Anyway, this discussion went pretty much exactly like I expected it would. I'm still not convinced that you wouldn't gain the pros I mentioned from a cap but that's really irrelevant at this point because even if it did achieve everything I proposed it would, players would still hate it. Whether it be a daily cap or weekly cap, simply for the fact that it infringes on their "freedom" to play as much as they want, even if they most likely wouldn't. And if players hate it, then it wouldn't sell. And if it doesn't sell then it's a shitty MMO regardless of how well designed it may be.
So the only question I have now then, can any of you think of a system that can achieve the same goals WITHOUT making the players feel like you're taking something away from them? I highly suspect it would still be some kind of limit/cap of some sort but maybe it could have a coat of paint on it that doesn't look as distasteful.
Just a slight alteration of whats allready available. Bonues for rested xp. When your logged out for a certain time your character gets a bonus when logging back in.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
No. Don't get me wrong I do play a LONG time, but it might not be 'all day' either. There are times I do want to play a lot (aka fresh start) and as such I dislike the concept of being limited. If someone wants to play 24 hours straight, then theres nothing that should limit them. Its a rather silly restriction to place. Sure, if you want to make things competative you could limit the time played for say a dungeon to a max time per week or something, but the actual whole GAME is another story.
its been done in several games and removed. it might not be bad for a full free to play game but a game where your subbing your basically just robbing people of the game time they want and or deserve. But if you put it into a free to play game and offer paid restrictions around it, that might hold up. But basically forcing someone to stop playing your game will kill it.
I think you misunderstood how this system was implemented in Final Fantasy XIV 1.0. It didn't allow 8 hours per week; the limit applied individually to each class (and was based on xp, as you suggested). Characters could switch classes and leveled each one separately, and your character benefited from spending time on multiple classes rather than sticking to just one or two. It was also a soft cap, allowing you to continue leveling that class beyond the weekly limit for another 7 hours worth at a steadily increasing xp penalty. Besides just shortening the gap between casual and hardcore players and stopping the latter from exhaustingly powerleveling to level 50, it was also a safeguard to nudge players towards properly experiencing the game by gaining the benefits of multiclassing across several classes, rather than focusing on taking a single class to 50 and being relatively useless.
The outcry against this system was so strong that I really feel it significantly contributed to 1.0's monumental failure. For the last several weeks of beta leading up to the release, the conversation between players and developers was completely focused on the xp fatigue system. The game had a lot of problems. A LOT of problems. And feedback about every one of those problems to a backseat to the fatigue issue. I don't think there was a single FFXIV article on any site in the entire month of September that wasn't primarily focused on the game's xp limits despite the fact that only a relatively small percentage of players would ever be affected by them. Square Enix spent so much time responding to the outcry over xp limits that that they never fully got the message that there were many other things—basic things like combat, UI, inventory, selling to other players—that needed more iteration before the game would be ready for release.
So if someone includes this feature in an MMO this is the reaction they should expect. If players think that you are artificially controlling their progress they will riot regardless of whether or not the feature improves the game.
Originally posted by Scot You do realise in this age of MMO's for maximum profit, the idea of limiting playing time will never float? Suggest that one at a SOE board meeting and you can expect to be looking for a new job real soon.
It works in a subscription game. In fact it's better for them cause it extends the life of the game. The real challenge is presenting it in such a way that players won't hate it.
What subscription MMO does not have a cash shop now days? If you are not online you are not spending. So yes I would see this as somewhat more viable in a subscription MMO but still not viable enough. What you are putting forward here is good gaming ethos and the days gaming companies worked to good gaming ethos are long gone. It is money first and foremost.
Originally posted by Scot You do realise in this age of MMO's for maximum profit, the idea of limiting playing time will never float? Suggest that one at a SOE board meeting and you can expect to be looking for a new job real soon.
It works in a subscription game. In fact it's better for them cause it extends the life of the game. The real challenge is presenting it in such a way that players won't hate it.
What subscription MMO does not have a cash shop now days? If you are not online you are not spending. So yes I would see this as somewhat more viable in a subscription MMO but still not viable enough. What you are putting forward here is good gaming ethos and the days gaming companies worked to good gaming ethos are long gone. It is money first and foremost.
Did they make more money when they had a good gaming ethos, or now when it's money first and foremost?
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Originally posted by Scot You do realise in this age of MMO's for maximum profit, the idea of limiting playing time will never float? Suggest that one at a SOE board meeting and you can expect to be looking for a new job real soon.
It works in a subscription game. In fact it's better for them cause it extends the life of the game. The real challenge is presenting it in such a way that players won't hate it.
What subscription MMO does not have a cash shop now days? If you are not online you are not spending. So yes I would see this as somewhat more viable in a subscription MMO but still not viable enough. What you are putting forward here is good gaming ethos and the days gaming companies worked to good gaming ethos are long gone. It is money first and foremost.
Did they make more money when they had a good gaming ethos, or now when it's money first and foremost?
Just because now you may argue "good gaming ethos" is gone it doesn't mean it will or should always stay that way. Good games come from good game design and despite the sometimes shocking indications to the contrary, good games do sell. Designing systems and that are mutually beneficial for both the consumer and the company makes total sense when you really think about it. As an avid student of game design I ponder over these kinds of things all the time. Good gaming ethos is the only way to push this medium forward; and so it will come no matter what.
Now don't get me wrong, clearly the reaction from this forum indicates that this kind of system is bad game design. Not because of what it achieves (I'm still convinced it achieves it very well), but because it infringes on some core belief that gamers have about their games. They may never play more than 70 hours per week but they'll never touch a game that infringes on their "right" to do so if they so chose. This is goes against something ingrained in everyone in the western world's mind and even if it were beneficial to them they'd reject it simply because it strikes that "freedom" nerve.
But that still begs the question about how could we achieve these goals, about making MMO's that don't pressure the playerbase as intensely, that don't allow gold farmers to accumulate as much gold or powerlevelers to vastly outlevel the players simply through grinding more. About encouraging the players to take their time more and progress through the content at a pace that relatively in line with development without sticking absurdly hard content walls in their face to obstruct them. How do we achieve these things in a social, competitive RPG without putting in a system that players hate? Now that's a good question and it's worth billions of dollars to answer
Originally posted by Scot You do realise in this age of MMO's for maximum profit, the idea of limiting playing time will never float? Suggest that one at a SOE board meeting and you can expect to be looking for a new job real soon.
It works in a subscription game. In fact it's better for them cause it extends the life of the game. The real challenge is presenting it in such a way that players won't hate it.
What subscription MMO does not have a cash shop now days? If you are not online you are not spending. So yes I would see this as somewhat more viable in a subscription MMO but still not viable enough. What you are putting forward here is good gaming ethos and the days gaming companies worked to good gaming ethos are long gone. It is money first and foremost.
Did they make more money when they had a good gaming ethos, or now when it's money first and foremost?
Just because now you may argue "good gaming ethos" is gone it doesn't mean it will or should always stay that way. Good games come from good game design and despite the sometimes shocking indications to the contrary, good games do sell. Designing systems and that are mutually beneficial for both the consumer and the company makes total sense when you really think about it. As an avid student of game design I ponder over these kinds of things all the time. Good gaming ethos is the only way to push this medium forward; and so it will come no matter what.
I think it's pretty clear to all of us that your suggestion hasn't, and won't be well-received. So unless you're going to make a game with said restrictions and test your suggestion out, you might want to just accept the truth. That your idea pretty much sucks. A good student must also be able to accept criticism and failure.
Originally posted by ArclanI am a fan of restrictions that limit how fast players can level.You may have gotten more "yes" votes if you worded it differently, rather than specifying 8-10 hours a day as the max. A player may not have been able to logon all week; and wants to pull an all nighter on the weekend.Diminishing returns is another option; or an xp curve: xp boost during the first 5 hours of the week. normal xp for 5 to 40 hours. diminished xp after 40 hours.
So you're essentially a fan of getting milked? That's what those "restrictions" were put in place for. The longer it took you to "cap" out, the longer your were paying a sub, as the level was the carrot in those days.
$15 a month for 240 hours of gameplay is about six cents an hour. My credit cards got paid off thanks to all that time I spent in EQ from 1999 to 2000. I had a blast every step of the way. The level was not the carrot; the world was.
When SWTOR came out and someone got max level on day 1 (or 2?), you know a huge pool of potential players just tuned out (myself included). A longer leveling curve is in a game's best interest for many reasons.
It isn't the leveling curve. It is the world itself. The SWTOR is an instanced garbage with no soul. The leveling curve is not the problem, its the worlds that are created. They have no reason to stick around. The game offers nothing but leveling? Count me out. I am not playing to oh..ahh..my next level finally! I am playing to live in a world and do something I view worth wasting my time on.
I think it's pretty clear to all of us that your suggestion hasn't, and won't be well-received. So unless you're going to make a game with said restrictions and test your suggestion out, you might want to just accept the truth. That your idea pretty much sucks. A good student must also be able to accept criticism and failure.
I agree, the presentation of this idea sucks. But the core of it may or may not. I still want to explore if there is a possible way to achieve these design elements without leaving such a bad taste in the players' mouth.
It won't work NOR Should it be allowed to be worked.
Firstly some examples
My job involves me being away from home say (on average) 2 nights / 3 days from home, So i miss gaming during these times, however because of my job I then claim back this time as 'time in lieu' so i might end up with 3 consecutive 4 day weekends.
During these long weekends i can (and do very often) play for 18+ hours a day so i play between 50-80 hours over the space of 4/5 days whilst not at work, but then dont play anything whislt away
What your suggesting is giving players like me a severe handicap, with your suggestion i would only be able to play 20-40hours per week, against another player who can play 50-70 hours per week
Why should my subs be the same as the person who can play twice as much because they work 09.00-17.00
Also its not unusual for me to leave myself and my various alts in game whislt i do other things (reply to this post for example)
Thats my personal reason for not liking your suggestion.
Then we get onto the antiquated suggestion.
Your talking about levelling up, simply remove levels from game or make it skill based so that time in game is done doing something likened to end of game.
Making more games skill based Ala EvE online or Age of Wushu, personally prefer the eve based learning, because its based on earning SP whilst your subscription is active.
This subscription based levelling means that if im away for 2 week with work i can come back and have learnt some long skill that allows me to play the game at a level equivavelent to a person of my 'in game age'
Your suggestion would leave far more work for the servers, because everytime someone wants to take a leak the would log out of game to save their game time, imagine the choas during raids, Each time a BIO break you would have to regroup everyone, sort out buffs, run through dungeons because you would have been out of game.
Then we get onto the raid nights, you would basically have a logistical nightmare on raid nights, saying to people you can't play doing what you want because we need to ensure that the 5/10/25 people have enough game time, then when you pug a group get to boss and the Tank d/c's because he has just passed his limit.
If you then added a caveat that says if your in a raid / dungeon the timer stops people will just sit in dungeons to keep themselves logged in
Think about it clearly wont happen
In terms of power levelling and botting this would actually in crease the use of illegal companies.
Why spend a portion of your time grinding gold or levels when you can pay someone to give you gold / level you up then your 10 hours are free to do what you like.
I twas considered by a few games and met with harsh criticism.
Square Enix wanted to do it and ended up opting for another sneaky way to limit players from playing via Abyssea time restraints.
The real truth at least as i see it is devs don't really care about your health or well being,if they put limits it is merely to slow players down from completing content,they want you there for a long time not a short time.F2p games don't want you on a long time,just long enough to enjoy short sessions and to stick around until the next xpac. is for sale.
Probably the best argument to long play time is >>>FARMING.
These are rpg's remember,so you should be acting out and role playing as if a real person in a real world.This farming is often needed to support your character.How long that farming might take you is anyone's guess but many also do it to make currency.Farming for currency to buy things for your player again might need many hours depending on what you want/need.
A prime example would be if a Ranger or even a Ninja in FFXI.If you farm and craft everything you need that would take many hours.Just the time farming mats to make arrows/bolts or Shurikens you are getting into the 5+ hour range.Then you have to craft them,there is more time.Rangers or even thief's might utilize multiple arrows or bolts.
Then you want food as in early vanilla FFXI food was very important,you had to fight IT+ mobs which may very well need expensive food such as Sushi for accuracy or defensive food for the tank.Then you factor in the time to organize the group,your not going to go through all the effort and only play for an hour,so might expect 3-4 hours of group time.
If you have a static group designed to level a bit every other day,then you need a lot of time to actually do quests or missions in between,an hour or two won't cut it as it might take 1-2 hours just preparing for that quest visiting various npc's and or gathering items.
Simply put a realistic RPG game is designed to play out over years of game time and long hours of play at a time.RPG's that are just a mess of a game,mostly with a bunch of mini games and no real direction,then yes those you might be able to get a couple things done in an hour and logoff.Running mini games is not RPG gaming unless they are designed to fit into the LORE and style of the game,example perhaps two warriors arm wrestling in a tavern or having an Ale drinking contest.Jumping courses are NOT rpg elements.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Hey guys, here's a concept I've been thinking about for awhile now when I think about "better MMO design" :
Putting a cap on daily playtime
Now before you dismiss this concept at face-value, please consider some of my thoughts on the issue.
I can see how such a system can look wildly unpopular. The mere notion of telling the player how much they can or cannot play seems absurd. But is it really in the players' best interests that we let them have the option to play day in and day out until they collapse from exhaustion? What are the benefits of this? Is the concept of total freedom so valuable to us that we ignore the potential game design as well as health benefits that we can extract from a capped experience?
A game is seen as the players' "property" and as such we have been conditioned to design games with the notion that the player should be free to play it as much as they want/can. With most genres this works just fine because they have an "end" and/or are not designed to be played for extended amounts of time. But MMORPG's are a whole different beast. The MMO genre prides itself on how much of the players' time is can suck up. An MMO is designed to be played to the exclusion of almost everything else. Where most other types of games have an invisible"playtime cap" built into the game designs themselves, a great MMO is built by design to suck you in and keep you playing till you truly can't do so anymore due to real-life restraints.
....
Your own words (in red) destroy your case. You define how MMOs function - even to the point of differentiating the "great" ones, and then build an entire idea around how to destroy these basic components.
But since we're talking about "freedom of choice", I submit (without any intended sarcasm) that you champion the design of a new game that includes your idea and have it published. If people want to play it, they will. I sincerely wish you all the luck and success should you choose to do this.
Also, I like to play MMOs as often as I can. I still manage to pace myself and fit in a weight-training routine numerous days a week, have a very healthy nutrition plan, while holding down a full time job. I don't power level, buy nor farm gold, nor rush through content.
Now don't get me wrong, clearly the reaction from this forum indicates that this kind of system is bad game design. Not because of what it achieves (I'm still convinced it achieves it very well), but because it infringes on some core belief that gamers have about their games. They may never play more than 70 hours per week but they'll never touch a game that infringes on their "right" to do so if they so chose. This is goes against something ingrained in everyone in the western world's mind and even if it were beneficial to them they'd reject it simply because it strikes that "freedom" nerve.
I don't disagree. In a sense it is the rejection of a philosophy. People who are minimally affected by it or not affected by it at all still fume over it. It's like DRM that only allows you to install a game or watch a movie X times. Even if you'll never hit X in a lifetime of standard use, you don't want to pay for something that you might eventually lose.
Originally posted by seacow1g
But that still begs the question about how could we achieve these goals, about making MMO's that don't pressure the playerbase as intensely, that don't allow gold farmers to accumulate as much gold or powerlevelers to vastly outlevel the players simply through grinding more. About encouraging the players to take their time more and progress through the content at a pace that relatively in line with development without sticking absurdly hard content walls in their face to obstruct them. How do we achieve these things in a social, competitive RPG without putting in a system that players hate? Now that's a good question and it's worth billions of dollars to answer
I really think you need to address those goals separately rather than imagining that xp limits have the potential to address all of them.
RMT will never be hampered by a limitation like this. When people pay gold farmers for currency, they're paying for their time. Whatever solution the RMT companies work out for maximizing their currency farmed per day, people who want to buy gold will pay them for that time.
The "pressure" to spend all hours of the day rushing through the content doesn't go away with xp limits, it just changes form. While unemployed players could hit the daily/weekly limit without much trouble, players with just barely enough free time to reach the xp cap would feel much more pressured. It's like, if you're allowed to gain 1,000,000 XP per week, you're going to make damn sure you hit that limit even if it means grinding like a fiend all day Saturday without taking any time to enjoy yourself.
And as for gaps between powerlevelers and casual players, is there really a need to make them more narrow? Many MMOs don't pit players directly against each other, so my play experienced isn't necessarily harmed by the fact that someone else got to endgame in two weeks. It's not like he can walk up to me with his Drygwynnbaynne Hammyre +10 and knock my head off with it. If someone who doesn't have much time to play wants to be able to compete directly (and on even ground) against players who have all day to play, that is a sign that they should be seeking out games without progression or where progression is not much of a factor. If progression is a problem, take the progression out... don't hamstring it and leave half of it in the game with a "now-you-can-gain-experience,-now-you-can't" limitation.
Hey guys, here's a concept I've been thinking about for awhile now when I think about "better MMO design" :
Putting a cap on daily playtime
Now before you dismiss this concept at face-value, please consider some of my thoughts on the issue.
I can see how such a system can look wildly unpopular. The mere notion of telling the player how much they can or cannot play seems absurd. But is it really in the players' best interests that we let them have the option to play day in and day out until they collapse from exhaustion? What are the benefits of this? Is the concept of total freedom so valuable to us that we ignore the potential game design as well as health benefits that we can extract from a capped experience?
A game is seen as the players' "property" and as such we have been conditioned to design games with the notion that the player should be free to play it as much as they want/can. With most genres this works just fine because they have an "end" and/or are not designed to be played for extended amounts of time. But MMORPG's are a whole different beast. The MMO genre prides itself on how much of the players' time is can suck up. An MMO is designed to be played to the exclusion of almost everything else. Where most other types of games have an invisible"playtime cap" built into the game designs themselves, a great MMO is built by design to suck you in and keep you playing till you truly can't do so anymore due to real-life restraints.
....
Your own words (in red) destroy your case. You define how MMOs function - even to the point of differentiating the "great" ones, and then build an entire idea around how to destroy these basic components.
But since we're talking about "freedom of choice", I submit (without any intended sarcasm) that you champion the design of a new game that includes your idea and have it published. If people want to play it, they will. I sincerely wish you all the luck and success should you choose to do this.
Also, I like to play MMOs as often as I can. I still manage to pace myself and fit in a weight-training routine numerous days a week, have a very healthy nutrition plan, while holding down a full time job. I don't power level, buy nor farm gold, nor rush through content.
Don't project nor assume. That never ends well.
You're right, the staples of MMORPG design are seemingly contradictory to what I'm trying to achieve here. But we already know that MMORPG's have these problems, try to deal with them in different ways and often encourage unhealthy playing habits. But is that how it SHOULD be? I mean let's face it, if you're playing a game for 70 hours a week then you're still pretty much playing that game to the exclusion of everything else. The difference being that in the first month of release no one is gonna powerlevel to the finish and make you feel like you have to do so as well. There's still gonna be hardcore players that play the maximum amount (which is still alot) and outlevel everyone else, but the gap between them and regular players wouldn't be as large. Which in turn would put less pressure on both the hardcore and casual players alike.
These feelings of pressure are almost unique to persistent online competitive RPGs. Yes you might powergame a single player game because you enjoy it and thats fine, but you're never forced to play more than you want to by some competitive drive. Competitive online games like mobas or rts's do have that competitive drive but are more reliant on twitch gameplay and as such fatigue plays an important role in how you are improving/performing. But MMORPG's are completely unique in how until you hit the level cap and finally hit that playtime cap of weekly lockouts, you can never stop improving as long as you keep playing. I view this as bad game design. Why DO we enjoy the endgame so much? Maybe we like the concept of being at a part in the game where we have a certain realistic set of goals to achieve each week to stay competitive. Rushing to the level cap is never fun, so our solution was to make the grind to the end easier and faster....This is not a good solution, it's lazy. Good game design comes from focusing on the core feeling that gameplay provides the player moment to moment. If endgame is any indication, it proves that people like to have a cap on how much they can improve each week (granted that cap should require a reasonable amount of commitment though). This is how the entire game should be designed.
Who are you to decide what is best for someone else? Worry about yourself, and let people be.
Exactly.
The biased poll options and the follow up responses from the OP indicate he's more concerned about regulating how other people play than actually "better game design" as claimed in the original post.
"Even though making it possible for other players able to do so pressures you into playing more hours than you really want to. Even though giving that option most likely harms your experience." - seacow
Sea, don't transfer your personal concerns and issues on the rest of the populace, especially when it's based on a lot of baseless assumptions about why people may want to do play an extended run now and then.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I remember when FFXIV 1.0 did this and called it Fatigue. You could still play, but you stopped getting XP.
It went over.... very poorly.
Maybe they didn't do it right. Almost by design they were forcing players to play 8 hours per week of a single class but could switch up and level other classes instead....This is stupid, most players like to be invested in one or two classes at most at any given time. An XP cap that comes into effect after 70 hours of weekly gameplay would feel very different. It would be completely unnoticeable to the vast majority of the players, yet have profound benefits on the gameworld itself. Sadly though it still wouldn't go over very well because it's just not "right" from a philosophical standpoint. People don't like to be told how much they can play, even if they most likely wouldn't play more than that any way and even if it helped their own experience with the game. It's just not right.
Who are you to decide what is best for someone else? Worry about yourself, and let people be.
Exactly.
The biased poll options and the follow up responses from the OP indicate he's more concerned about regulating how other people play than actually "better game design" as claimed in the original post.
Not true, people's play habits are already being regulated by game design. The pressure you feel to play more than you normally would is exactly a byproduct of that game design. The difference is that you can't see it. I am entirely concerned with better game design. Good game design involves giving players alot of ways to play but not compelling them to play in any way other than they way they'd naturally like to. Are you seriously arguing that you like to play more than 70 hours per week on a regular basis? Hardly anyone does, and the ones that actually do negatively impact the experience for the myriad of people that don't.
I'm gonna say this again for emphasis: 70 hours per WEEK! That is alot of gametime. Like.....alot.
Just a slight alteration of whats allready available. Bonues for rested xp. When your logged out for a certain time your character gets a bonus when logging back in.
EQ2, WOW, L2 and a lot of other MMOs do that and it seems to work well. However, the goal isn't to get all Net Nanny on people but to help the casual players keep up with those who play more often. It alleviates the feeling that one has to play, making it a more enjoyable experience when they want to play.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Originally posted by Scot You do realise in this age of MMO's for maximum profit, the idea of limiting playing time will never float? Suggest that one at a SOE board meeting and you can expect to be looking for a new job real soon.
You do realize that Facebook's energy-based games were extremely profitable, right? It's the same "limit players' playtime" mechanic as the OP is asking for, and made a lot of money.
I think it's a bad idea for MMORPGs, and in particular doesn't fit with the genre's demographic at all, but profit definitely wouldn't be a concern.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
8 to 10 hours is my whole week play time..wow, how does people get so much free time? my job, friends and family suck all my day. Sometimes the only time i get to read is when i am in toilet. I am lucky to spare 2 hours a day but that rarely happens.
I think for P2P games at least, any kind of restrictions placed on the players related to their 'gametime' will go down badly, no matter what kind of 'spin' is put on it, they pay their money after all. In a F2P game perhaps, but i'd see that as being backed up by cash shop items like 'extend daily play time by 2hrs only $5 for a stack of 10'!!
but, just who these days can spare 8-10 hours in 1 day anyway
i have a simple method of managing my online game time, my wife, you can be sure if that if by some chance i manage to spend more than a couple of hours playing a game, she will remind me
Originally posted by Scot You do realise in this age of MMO's for maximum profit, the idea of limiting playing time will never float? Suggest that one at a SOE board meeting and you can expect to be looking for a new job real soon.
You do realize that Facebook's energy-based games were extremely profitable, right? It's the same "limit players' playtime" mechanic as the OP is asking for, and made a lot of money.
I think it's a bad idea for MMORPGs, and in particular doesn't fit with the genre's demographic at all, but profit definitely wouldn't be a concern.
Not true, facebook energy based games are tailored to that demographic. They are designed to be played for minutes at a time, not hours. Sure there are people that spend hours on facebook but that's a minority and there's not much money to be made in catering to them.
MMORPG's are in fact designed to be played within that 6-10 hour window to get the most out of them. Play them any longer and you run out of stuff to do too fast, design them to be played for more and your players suffer from burnout and can't keep up. Many players already do the right thing and play the way the game was designed to be played, but this unlimited access causes competitive players to play more than they normally would, which trickles down and influences other players to do the same. Furthermore it gives freedom to botters and farmers to accrue more resources than a normal would because they are not playing to play, they are playing for a job (and they play in shifts, not one person per account). This impacts the economy and thus the player experience as well.
But yes, I do agree that facebook games are at least proof that energy-based games are definitely profitable.
How about a different perspective? I'm not sure I can express this in English but I try.
So you want to limit how much time a player can play. Then I assume you would agree with: a player spends too much time in my game.
So why is he spending so mush time in game? How is that time spent? Why is that time spend? Is it "grinding xp" or is it "playing some kind of long quest"? Is it only "to get to next lvl" or maybe "because it is fun way to spend time with online friends"?
Above are just examples but I believe you can find right points that will answer a question: is the problem with how much time a player DECIDE to play or is is how much time a game TAKE to play?
I'm not sure is it clear in English but the point is: if you think that a player should play just a short sessions then design a gameplay in way that will not give benefits due to long play time.
Also it is general knowledge that a positive feedback is better then negative if you want to enforce some rule. So instead of doing negative "artificially limit the time one can play" do it positive "for a limited time one will get a bonus". Of course this wont stop some from playing long time. But it is like DRM - pirates will still find a way around and legitimate customers will find it too much hassle to buy it. And thats the best way to fail.
Comments
Just a slight alteration of whats allready available. Bonues for rested xp. When your logged out for a certain time your character gets a bonus when logging back in.
its been done in several games and removed. it might not be bad for a full free to play game but a game where your subbing your basically just robbing people of the game time they want and or deserve. But if you put it into a free to play game and offer paid restrictions around it, that might hold up. But basically forcing someone to stop playing your game will kill it.
I think you misunderstood how this system was implemented in Final Fantasy XIV 1.0. It didn't allow 8 hours per week; the limit applied individually to each class (and was based on xp, as you suggested). Characters could switch classes and leveled each one separately, and your character benefited from spending time on multiple classes rather than sticking to just one or two. It was also a soft cap, allowing you to continue leveling that class beyond the weekly limit for another 7 hours worth at a steadily increasing xp penalty. Besides just shortening the gap between casual and hardcore players and stopping the latter from exhaustingly powerleveling to level 50, it was also a safeguard to nudge players towards properly experiencing the game by gaining the benefits of multiclassing across several classes, rather than focusing on taking a single class to 50 and being relatively useless.
The outcry against this system was so strong that I really feel it significantly contributed to 1.0's monumental failure. For the last several weeks of beta leading up to the release, the conversation between players and developers was completely focused on the xp fatigue system. The game had a lot of problems. A LOT of problems. And feedback about every one of those problems to a backseat to the fatigue issue. I don't think there was a single FFXIV article on any site in the entire month of September that wasn't primarily focused on the game's xp limits despite the fact that only a relatively small percentage of players would ever be affected by them. Square Enix spent so much time responding to the outcry over xp limits that that they never fully got the message that there were many other things—basic things like combat, UI, inventory, selling to other players—that needed more iteration before the game would be ready for release.
So if someone includes this feature in an MMO this is the reaction they should expect. If players think that you are artificially controlling their progress they will riot regardless of whether or not the feature improves the game.
What subscription MMO does not have a cash shop now days? If you are not online you are not spending. So yes I would see this as somewhat more viable in a subscription MMO but still not viable enough. What you are putting forward here is good gaming ethos and the days gaming companies worked to good gaming ethos are long gone. It is money first and foremost.
Did they make more money when they had a good gaming ethos, or now when it's money first and foremost?
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Just because now you may argue "good gaming ethos" is gone it doesn't mean it will or should always stay that way. Good games come from good game design and despite the sometimes shocking indications to the contrary, good games do sell. Designing systems and that are mutually beneficial for both the consumer and the company makes total sense when you really think about it. As an avid student of game design I ponder over these kinds of things all the time. Good gaming ethos is the only way to push this medium forward; and so it will come no matter what.
Now don't get me wrong, clearly the reaction from this forum indicates that this kind of system is bad game design. Not because of what it achieves (I'm still convinced it achieves it very well), but because it infringes on some core belief that gamers have about their games. They may never play more than 70 hours per week but they'll never touch a game that infringes on their "right" to do so if they so chose. This is goes against something ingrained in everyone in the western world's mind and even if it were beneficial to them they'd reject it simply because it strikes that "freedom" nerve.
But that still begs the question about how could we achieve these goals, about making MMO's that don't pressure the playerbase as intensely, that don't allow gold farmers to accumulate as much gold or powerlevelers to vastly outlevel the players simply through grinding more. About encouraging the players to take their time more and progress through the content at a pace that relatively in line with development without sticking absurdly hard content walls in their face to obstruct them. How do we achieve these things in a social, competitive RPG without putting in a system that players hate? Now that's a good question and it's worth billions of dollars to answer
I think it's pretty clear to all of us that your suggestion hasn't, and won't be well-received. So unless you're going to make a game with said restrictions and test your suggestion out, you might want to just accept the truth. That your idea pretty much sucks. A good student must also be able to accept criticism and failure.
It isn't the leveling curve. It is the world itself. The SWTOR is an instanced garbage with no soul. The leveling curve is not the problem, its the worlds that are created. They have no reason to stick around. The game offers nothing but leveling? Count me out. I am not playing to oh..ahh..my next level finally! I am playing to live in a world and do something I view worth wasting my time on.
I agree, the presentation of this idea sucks. But the core of it may or may not. I still want to explore if there is a possible way to achieve these design elements without leaving such a bad taste in the players' mouth.
It won't work NOR Should it be allowed to be worked.
Firstly some examples
My job involves me being away from home say (on average) 2 nights / 3 days from home, So i miss gaming during these times, however because of my job I then claim back this time as 'time in lieu' so i might end up with 3 consecutive 4 day weekends.
During these long weekends i can (and do very often) play for 18+ hours a day so i play between 50-80 hours over the space of 4/5 days whilst not at work, but then dont play anything whislt away
What your suggesting is giving players like me a severe handicap, with your suggestion i would only be able to play 20-40hours per week, against another player who can play 50-70 hours per week
Why should my subs be the same as the person who can play twice as much because they work 09.00-17.00
Also its not unusual for me to leave myself and my various alts in game whislt i do other things (reply to this post for example)
Thats my personal reason for not liking your suggestion.
Then we get onto the antiquated suggestion.
Your talking about levelling up, simply remove levels from game or make it skill based so that time in game is done doing something likened to end of game.
Making more games skill based Ala EvE online or Age of Wushu, personally prefer the eve based learning, because its based on earning SP whilst your subscription is active.
This subscription based levelling means that if im away for 2 week with work i can come back and have learnt some long skill that allows me to play the game at a level equivavelent to a person of my 'in game age'
Your suggestion would leave far more work for the servers, because everytime someone wants to take a leak the would log out of game to save their game time, imagine the choas during raids, Each time a BIO break you would have to regroup everyone, sort out buffs, run through dungeons because you would have been out of game.
Then we get onto the raid nights, you would basically have a logistical nightmare on raid nights, saying to people you can't play doing what you want because we need to ensure that the 5/10/25 people have enough game time, then when you pug a group get to boss and the Tank d/c's because he has just passed his limit.
If you then added a caveat that says if your in a raid / dungeon the timer stops people will just sit in dungeons to keep themselves logged in
Think about it clearly wont happen
In terms of power levelling and botting this would actually in crease the use of illegal companies.
Why spend a portion of your time grinding gold or levels when you can pay someone to give you gold / level you up then your 10 hours are free to do what you like.
This post is all my opinion, but I welcome debate on anything i have put, however, personal slander / name calling belongs in game
where of course you're welcome to call me names im often found lounging about in EvE online.
Use this code for 21days trial in eve online https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=d385aff2-794a-44a4-96f1-3967ccf6d720&action=buddy
I twas considered by a few games and met with harsh criticism.
Square Enix wanted to do it and ended up opting for another sneaky way to limit players from playing via Abyssea time restraints.
The real truth at least as i see it is devs don't really care about your health or well being,if they put limits it is merely to slow players down from completing content,they want you there for a long time not a short time.F2p games don't want you on a long time,just long enough to enjoy short sessions and to stick around until the next xpac. is for sale.
Probably the best argument to long play time is >>>FARMING.
These are rpg's remember,so you should be acting out and role playing as if a real person in a real world.This farming is often needed to support your character.How long that farming might take you is anyone's guess but many also do it to make currency.Farming for currency to buy things for your player again might need many hours depending on what you want/need.
A prime example would be if a Ranger or even a Ninja in FFXI.If you farm and craft everything you need that would take many hours.Just the time farming mats to make arrows/bolts or Shurikens you are getting into the 5+ hour range.Then you have to craft them,there is more time.Rangers or even thief's might utilize multiple arrows or bolts.
Then you want food as in early vanilla FFXI food was very important,you had to fight IT+ mobs which may very well need expensive food such as Sushi for accuracy or defensive food for the tank.Then you factor in the time to organize the group,your not going to go through all the effort and only play for an hour,so might expect 3-4 hours of group time.
If you have a static group designed to level a bit every other day,then you need a lot of time to actually do quests or missions in between,an hour or two won't cut it as it might take 1-2 hours just preparing for that quest visiting various npc's and or gathering items.
Simply put a realistic RPG game is designed to play out over years of game time and long hours of play at a time.RPG's that are just a mess of a game,mostly with a bunch of mini games and no real direction,then yes those you might be able to get a couple things done in an hour and logoff.Running mini games is not RPG gaming unless they are designed to fit into the LORE and style of the game,example perhaps two warriors arm wrestling in a tavern or having an Ale drinking contest.Jumping courses are NOT rpg elements.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Your own words (in red) destroy your case. You define how MMOs function - even to the point of differentiating the "great" ones, and then build an entire idea around how to destroy these basic components.
But since we're talking about "freedom of choice", I submit (without any intended sarcasm) that you champion the design of a new game that includes your idea and have it published. If people want to play it, they will. I sincerely wish you all the luck and success should you choose to do this.
Also, I like to play MMOs as often as I can. I still manage to pace myself and fit in a weight-training routine numerous days a week, have a very healthy nutrition plan, while holding down a full time job. I don't power level, buy nor farm gold, nor rush through content.
Don't project nor assume. That never ends well.
I don't disagree. In a sense it is the rejection of a philosophy. People who are minimally affected by it or not affected by it at all still fume over it. It's like DRM that only allows you to install a game or watch a movie X times. Even if you'll never hit X in a lifetime of standard use, you don't want to pay for something that you might eventually lose.
I really think you need to address those goals separately rather than imagining that xp limits have the potential to address all of them.
RMT will never be hampered by a limitation like this. When people pay gold farmers for currency, they're paying for their time. Whatever solution the RMT companies work out for maximizing their currency farmed per day, people who want to buy gold will pay them for that time.
The "pressure" to spend all hours of the day rushing through the content doesn't go away with xp limits, it just changes form. While unemployed players could hit the daily/weekly limit without much trouble, players with just barely enough free time to reach the xp cap would feel much more pressured. It's like, if you're allowed to gain 1,000,000 XP per week, you're going to make damn sure you hit that limit even if it means grinding like a fiend all day Saturday without taking any time to enjoy yourself.
And as for gaps between powerlevelers and casual players, is there really a need to make them more narrow? Many MMOs don't pit players directly against each other, so my play experienced isn't necessarily harmed by the fact that someone else got to endgame in two weeks. It's not like he can walk up to me with his Drygwynnbaynne Hammyre +10 and knock my head off with it. If someone who doesn't have much time to play wants to be able to compete directly (and on even ground) against players who have all day to play, that is a sign that they should be seeking out games without progression or where progression is not much of a factor. If progression is a problem, take the progression out... don't hamstring it and leave half of it in the game with a "now-you-can-gain-experience,-now-you-can't" limitation.
You're right, the staples of MMORPG design are seemingly contradictory to what I'm trying to achieve here. But we already know that MMORPG's have these problems, try to deal with them in different ways and often encourage unhealthy playing habits. But is that how it SHOULD be? I mean let's face it, if you're playing a game for 70 hours a week then you're still pretty much playing that game to the exclusion of everything else. The difference being that in the first month of release no one is gonna powerlevel to the finish and make you feel like you have to do so as well. There's still gonna be hardcore players that play the maximum amount (which is still alot) and outlevel everyone else, but the gap between them and regular players wouldn't be as large. Which in turn would put less pressure on both the hardcore and casual players alike.
These feelings of pressure are almost unique to persistent online competitive RPGs. Yes you might powergame a single player game because you enjoy it and thats fine, but you're never forced to play more than you want to by some competitive drive. Competitive online games like mobas or rts's do have that competitive drive but are more reliant on twitch gameplay and as such fatigue plays an important role in how you are improving/performing. But MMORPG's are completely unique in how until you hit the level cap and finally hit that playtime cap of weekly lockouts, you can never stop improving as long as you keep playing. I view this as bad game design. Why DO we enjoy the endgame so much? Maybe we like the concept of being at a part in the game where we have a certain realistic set of goals to achieve each week to stay competitive. Rushing to the level cap is never fun, so our solution was to make the grind to the end easier and faster....This is not a good solution, it's lazy. Good game design comes from focusing on the core feeling that gameplay provides the player moment to moment. If endgame is any indication, it proves that people like to have a cap on how much they can improve each week (granted that cap should require a reasonable amount of commitment though). This is how the entire game should be designed.
I remember when FFXIV 1.0 did this and called it Fatigue. You could still play, but you stopped getting XP.
It went over.... very poorly.
Exactly.
The biased poll options and the follow up responses from the OP indicate he's more concerned about regulating how other people play than actually "better game design" as claimed in the original post.
"Even though making it possible for other players able to do so pressures you into playing more hours than you really want to. Even though giving that option most likely harms your experience." - seacow
Sea, don't transfer your personal concerns and issues on the rest of the populace, especially when it's based on a lot of baseless assumptions about why people may want to do play an extended run now and then.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Maybe they didn't do it right. Almost by design they were forcing players to play 8 hours per week of a single class but could switch up and level other classes instead....This is stupid, most players like to be invested in one or two classes at most at any given time. An XP cap that comes into effect after 70 hours of weekly gameplay would feel very different. It would be completely unnoticeable to the vast majority of the players, yet have profound benefits on the gameworld itself. Sadly though it still wouldn't go over very well because it's just not "right" from a philosophical standpoint. People don't like to be told how much they can play, even if they most likely wouldn't play more than that any way and even if it helped their own experience with the game. It's just not right.
Not true, people's play habits are already being regulated by game design. The pressure you feel to play more than you normally would is exactly a byproduct of that game design. The difference is that you can't see it. I am entirely concerned with better game design. Good game design involves giving players alot of ways to play but not compelling them to play in any way other than they way they'd naturally like to. Are you seriously arguing that you like to play more than 70 hours per week on a regular basis? Hardly anyone does, and the ones that actually do negatively impact the experience for the myriad of people that don't.
I'm gonna say this again for emphasis: 70 hours per WEEK! That is alot of gametime. Like.....alot.
EQ2, WOW, L2 and a lot of other MMOs do that and it seems to work well. However, the goal isn't to get all Net Nanny on people but to help the casual players keep up with those who play more often. It alleviates the feeling that one has to play, making it a more enjoyable experience when they want to play.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
You do realize that Facebook's energy-based games were extremely profitable, right? It's the same "limit players' playtime" mechanic as the OP is asking for, and made a lot of money.
I think it's a bad idea for MMORPGs, and in particular doesn't fit with the genre's demographic at all, but profit definitely wouldn't be a concern.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I think for P2P games at least, any kind of restrictions placed on the players related to their 'gametime' will go down badly, no matter what kind of 'spin' is put on it, they pay their money after all. In a F2P game perhaps, but i'd see that as being backed up by cash shop items like 'extend daily play time by 2hrs only $5 for a stack of 10'!!
but, just who these days can spare 8-10 hours in 1 day anyway
i have a simple method of managing my online game time, my wife, you can be sure if that if by some chance i manage to spend more than a couple of hours playing a game, she will remind me
Not true, facebook energy based games are tailored to that demographic. They are designed to be played for minutes at a time, not hours. Sure there are people that spend hours on facebook but that's a minority and there's not much money to be made in catering to them.
MMORPG's are in fact designed to be played within that 6-10 hour window to get the most out of them. Play them any longer and you run out of stuff to do too fast, design them to be played for more and your players suffer from burnout and can't keep up. Many players already do the right thing and play the way the game was designed to be played, but this unlimited access causes competitive players to play more than they normally would, which trickles down and influences other players to do the same. Furthermore it gives freedom to botters and farmers to accrue more resources than a normal would because they are not playing to play, they are playing for a job (and they play in shifts, not one person per account). This impacts the economy and thus the player experience as well.
But yes, I do agree that facebook games are at least proof that energy-based games are definitely profitable.
How about a different perspective? I'm not sure I can express this in English but I try.
So you want to limit how much time a player can play. Then I assume you would agree with: a player spends too much time in my game.
So why is he spending so mush time in game? How is that time spent? Why is that time spend? Is it "grinding xp" or is it "playing some kind of long quest"? Is it only "to get to next lvl" or maybe "because it is fun way to spend time with online friends"?
Above are just examples but I believe you can find right points that will answer a question: is the problem with how much time a player DECIDE to play or is is how much time a game TAKE to play?
I'm not sure is it clear in English but the point is: if you think that a player should play just a short sessions then design a gameplay in way that will not give benefits due to long play time.
Also it is general knowledge that a positive feedback is better then negative if you want to enforce some rule. So instead of doing negative "artificially limit the time one can play" do it positive "for a limited time one will get a bonus".
Of course this wont stop some from playing long time. But it is like DRM - pirates will still find a way around and legitimate customers will find it too much hassle to buy it. And thats the best way to fail.