GW2 are somewhat similar, but they are really quite different. The side quests felt much more like busywork in GW2 where in ESO each is a short story comprised of several quests. The scaling works differently as well so far as I understand, such that GW2 still trivializes early content like most MMORPGs.

    I don't think a player being depicted as the main hero is required for a game to be a theme park. So long as the game is focused on a fixed story and environment that players have little to no influence on, it is essentially a theme park whether the player is depicted as the star or an extra.

    Regardless, I haven't played EQ long enough to express an educated opinion on it really, and none of that occurred early on so what I do know comes from a different time. You know the nature of the game far better than I to be sure.
    Ungood
  • KnightFalzKnightFalz Member RarePosts: 1,133



    You don't have to sell me on the negative effects of vertical progression and power gaps, I hate them! I'm a massive fan horizontal progression and wished it existed in mmos properly.


    I'm still a little bit confused about the point you're trying to make, so forgive me if I've got it wrong.



    I believe you are saying that one of the negative effects of vertical progression is that it encourages developers to design their worlds in a linear fashion, and also encourages linear themepark design because the linear telling of a story fits in with the linear nature of vertical progression?


    Am I close?
    Well, it's not the vertical progression itself.
    It's the Power Gaps. 
    Because the players are jumping ahead in Power so fast, everything else has to too. 
    And that's what causes the problems. 

    In effect, the Power Gaps are pulling the game apart, stretching the game/world into too many sectioned off portions. 

    - Content designated to fairly small groups of Power separation (level groups). 
    - Players separating from "friends" by the amounts of time they can play. 
    (Falling behind.) 
    - Guilds losing members that can't stay within range of other members.
    - Lack of Socialness as a result of not maintaining associations with known players.
    - Lack of Trust as a result of THAT. 
    - Leading to tendencies to play Solo.
    - Economy that's equally divided, so it doesn't function as an economy at all. 
    - Content that becomes meaningless as you progress past it. 
    - Content ahead of you that you can't use.
    - Leaving players with only a small part of the game that they can play at any one time. 
    - Same for gear, as above. 
    - Directions and controls, paint by numbers "world." 
    - etc., etc.


    Something else to be considered that I've been saying for years that I could never get people here to comprehend..... I think people here are more simple than we think but hay, they have good grammar and spelling but cant think beyond a rock.


    First noticed this in playing Rift with a friend...... we played like 5 nights in a row until he had to take a night off, ONE NIGHT !

    We were absolutely unable to play together at all for two reasons.
    Leveling was so fast I gained well over 10 levels without even trying.

    Quest hub to quest hub, I had no choice but to go back and play the exact same content.  Infact the programming programming was strange he couldn't do my stuff + 10 levels. 

    WHY ?

    The game was small !!!!!!!!!!......Every game made since is small.
    leveling to quickly, making it impossible to play with others. 



    Vanilla WoW, like it or not, you were always able to play with others +/- 5 levels, you also spent hours the same level, later level all day making friends along the way.


    That's not a game problem.

    After five nights of play you would have known leveling in the game was fast paced. Yet you chose to continue leveling at that rate when your friend was absent. knowingly creating a large level disparity between the two of you.

    If you want to level along with someone in a game where levels are gained quickly you only play together to prevent that gap from happening.

    It isn't impossible. You just have to do it in accordance with how the game you're playing works now, not how another game worked over a decade ago.
    ShaddyDaddymmolou
  • AmarantharAmaranthar Member EpicPosts: 4,172
    Ungood said:
    Ungood said:




    Not sure about later times.. like I said, I left with PoP.

    But, when I started playing, the thing about EQ was it didn't have a "Story" you as a player were not a part of some story.

    By that, I mean in EQ there was nowhere anyone expected you to be, and nothing they expected you to do.

    I played very little of ESo, but it was kinda like in GW2, you have a story, you are part of an ongoing Saga, involving many other people, and series of events, and you go step 1 to Step 2, and so forth and so on. Even if you manage to bypass sections of the story by way of expansions or living world or other means, the Story still happened exactly as it was always going to happen, you had done all that you were going to do, regardless if you actually did it or not.

    Now, in contrast to that, EQ had its own lore, the world and areas all had a deep rich history to it , but, you as a player, were just one of many adventures in that world, and things went on around you, that you could partake in, or not, but there was no story that involved you.

    Players were left to make their own fun, do the quests they wanted to do, and pretty much set their own path in the game.

    Like for example, I made an ogre, and right out the door I ran off to freeport, and spent the next few levels doing quests to build faction so I could enter the city, there was nothing stopping me from doing this, and there was nothing I was missing out on by doing this. There was no story I was supposed to follow, quest line I was supposed to do, or anything else for that matter.

    Now to be fair, back then, at the early age of MMO's we were just ape shit excited to have such a cool ass game world that we could play when we wanted, with other people and not want to stab that one asshole who kept argining the rules all night, as such, the quest for power for the sake of power, to just go off and kill bigger badass things to.. well get more power.. was enough to keep us entertained for thousands upon thousands of hours over the course of many YEARS! 

    But EQ, while was the forefather of all the modern 3rd person MMO's, it was not anything like what we have today, it was much, much, simpler.

    This is why I am really at a loss when people tell me that EQ, was Themepark and on Rails. It's like they never played the game.

    As, I say I didn't play it too long. I wanted to play it longer, but there seemed to be some sort of flashing involved with the UI in combat and I couldn't find a way to get rid of it when searching online for a solution. That bothered my eyes a fair bit so I had to abandon the game. If I could find a way, I'd give it another go.

    The tutorial pretty much led me around but I don't know if what I did was part of the original experience. I suspect it may have  been added later. After that I  can't really remember much at all, other than interacting with NPCs being more involving than more recent games as far as discovering quests.

    ESO and GW2 are somewhat similar, but they are really quite different. The side quests felt much more like busywork in GW2 where in ESO each is a short story comprised of several quests. The scaling works differently as well so far as I understand, such that GW2 still trivializes early content like most MMORPGs.

    I don't think a player being depicted as the main hero is required for a game to be a theme park. So long as the game is focused on a fixed story and environment that players have little to no influence on, it is essentially a theme park whether the player is depicted as the star or an extra.

    Regardless, I haven't played EQ long enough to express an educated opinion on it really, and none of that occurred early on so what I do know comes from a different time. You know the nature of the game far better than I to be sure.
    Here's what you guys are missing.
    As long as you have to follow a "Level Arc", what does it matter if there's a story to go with it or not? 
    The story didn't do anything except be there. As you know, there's nothing you could do about the story anyways. It's just "fluff." 

    Once upon a time....

  • UngoodUngood Member EpicPosts: 4,212
    Ungood said:
    Ungood said:
    Amaranthar
    cameltosis 

    Do either one of you have a game I could go play right now that can give me an example of what you are talking about as some horizontal game.

    The RPG genre is pretty lacking in horizontal progression as an overall design ethic, it tends to just be in small bits. For example, original LotRO's endgame had horizontal progression: the three endgame armour sets were all roughly equivalent in power, but each useful in their own way. That tends to be the way in RPGs - any form or horizontal progression only comes in small slices and usually just as alternate gearing options.


    Games with lots of skills but limited action bars (like ESO and Wildstar) have horizontal elements too. In those games, unlocking a skill doesn't necessarily make you more powerful - to use the skill, you have to stop using something else. Ofc, sometimes the new skills are genuinely more powerful, then it becomes vertical again. Plus the skills themselves leveling up is pure vertical progression...



    The place where horizontal progression is used the most is in online shooters like CoD and Battlefield. Whilst not completely flat in terms of power, the power gap between unlocks tends to be pretty damn small. So, instead of unlocking more powerful guns, you unlock stuff that is just "different" - better range, but worse fire rate; better accuracy, but less damage etc. This gives you lots and lots of options, lots of ways to find the perfect playstyle for you, without upsetting the balance.
    So basically you are both just talking hypotheticals.


    I just gave you 5 games that use(d) horizontal progression for at least part of their progression mechanics.


    If you want to look to the future, Camelot Unchained is building it's whole game around horizontal progression. I believe that Crowfall is also aiming for mostly horizontal progression, but I've not been following CF closely and I know they changed their minds a few times already.


    Hardly hypothetical
    First off, all  PvP battleground style games (regardless of their specific style, be they MOBA's, BR, or Arena's oor just OWPvP) when it comes to PvP focused games, progress is often disguised as Horizontal to give the illusion of fair and/or balanced gameplay. 

    As far as RPG's, "slices" or small examples you gave me, that does not mean you gave me 5 games, you gave me five little things within 5 different games, there is a HUGE difference between giving me 5 games that represent your idea, and 5 microscopic examples within various games.

    Just saying.
    cameltosis
    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.
  • UngoodUngood Member EpicPosts: 4,212
    Ungood said:
    Not sure about later times.. like I said, I left with PoP.

    But, when I started playing, the thing about EQ was it didn't have a "Story" you as a player were not a part of some story.

    By that, I mean in EQ there was nowhere anyone expected you to be, and nothing they expected you to do.

    I played very little of ESo, but it was kinda like in GW2, you have a story, you are part of an ongoing Saga, involving many other people, and series of events, and you go step 1 to Step 2, and so forth and so on. Even if you manage to bypass sections of the story by way of expansions or living world or other means, the Story still happened exactly as it was always going to happen, you had done all that you were going to do, regardless if you actually did it or not.

    Now, in contrast to that, EQ had its own lore, the world and areas all had a deep rich history to it , but, you as a player, were just one of many adventures in that world, and things went on around you, that you could partake in, or not, but there was no story that involved you.

    Players were left to make their own fun, do the quests they wanted to do, and pretty much set their own path in the game.

    Like for example, I made an ogre, and right out the door I ran off to freeport, and spent the next few levels doing quests to build faction so I could enter the city, there was nothing stopping me from doing this, and there was nothing I was missing out on by doing this. There was no story I was supposed to follow, quest line I was supposed to do, or anything else for that matter.

    Now to be fair, back then, at the early age of MMO's we were just ape shit excited to have such a cool ass game world that we could play when we wanted, with other people and not want to stab that one asshole who kept argining the rules all night, as such, the quest for power for the sake of power, to just go off and kill bigger badass things to.. well get more power.. was enough to keep us entertained for thousands upon thousands of hours over the course of many YEARS! 

    But EQ, while was the forefather of all the modern 3rd person MMO's, it was not anything like what we have today, it was much, much, simpler.

    This is why I am really at a loss when people tell me that EQ, was Themepark and on Rails. It's like they never played the game.

    As, I say I didn't play it too long. I wanted to play it longer, but there seemed to be some sort of flashing involved with the UI in combat and I couldn't find a way to get rid of it when searching online for a solution. That bothered my eyes a fair bit so I had to abandon the game. If I could find a way, I'd give it another go.

    The tutorial pretty much led me around but I don't know if what I did was part of the original experience. I suspect it may have  been added later. After that I  can't really remember much at all, other than interacting with NPCs being more involving than more recent games as far as discovering quests.

    ESO and GW2 are somewhat similar, but they are really quite different. The side quests felt much more like busywork in GW2 where in ESO each is a short story comprised of several quests. The scaling works differently as well so far as I understand, such that GW2 still trivializes early content like most MMORPGs.

    I don't think a player being depicted as the main hero is required for a game to be a theme park. So long as the game is focused on a fixed story and environment that players have little to no influence on, it is essentially a theme park whether the player is depicted as the star or an extra.

    Regardless, I haven't played EQ long enough to express an educated opinion on it really, and none of that occurred early on so what I do know comes from a different time. You know the nature of the game far better than I to be sure.
    EQ had a starting area, a Newbie Quest as it where, so you could learn how to fight, how to equip things, it was a tutorial to show players the basic functions and how to interact with the game world.

    Given how First Gen EQ, this was a very needed tutorial, otherwise, I swear players would not know how to equip armor. 

    Other than that basic guide to how to play the game in a very basic sense, there were no hits, no directions, no other guides, nothing, it was "here is a world, go have fun"

    To be fair however, unless the game somehow moves forward with time, all games are by your definition a Theme Park, but then again.. when I think about it.

    There was an event, a Dragon Called the Sleeper, that the Devs did not want killed, it was supposed to be some unkillable Mob and part of an event series or waking the sleeper, it would cause mass destruction and then go back to sleep, well.. on the Veeshan Server, they were about to kill it, when the Dev's stepped in and stopped the fight. The Guild FoH discussed with the Dev's to let things be.. so.. the Dev's agreed.. they let the event unfold.. and the Sleeper was Slain.

    The think was.. there was no code timer for the Sleeper to Respawn.. in short.. they changed the game world by killing the Sleeper, and the event as a repeatable event, ended, never to be done again.

    So even if I was to use the very broad based definition of "Players have no real impact on the game world" to be a theme park, EQ would still not be a Theme Park game.
    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.
  • UngoodUngood Member EpicPosts: 4,212
    Ungood said:
    Ungood said:
    Amaranthar
    cameltosis 

    Do either one of you have a game I could go play right now that can give me an example of what you are talking about as some horizontal game.

    The RPG genre is pretty lacking in horizontal progression as an overall design ethic, it tends to just be in small bits. For example, original LotRO's endgame had horizontal progression: the three endgame armour sets were all roughly equivalent in power, but each useful in their own way. That tends to be the way in RPGs - any form or horizontal progression only comes in small slices and usually just as alternate gearing options.


    Games with lots of skills but limited action bars (like ESO and Wildstar) have horizontal elements too. In those games, unlocking a skill doesn't necessarily make you more powerful - to use the skill, you have to stop using something else. Ofc, sometimes the new skills are genuinely more powerful, then it becomes vertical again. Plus the skills themselves leveling up is pure vertical progression...



    The place where horizontal progression is used the most is in online shooters like CoD and Battlefield. Whilst not completely flat in terms of power, the power gap between unlocks tends to be pretty damn small. So, instead of unlocking more powerful guns, you unlock stuff that is just "different" - better range, but worse fire rate; better accuracy, but less damage etc. This gives you lots and lots of options, lots of ways to find the perfect playstyle for you, without upsetting the balance.
    So basically you are both just talking hypotheticals.
    All new things are built on hypotheticals, aren't they? 

    Where else can it come from? 

    But I promise you this. If something like this ever gets built, you won't have to play it. lol


    I would say for the most part.. No.

    And even more so when it comes to something like a MMO or RPG game, you have various stages of revisions of existing:
    Ideally, simply improving upon an existing idea, is where the most profitable progress can be found, like WoW, took the ideas of various other games, and improved upon them, and then put them into their game, with stellar success.

    Other times you have an idea and you revise it, you question why it was done that way, and do things a new way. Like GW2 asking why can't everyone be self sufficient, why do we need tanks and healers, why can't everyone be DPS/Tank/Healer? This obviously can be very hit or miss.

    Then you have the basic design of where you see a problem and seek to provide a solution to that problem. Like for example, in DDO, they wanted to address the problem of BiS gear grinds, so what they did was make a bunch of situational gear. This obviously can also be very hit or miss, as just because you came up with a solution, does not mean you came up with a good one.

    As fro just pontificating about pie in the sky ideas... Normally.. at best.. they barely see the light of day at the Gaming table in the local game shop, much less in a multi million dollar several year long project like an MMO.

    But if you really want to get a feel for how well your idea would go over.. go break out the 5E rule book, draw up some home brew with your ideas, maybe work with cameltosis on drawing them out, start a Discord Server about your idea, invite some other friends and fellow gamers to your 5E or whatever the current D&D ruleset is, when you have something roughly plyable, give them a go and get your game on, and see what other players think of your horizontal game idea.
    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.
  • AmarantharAmaranthar Member EpicPosts: 4,172
    Ungood said:

    (Snip)

    As fro just pontificating about pie in the sky ideas... Normally.. at best.. they barely see the light of day at the Gaming table in the local game shop, much less in a multi million dollar several year long project like an MMO.

    But if you really want to get a feel for how well your idea would go over.. go break out the 5E rule book, draw up some home brew with your ideas, maybe work with cameltosis on drawing them out, start a Discord Server about your idea, invite some other friends and fellow gamers to your 5E or whatever the current D&D ruleset is, when you have something roughly plyable, give them a go and get your game on, and see what other players think of your horizontal game idea.
    That's actually a good suggestion. (Not that I have the time for that.) 
    After all, that's pretty much what Gary Gygax did when he created an all new idea called Dungeons and Dragons. 
    Ever hear of that game? 

    Your problem is that you're a rote person. 
    You know only what you've been taught. 
    Can't think fer squat, though. 

    Just like your idea that higher level characters should be down scaled to lower levels so they can play with lower level players. 
    It never crossed your mind that, you know, why would they do that? They can get more XP and better gear in the ever present race to the top. 
    Oh, sure, some few might do that to help out some friends. But game wide, it would be seldom seen. The race to "end game" would go on. And it wouldn't do a thing for the problems. 

    Well done, rote man, well done. 
    "Rote", that would be a good name for a Themepark character, don'tcha think? 
    Oh wait....
    mmolouUngood

    Once upon a time....

  • KnightFalzKnightFalz Member RarePosts: 1,133

    That's actually a good suggestion. (Not that I have the time for that.) 
    After all, that's pretty much what Gary Gygax did when he created an all new idea called Dungeons and Dragons. 
    Ever hear of that game?

    It wasn't an all new idea. It was a codifying of let's pretend.
    Ungood
  • AmarantharAmaranthar Member EpicPosts: 4,172
    edited April 11

    That's actually a good suggestion. (Not that I have the time for that.) 
    After all, that's pretty much what Gary Gygax did when he created an all new idea called Dungeons and Dragons. 
    Ever hear of that game?

    It wasn't an all new idea. It was a codifying of let's pretend.
    And yet when a few of us come up with another "let's pretend" idea, one that's designed for MMO rather than MO, there's always the people saying "that won't work." 
    :/


    Once upon a time....

  • UngoodUngood Member EpicPosts: 4,212

    Just like your idea that higher level characters should be down scaled to lower levels so they can play with lower level players. 
    It never crossed your mind that, you know, why would they do that? They can get more XP and better gear in the ever present race to the top. 
    Oh, sure, some few might do that to help out some friends. But game wide, it would be seldom seen. The race to "end game" would go on. And it wouldn't do a thing for the problems. 
    Just to clear something up.. Down Scaling is not my idea, it is what is currently done in GW2, and it is a huge success in that game. 

    it is truly a wonderfully integrated aspect of the of the game world that can be witnessed all the time, the integrated communities of various level and invested players is especially noticeable during events like World Bosses, Guild Mission, Dailys. To a lesser degree it is seen with people trying to do Map Completion, Farm Mats, and of course the all important ability for guildies and friends helping each other out, regardless of level.

    This works for a game like GW2, as the game was built from the ground up to integrate this system, It might tank harder than a lead balloon in some other games, just because an idea works in one game, does not mean it will work in another.

    Just saying on that one.

    Now Originally, GW2 didn't really have an "end game" it was pretty much a casuals playpen, and nicknamed "Fashion Wars 2", and truth be told, while again, not a unique idea, it was a good system for their game, it coupled well with a lot of their other design decisions. 

    However, they did buckle to that "Race to End Game" that players seem to be so obsessed over, when they made Raids and put Legendary Armor behind them.. they also started to bleed players and loose millions, to the point they needed to downsize, their CEO left, and more recently so did their Head Developer.

    Ungood said:
    (Snip)

    As fro just pontificating about pie in the sky ideas... Normally.. at best.. they barely see the light of day at the Gaming table in the local game shop, much less in a multi million dollar several year long project like an MMO.

    But if you really want to get a feel for how well your idea would go over.. go break out the 5E rule book, draw up some home brew with your ideas, maybe work with cameltosis on drawing them out, start a Discord Server about your idea, invite some other friends and fellow gamers to your 5E or whatever the current D&D ruleset is, when you have something roughly plyable, give them a go and get your game on, and see what other players think of your horizontal game idea.
    That's actually a good suggestion. (Not that I have the time for that.) 
    After all, that's pretty much what Gary Gygax did when he created an all new idea called Dungeons and Dragons. 
    Ever hear of that game? 
    I have to admire your pluck, to ask me if I have ever heard of a game that I directly referenced in my post.

    Wow.. 

    Also, tossing out personal insultes after you make a blunder like that.. says a lot about you.. Nothing Good Mind you... but it does say a lot.
    mmolou
    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.
  • UngoodUngood Member EpicPosts: 4,212

    That's actually a good suggestion. (Not that I have the time for that.) 
    After all, that's pretty much what Gary Gygax did when he created an all new idea called Dungeons and Dragons. 
    Ever hear of that game?

    It wasn't an all new idea. It was a codifying of let's pretend.
    Actually it was not even that original, Dave and Gary were miniature wargamers, tabletop miniature war games have been around for a VERY long time, and had their own rules and codexes.. and by long time, I mean like since the 1900's kind of long time.

    It was in the 50 and 60's gave rise to thirst for the Fantasy Setting among tabletop Wargaming, thanks to the growing influence of fantasy works like Tolkien. This is why, if you look at the History of Dungeons and Dragons, Gary Gygax first started into the genre by writing a rule set for Fantasy Wargames called Chainmail, it was a few years later,  when Gary and Dave looked to revise the rules and systems again to go small scale whereas as opposed to Squads they broke the rules down to individual Units.

    It was not even a "Let's Pretend" becoming a reality, this was a second gen game system being far more profitable then their first gen attempt. 

    While the idea and thus the rules and game expanded quickly far past what their original scope was, due to its market success, that does not mean it was an original idea in an of itself, it was built off an existing foundation of other ideas and systems.

    Much like how MMO's today will try new ideas within the framework of a known method. A Prime example of this, is how Anet went from GW1 to GW2, same company, same game setting, same races for the most part, a lot of "sameness" but, also very vastly different as far how they went about changing the systems and implementing their ideas.

    So.. I stand by what I said.. Good Ideas, Viable Ideas, are not Born in voids, they are not made from pontifications, or abstract hypotheticals, they are built off other ideas that worked, and then revised, improved upon, and correcting what went wrong or was missing from the original idea.


    Po_ggTuor7
    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.
  • delete5230delete5230 Member EpicPosts: 6,512
    edited April 11



    You don't have to sell me on the negative effects of vertical progression and power gaps, I hate them! I'm a massive fan horizontal progression and wished it existed in mmos properly.


    I'm still a little bit confused about the point you're trying to make, so forgive me if I've got it wrong.



    I believe you are saying that one of the negative effects of vertical progression is that it encourages developers to design their worlds in a linear fashion, and also encourages linear themepark design because the linear telling of a story fits in with the linear nature of vertical progression?


    Am I close?
    Well, it's not the vertical progression itself.
    It's the Power Gaps. 
    Because the players are jumping ahead in Power so fast, everything else has to too. 
    And that's what causes the problems. 

    In effect, the Power Gaps are pulling the game apart, stretching the game/world into too many sectioned off portions. 

    - Content designated to fairly small groups of Power separation (level groups). 
    - Players separating from "friends" by the amounts of time they can play. 
    (Falling behind.) 
    - Guilds losing members that can't stay within range of other members.
    - Lack of Socialness as a result of not maintaining associations with known players.
    - Lack of Trust as a result of THAT. 
    - Leading to tendencies to play Solo.
    - Economy that's equally divided, so it doesn't function as an economy at all. 
    - Content that becomes meaningless as you progress past it. 
    - Content ahead of you that you can't use.
    - Leaving players with only a small part of the game that they can play at any one time. 
    - Same for gear, as above. 
    - Directions and controls, paint by numbers "world." 
    - etc., etc.


    Something else to be considered that I've been saying for years that I could never get people here to comprehend..... I think people here are more simple than we think but hay, they have good grammar and spelling but cant think beyond a rock.


    First noticed this in playing Rift with a friend...... we played like 5 nights in a row until he had to take a night off, ONE NIGHT !

    We were absolutely unable to play together at all for two reasons.
    Leveling was so fast I gained well over 10 levels without even trying.

    Quest hub to quest hub, I had no choice but to go back and play the exact same content.  Infact the programming programming was strange he couldn't do my stuff + 10 levels. 

    WHY ?

    The game was small !!!!!!!!!!......Every game made since is small.
    leveling to quickly, making it impossible to play with others. 



    Vanilla WoW, like it or not, you were always able to play with others +/- 5 levels, you also spent hours the same level, later level all day making friends along the way.


    That's not a game problem.

    After five nights of play you would have known leveling in the game was fast paced. Yet you chose to continue leveling at that rate when your friend was absent. knowingly creating a large level disparity between the two of you.

    If you want to level along with someone in a game where levels are gained quickly you only play together to prevent that gap from happening.

    It isn't impossible. You just have to do it in accordance with how the game you're playing works now, not how another game worked over a decade ago.
    This proves the rock problem I spoke of.  You expect to do "work arounds" instead of making a game an mmorpg.  Face it, the game was built for solo on-line play.  Something else you have to face. your not an mmorpg player but and game online player.  

    Rifts were based on hop in and kill the rift solo with others around you. And two quest per hub then move on to the next...... This game sticks with me because it may be the first on-line game made.  

    Trying to dispute this with you would be worthless because your an on-line gamer and I'm not.



    A little story,
    After several attempts to play together like we did so many times in the past like other mmorpgs, we decided it was impossible to play together, we each decided to play on our own.  

    One afternoon I had a few hours to play.  Then noticed someone following me around helping me kill stuff and wouldn't go away (strange but not uncommon).

    Eventually he asked "lets play together".  I tried to explain the game was not built for duo's and couldn't get my point across.... He hounded me for what ever reason and I gave in. 

    Now in a group I asked what quest does he have ?.... I've already done them so he couldn't give them. nor could he do my quest because they were to high for his level (but only two levels)....... We were at a stand still as I expected.... he didn't know how to respond "so he asked me for Gold ! "..... I had to log off to get away from him.


    Your an online gamer, we have nothing in common.  I guess I'm typing this because I wanted to tell the story :)
  • KnightFalzKnightFalz Member RarePosts: 1,133

    That's actually a good suggestion. (Not that I have the time for that.) 
    After all, that's pretty much what Gary Gygax did when he created an all new idea called Dungeons and Dragons. 
    Ever hear of that game?

    It wasn't an all new idea. It was a codifying of let's pretend.
    And yet when a few of us come up with another "let's pretend" idea, one that's designed for MMO rather than MO, there's always the people saying "that won't work." 
    :/
    Gaming forums are full of naysayers.
  • AmarantharAmaranthar Member EpicPosts: 4,172

    That's actually a good suggestion. (Not that I have the time for that.) 
    After all, that's pretty much what Gary Gygax did when he created an all new idea called Dungeons and Dragons. 
    Ever hear of that game?

    It wasn't an all new idea. It was a codifying of let's pretend.
    And yet when a few of us come up with another "let's pretend" idea, one that's designed for MMO rather than MO, there's always the people saying "that won't work." 
    :/
    Gaming forums are full of naysayers.
    I don't care. Anymore. 
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLpfbcXTeo8  


    Once upon a time....

Sign In or Register to comment.