Howdy, Stranger!

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

Another Perspective on Group PVE Gameplay (poll)

EronakisEronakis Member UncommonPosts: 2,249

I wanted to start a new thread on this topic because I believe I came up with interesting PVE gameplay that would be drastically different. Gameplay that encourages grouping, strategy, new set of challenges that still values class roles while negating zerging. This thread is like Part 2 of my last thread, Changing Group Dynamics. I just feel I could convey this a lot better now. And I know some of you wanted a more detailed explanation and how it all works together...

 

I value group content and find it more enjoyable than solo gameplay. Being apart of a team that over comes challenges together is like nothing else. Everquest had the best grouping content I have experienced. Class roles played a major role in grouping and you had to have them in order to progress. However, grouping was a burden in EQ because you had to have certain roles in group and could spend hours looking or making a group. I believe this is one of the major reasons why we don't see a major flux of group content today. 

 

I propose a different way of thinking to allow a more strategic skill based PVE gameplay experience that focuses on changing group dynamics, redefining the tank role, NPC group dynamics, composition of different class roles, and negating zerging. Bare with me as I am writing this in layers for better understanding.

 

 

The Setting - The Wilderness (the World)

Imagine when you trek out into the wilderness it's a dangerous place. There are NPC communities, encampments, scouting regiments, patrols, dangerous wildlife, bandits ect. An average adventurer would dare not go alone in the world unless he's/she's brave and confident enough in his own skill to attempt. 

 

 

Redefining the Tank Role

I am in favor of changing the trinity gameplay but still valuing distinct class roles. Some MMO titles believe to omit one of the components to make trinity gameplay better. Such as removing the healer class or allowing every class able to have access to high end damage. This creates zerging and/or very wild chaotic gameplay that isn't controlled. My proposal is to redefine the tank role and what aggro means, not omitting certain class roles. 

 

The tank role is very core of the trinity gameplay because players focus on the NPC that the tank has 'aggro'd.' Damage classes will focus fire down the NPC while support/healer classes will aid the group. There is nothing wrong with that style of gameplay. It's quite enjoyable. However, trinity gameplay after time gets stale, becomes tedious and one dimensional. I am looking to have more depth and strategy on different levels of gameplay. 

 

The tank role will no longer be categorized to one to several certain classes but rather jump to the archetype level, allowing any melee class to be able to 'tank'. Tanking is no longer considered just defensive. Rather tanking means that all melee classes will hold 'aggro' from other NPC melee classes from attacking casters/healers/support classes. By broadening the tanking spectrum to the archetype level, making a group becomes rather easier because that is one less role you have to find a certain class for. Think of your melee classes as your front line in battle. Naturally melee would fight other melee classes but melee classes are not exempt from fighting other caster classes either. Or vice versa.

 

 

Changing Group Dynamics

Since the tank role has been redefined on more of an archetype level than a class level, the way we perceive grouping has changed. In this proposal no longer will it be a group of players focus firing on one NPC all the time. 

 

The group will act as one cohesive unit where each player as their own responsibilities in the group. Think of it as you are participating in a mini battle. There will be Attackers and Support. Attacks will be any class  that will be able to fight an NPC 1v1. This includes all Melee Classes and Caster DPS classes. Your Support Classes will be able to aid your Attacker Classes. Support roles would include, healing, buffing, debuffing, crowd control and detect vulnerabilities, such as resistances and defenses. 

 

Even though Attacker Classes will be fighting 1v1 battles in close proximity to other players in the group, it's still considered team gameplay. There would be a plethora of classes to choose from as well. Here is an analogy for better understanding...

 

The game of American Football is a team sport but with individual responsibilities. Your Quarter Back distributes the ball (Attacks) while your Offensive line blocks and protect (support) your Quarter Back. There are other different types of attackers that complement your QB such as your Running Back and Wide Receivers. Each player on the team performs individually but when executed correctly it's a team effort.

 

In a way this is how envision this type of group gameplay to work as well, sort of like the game of Football. 

Now you wonder how to make combat interesting enough for a player to have to fight 1v1 if that is the case while in a group.

 

 

Strategic AI complements Adaptable Combat Mechanics 

AI would be categorized in different Ranks of Training to give a wide array of different challenges to a player/group. Higher ranked AI NPCs would be more apt to Pattern Detect your strategy. They would be able have more access to a library of potential patterns in attempt to change up your strategy. Sometimes if certain high ranking AI NPC's are bundled in a group, they may act more strategically as a group.

 

The idea is to allow players to have dozens of path ways to victory depending on your situational circumstances and play style. By omitting or limiting singular rotation gameplay would make each fight experience unique and different. Adaptable combat mechanics I have envisioned are not twitch but rather still tab targeting. The player skill comes in by knowing your class, combat mechanics associated with your class and knowing your opponent. Individually and Group you become like a tactician.

 

I don't want to go into much detail about Adaptable Combat Mechanics because that could be an entirely new thread, but I want to convey just enough for understanding. I will mention that Melee Classes combat mechanics will be designed in directly translating 'Guards' from European Swordsmanship, while Spell combat Mechanics would be contingent on different combos to garner different spell effects for damage or healing. Each class will have access to an arsenal of skills/spells that they must choose on a limited hot bar, (20). The idea is to make different hot bar sets for different styles of gameplay and different situational circumstances. 

 

 

Negating Zerging/Focus Fire

One major issue I could potentially see with this new pve gameplay proposal is players still attempting to focus fire one NPC down or zerg. I am not opposed to this happening at a low frequency but that is not the type of gameplay I am insinuating here. 

 

To recap, melee vs melee and caster vs caster/healer/support naturally. On some cases that would change. Melee and Caster Attacker Classes would have different elements to hopefully negate this potential issue.

 

For melee classes, there would be a semi-lock feature once you have engaged on another Melee Target. If you disengage you're more vulnerable to critical damage. This will hopefully encourage Melee players to stay locked on their current target. I do want to address another potential issue with this, is that, "well a healer could always heal if they disengage.". That is correct. However, I want to point out that healing is a commodity and must be used strategically. Melee players will be able have access to parry and countering moves to mitigate damage to complement a healer. 

 

Caster Attacker Classes won't have a semi lock feature such as melee classes because they can choose other targets down. However, Caster classes will run the risk of being interrupted, silenced, or crowd controlled by other caster classes. 

This would make more chaotic gameplay more controlled. 

 

 

NPC Group Dynamics

NPC groups could also be a mirror for player groups. As this proposal is focusing on PVE gameplay of player groups vs other NPC groups. I wanted to make the world more alive. NPC's mindlessly wandering next to each other for no reason will be diminished quite a bit. 

 

The Wilderness would be littered with different NPC communities. Some communities could encompass a whole zone while others could reign over a portion of a zone. Different NPC groups would come out of these communities in different ways. Such as, guarding a treasure in a small castle, or defending a watch tower, sending a scouting party, escorting something valuable or simply traveling from point A to B.

 

The capacity of these communities and NPC groups could vary.  I believe 6 players is a good number for a full group. NPC groups could vary between 2-6 NPC's at a time. Sometimes solo mobs could also wander. To hopefully diminish any tedious gameplay, once you killed a group of NPC's, new NPC's with a different class composition will spawn. The capacity of the group could also fluctuate as well. For an example...

 

Player Group = 2 Melee Attackers, 2 Caster Attackers and 2 Support just successfully killed a Scouting Group of NPC's that consisted of 3 Melee Attackers, 2 Caster Attackers and 1 Support which is a full group of 6 NPCs. Let's say Player Group after a while loops around and is in the same vicinity of where they killed that scouting party. A new scouting party of different class compositions would arise such as, 1 Melee Attacker, 1 Caster attacker and 2  Support spawn. The spawning of different NPC group compositions and AI rank of training would be randomized within the zone. The Capacity of the NPC group would be determined by how many players killed the previous group. If a group of 6 players killed 5-6 NPC group, another 5-6 NPC group would spawn. If a 2-4 Player group killed a 2-4 player NPC group another 2-4 NPC group would spawn.

 

 

Composition of Classes in Group would equal different challenges

I want to negate forced grouping in regards to what classes should be chosen for a group as much as possible. I do understand that some players will still have a min/max mind set. There will be a good selection of Attacker and Support classes to choose from. Each type of class will have different utility and roles that they can bring to a group. I would like to have it where if two random players are seeking a group they can ad any type of class they desire to just group. 

 

Different class compositions and group capacities will determine different challenges a group may encounter without certain classes/roles in the group. This is not a bad thing. A group could survive out in the Wilderness with a full group or even 2-5 player group, depending on that player's skill set. The idea is to not bottleneck grouping into one certain composition but to make it more open to any class. Simply put, the challenge changes. Your group may have to behave differently depending on what type of utility your classes offer your current group. 

 

To encourage grouping a full group would be a luxury to have because it potentially evens out the playing field. 

--

As you can see this proposal is still on a basic level of explanation but I wanted to put all of the parts together. The idea is to have a more strategic gameplay experience at a group level and a player level at the same time. 

If you vote 'MAYBE', please post so I can try to better explain this idea to you!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

«1

Comments

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775

    Too much work. Too much coordination with others. Hard to do that with strangers.

    I would much rather solo.

  • EronakisEronakis Member UncommonPosts: 2,249
    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    Too much work. Too much coordination with others. Hard to do that with strangers.

    I would much rather solo.

    -_- I don't know why you keep on commenting on threads like these with the same response every time. Broken record? It's getting old man!

  • MendelMendel Member LegendaryPosts: 5,609
    I didn't like the idea the last time you posted it, I still don't think you've offered anything original.  It still seems to boil down to a number of players soloing in close proximity with a convenient chat mechanism.

    Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.

  • EronakisEronakis Member UncommonPosts: 2,249
    Originally posted by Mendel
    I didn't like the idea the last time you posted it, I still don't think you've offered anything original.  It still seems to boil down to a number of players soloing in close proximity with a convenient chat mechanism.

    It doesn't really boil down to that. There are so much more elements involved. Maybe you're not seeing the full picture. I haven't seen an mmo utilize this type of gameplay. What makes it different is that it reroutes the tanking to any melee class(s) in group and having support classes aid the 'attacker' classes. The adaptable combat mechanics allow for a more indepth strategic gameplay experience. I haven't seen that yet. Would you rather enjoy the trinity gameplay with the aggro strategem? Or are you a solo player? It's fine if you don't like it, I just would like to know why. 

  • EronakisEronakis Member UncommonPosts: 2,249
    If you vote NO, please explain why you don't like this proposal or how you could make it better. And what type of gameplay you rather prefer and why. I am seriously interested.
  • zzaxzzax Member UncommonPosts: 324

    Alternative anti focus fire solution:

    The mob goes more defensive the more players is targeting it (stacking damage reduction buff). It would make it not worth to focus on one mob at time.

    The same thing could also work in PvP, to prevent focusing melee in zerg fights, resulting in more epic encounters (something that rarely happens in practice, but we often see in cinematics).

  • waynejr2waynejr2 Member EpicPosts: 7,769
    I voted no.  There are a number of reasons but only the first one matters.   You sold is as New when I don't believe that it is new.  /end thread for me.
    http://www.youhaventlived.com/qblog/2010/QBlog190810A.html  

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

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

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

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

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

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




  • EronakisEronakis Member UncommonPosts: 2,249
    Originally posted by waynejr2
    I voted no.  There are a number of reasons but only the first one matters.   You sold is as New when I don't believe that it is new.  /end thread for me.

    Don't 'believe' it as new, hmmm. Please show me an example of where this type of gameplay exists with all of the complementing elements? Did change thread title to another so people will actually read the OP instead commenting when they've clearly haven't read it.

  • EronakisEronakis Member UncommonPosts: 2,249
    Originally posted by zzax

    Alternative anti focus fire solution:

    The mob goes more defensive the more players is targeting it (stacking damage reduction buff). It would make it not worth to focus on one mob at time.

    The same thing could also work in PvP, to prevent focusing melee in zerg fights, resulting in more epic encounters (something that rarely happens in practice, but we often see in cinematics).

    Very interesting solution! That could complement well. Support NPC classes could also focus fire and buff or heal that one targeted NPC. Another issue is when you focus fire with this type of gameplay is that you're taking on way too much damage from other Attacker NPCs or allowing other Support NPC's to give more of an advantage with beneficial buffs or debuffs or crowd control a player. That is the reason why I wanted to have each player able to their own responsibility in the group to take an account to mitigate other NPC's in the group. 

  • EronakisEronakis Member UncommonPosts: 2,249
    Originally posted by Gorwe

    I DON'T WANT TO COORDINATE WITH TOTAL STRANGERS!

    Really, fk that! Just let me solo in peace!

    Single Player RPG's is what you want to play, not MMORPGs. This type of gameplay is obviously not for the solo player...

  • rojoArcueidrojoArcueid Member EpicPosts: 10,722

    i will only comment on the points i either disagree or have a different solution.

     

    - Redifining the Tank role. Even though i agree that Tanking needs a massive overhaul, i think the entire trinity is what needs to be reworked. While at it, DPS must be taken out of the trinity and become a universal ability because every class in its respective universe (Eorzea, Tyria, Azeroth, etc) knows how to fight and defense themselves and others from danger. Replace the "dps" role with support or control. So anyone can DPS but each person will have their respective group based role to focus on during group gameplay based on which class they choose. The trinity would become Tank/dps, Heal/dps, Support/control/dps.

     

    - Changing group dynamics. I think you just explained in a fancy way the same system that we have had for years. I dont have a solution for this, anything different from that is welcome in my book.

     

    - Negating Zerging/Focus Fire. The best way to completely destroy Zerging in massive battles (RvR, etc) is by having friendly fire and losing score points for friendly fire casualties. That will immediately discourage zerging and encourage objective controls and more tactical gameplay and teamwork.

     

    As for your other ideas, sure, i would try them out. Keeping the genre fresh with more ideas is important.





  • VelocinoxVelocinox Member UncommonPosts: 1,010
    Originally posted by Eronakis
    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    Too much work. Too much coordination with others. Hard to do that with strangers.

    I would much rather solo.

    -_- I don't know why you keep on commenting on threads like these with the same response every time. Broken record? It's getting old man!

    He commented on this thread because you asked him to. You asked the public's opinion and they have spoken. They don't like your idea, and they don't like forced grouping. Don't make a post like this or run a poll only expecting people that are going to kiss your ass to reply.

     

    The simplest answer is you can always group, even in solo friendly games. that's not true for soloing in forced grouping games, and as the idea in this day of 6 month MMOs is to get as many people wanting to play your game as possible so some of them stick around. Telling the majority of them to take a hike right off the bat isn't a good idea.

     

    So instead of working on ways to exclude everyone else, why don't you just find a group of friends that like playing the way you do and get together in a game and play it your way and leave everyone else alone to play it they way they want?

    'Sandbox MMO' is a PTSD trigger word for anyone who has the experience to know that anonymous players invariably use a 'sandbox' in the same manner a housecat does.


    When your head is stuck in the sand, your ass becomes the only recognizable part of you.


    No game is more fun than the one you can't play, and no game is more boring than one which you've become familiar.


    How to become a millionaire:
    Start with a billion dollars and make an MMO.

  • EronakisEronakis Member UncommonPosts: 2,249
    Originally posted by rojoArcueid

    i will only comment on the points i either disagree or have a different solution.

     

    - Redifining the Tank role. Even though i agree that Tanking needs a massive overhaul, i think the entire trinity is what needs to be reworked. While at it, DPS must be taken out of the trinity and become a universal ability because every class in its respective universe (Eorzea, Tyria, Azeroth, etc) knows how to fight and defense themselves and others from danger. Replace the "dps" role with support or control. So anyone can DPS but each person will have their respective group based role to focus on during group gameplay based on which class they choose. The trinity would become Tank/dps, Heal/dps, Support/control/dps.

     

    - Changing group dynamics. I think you just explained in a fancy way the same system that we have had for years. I dont have a solution for this, anything different from that is welcome in my book.

     

    - Negating Zerging/Focus Fire. The best way to completely destroy Zerging in massive battles (RvR, etc) is by having friendly fire and losing score points for friendly fire casualties. That will immediately discourage zerging and encourage objective controls and more tactical gameplay and teamwork.

     

    As for your other ideas, sure, i would try them out. Keeping the genre fresh with more ideas is important.

    Your first point is a very interesting one and something I have been considering for a long time. Even though I have suggested DPS as a role in my OP, I am leaning towards that any class can DPS to a certain extent. DPS in today's mmo's is all about damage meters and spamming your singular rotation. Which I am trying to omit. Instead I would like players to focus on their specified role in the group. However, the scale of DPS for different classes must be adjusted as well for balancing reasons. I think adding DPS as a secondary role persay would actually work quite well with my Adaptable Combat Mechanics. 

     

    I am actually changing group dynamics in a sense. For trinity gameplay everyone focus fire's on one mob or you have the alternative where you zerg. What I am proposing is something different. Where each player has their own individual responsibilities but acts as one cohesive unit to complement class roles within a group. So instead of the tank and spank each "attacker class" will take on another NPC to hold "aggro". 

     

    Your next issue would only work for twitch combat as this gameplay is not meant for twitch (aim) combat. Plus that will take a lot of extra collision detection that may be needed for the melee portion of the combat mechanics.

  • zzaxzzax Member UncommonPosts: 324
    Originally posted by rojoArcueid

    - Negating Zerging/Focus Fire. The best way to completely destroy Zerging in massive battles (RvR, etc) is by having friendly fire and losing score points for friendly fire casualties. That will immediately discourage zerging and encourage objective controls and more tactical gameplay and teamwork.

    It wouldnt work in tab target games. People would still focus single characters (look at EVE Online, it has friendly fire, yet it solves nothing).

    Action combat games in other hand, yeah it could work. Not sure if it would be fun though? Constantly watching your friends, to not hit them, would annoy you to death in longer fights.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Originally posted by Velocinox
    Originally posted by Eronakis
    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    Too much work. Too much coordination with others. Hard to do that with strangers.

    I would much rather solo.

    -_- I don't know why you keep on commenting on threads like these with the same response every time. Broken record? It's getting old man!

    He commented on this thread because you asked him to. You asked the public's opinion and they have spoken. They don't like your idea, and they don't like forced grouping. Don't make a post like this or run a poll only expecting people that are going to kiss your ass to reply.

     

    Plus, if you ask the same question, you are going to get the same answer, again and again.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Originally posted by Eronakis
    Originally posted by Gorwe

    I DON'T WANT TO COORDINATE WITH TOTAL STRANGERS!

    Really, fk that! Just let me solo in peace!

    Single Player RPG's is what you want to play, not MMORPGs. This type of gameplay is obviously not for the solo player...

    hmm .. MMORPGs are becoming single player co-op games .. otherwise, why would solo-ing such a standard feature now?

  • LacedOpiumLacedOpium Member EpicPosts: 2,327

     

    You're beginning to look desperate my friend.  Let it go.   Let me be honest with you.  The days of being able to force any particular game style preference on the gaming community are over.  This worked at one point in the MMORPG evolution timeline because there were but a handful of games to play at the time.  If we wanted to play an MMORPG, we "had" to submit to that game style preference because there was no alternative.  We get that you love grouping.  This much is obvious.  But you and your type are no different that the hardcore OWPvP gamer, or PvE Raider, or theme-park quest fetcher, or anit-quest gamer, or MOBA type player, any other of a myriad of other niche groups.  Now, this is not to say that you, or any of these other preferred niche players, do not have the right to promote what you want.  Just understand that your requests are falling on deaf ears.  No developer in their right mind would develop a game based solely on any of these niche groups.  And if by chance they do, I guarantee you it will be and indie developer who will be fully cognizant of the fact that his game will only attract a niche group, and his revenue stream will be limited.  

     

    The only way in which an MMORPG game can succeed in today's gamer demographic is if they offer a solo-able option.  Now it doesn't have to be in the manner in which many of these solo-able MMO's are being released today, but it has to be solo-able to an extent.  Being the nice guy that I am, I will offer you this advice so that you may spend your time wisely when preparing for your "Part 3" grouping thread.  Include a solo-able implementations.  You appear to be a man with a vivid imagination.  Think up a revolutionary way to have a grouping game that will succeed side-by-side with a solo-able option, and you will have a winner.  Until then, you are wasting your time with these grouping ideas.

     

    MMORPG games with a forced grouping only mechanic are dead !

  • HrimnirHrimnir Member RarePosts: 2,415
    Originally posted by Eronakis

    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Too much work. Too much coordination with others. Hard to do that with strangers. I would much rather solo.

    -_- I don't know why you keep on commenting on threads like these with the same response every time. Broken record? It's getting old man!

     

    He needs to present a unified front. He has an identity to protect man!

    "The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."

    - Friedrich Nietzsche

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Originally posted by LacedOpium

    MMORPG games with a forced grouping only mechanic are dead !

    old school mmorpgs themselves are almost dead ... unless you count the broadened definition of MMOs.

  • EronakisEronakis Member UncommonPosts: 2,249
    Originally posted by Hrimnir
    Originally posted by Eronakis
    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    Too much work. Too much coordination with others. Hard to do that with strangers.

    I would much rather solo.

    -_- I don't know why you keep on commenting on threads like these with the same response every time. Broken record? It's getting old man!

     

    He needs to present a unified front. He has an identity to protect man!

    Yes, yes he does! At least he's consistent and not a flip flopper! Gotta give ya that Narisseldon :)

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Originally posted by Eronakis
     

    Yes, yes he does! At least he's consistent and not a flip flopper! Gotta give ya that Narisseldon :)

    I am not .. or at least not yet.

    But is there any value to be consistent? We are talking about preferences of games here. So what if I change my preferences tomorrow (not that it is likely)? It is not like changing what video game design I like will be harming the world or anything.

     

  • EronakisEronakis Member UncommonPosts: 2,249
    Originally posted by LacedOpium

     

    You're beginning to look desperate my friend.  Let it go.   Let me be honest with you.  The days of being able to force any particular game style preference on the gaming community are over.  This worked at one point in the MMORPG evolution timeline because there were but a handful of games to play at the time.  If we wanted to play an MMORPG, we "had" to submit to that game style preference because there was no alternative.  We get that you love grouping.  This much is obvious.  But you and your type are no different that the hardcore OWPvP gamer, or PvE Raider, or theme-park quest fetcher, or anit-quest gamer, or MOBA type player, any other of a myriad of other niche groups.  Now, this is not to say that you, or any of these other preferred niche players, do not have the right to promote what you want.  Just understand that your requests are falling on deaf ears.  No developer in their right mind would develop a game based solely on any of these niche groups.  And if by chance they do, I guarantee you it will be and indie developer who will be fully cognizant of the fact that his game will only attract a niche group, and his revenue stream will be limited.  

     

    The only way in which an MMORPG game can succeed in today's gamer demographic is if they offer a solo-able option.  Now it doesn't have to be in the manner in which many of these solo-able MMO's are being released today, but it has to be solo-able to an extent.  Being the nice guy that I am, I will offer you this advice so that you may spend your time wisely when preparing for your "Part 3" grouping thread.  Include a solo-able implementations.  You appear to be a man with a vivid imagination.  Think up a revolutionary way to have a grouping game that will succeed side-by-side with a solo-able option, and you will have a winner.  Until then, you are wasting your time with these grouping ideas.

     

    MMORPG games with a forced grouping only mechanic are dead !

    Not really sure you're understanding things here. No desperation here. Just wanted to convey the idea in a more layered, detail way. Like I said in a previous reply, this idea would be for a niche gamer base. MMORPG's are becoming a rehash of of the same bland content and combat with different areas and naming conventions. At the core of the gameplay it's really the same.

    Who says I am asking for any developer to design this niche style of gameplay? I never was asking this? I have my own designs that I want to develop.

    I'm sorry but you really can't guarantee anything. What you state is simply your opinion. Do you have any industry or investing experience? I highly doubt that. You don't know if any new niche game works. Most triple A titles are catering to the casual, 'wow player' crowd. EVE is a very niche game. It has a very loyal fanbase. The idea to generate revenue for a niche game is to have a very loyal fan base. In order to do that you have to have a smooth launch, polished gameplay and most importantly needs to be fun.

    It seems as if you value quantity, whereas I value quality. That's the difference between you and I.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Originally posted by Eronakis

    It seems as if you value quantity, whereas I value quality. That's the difference between you and I.

    nah .. the difference is the quality is subjective.

    To me, a game without instances, convenient features, polished action combat ... is just of low quality. I am sure you disagree. Hence, I have lots of quality games to play.

     

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    Originally posted by Eronakis
    Originally posted by LacedOpium

     

    You're beginning to look desperate my friend.  Let it go.   Let me be honest with you.  The days of being able to force any particular game style preference on the gaming community are over.  This worked at one point in the MMORPG evolution timeline because there were but a handful of games to play at the time.  If we wanted to play an MMORPG, we "had" to submit to that game style preference because there was no alternative.  We get that you love grouping.  This much is obvious.  But you and your type are no different that the hardcore OWPvP gamer, or PvE Raider, or theme-park quest fetcher, or anit-quest gamer, or MOBA type player, any other of a myriad of other niche groups.  Now, this is not to say that you, or any of these other preferred niche players, do not have the right to promote what you want.  Just understand that your requests are falling on deaf ears.  No developer in their right mind would develop a game based solely on any of these niche groups.  And if by chance they do, I guarantee you it will be and indie developer who will be fully cognizant of the fact that his game will only attract a niche group, and his revenue stream will be limited.  

     

    The only way in which an MMORPG game can succeed in today's gamer demographic is if they offer a solo-able option.  Now it doesn't have to be in the manner in which many of these solo-able MMO's are being released today, but it has to be solo-able to an extent.  Being the nice guy that I am, I will offer you this advice so that you may spend your time wisely when preparing for your "Part 3" grouping thread.  Include a solo-able implementations.  You appear to be a man with a vivid imagination.  Think up a revolutionary way to have a grouping game that will succeed side-by-side with a solo-able option, and you will have a winner.  Until then, you are wasting your time with these grouping ideas.

     

    MMORPG games with a forced grouping only mechanic are dead !

    Not really sure you're understanding things here. No desperation here. Just wanted to convey the idea in a more layered, detail way. Like I said in a previous reply, this idea would be for a niche gamer base. MMORPG's are becoming a rehash of of the same bland content and combat with different areas and naming conventions. At the core of the gameplay it's really the same.

    Who says I am asking for any developer to design this niche style of gameplay? I never was asking this? I have my own designs that I want to develop.

    I'm sorry but you really can't guarantee anything. What you state is simply your opinion. Do you have any industry or investing experience? I highly doubt that. You don't know if any new niche game works. Most triple A titles are catering to the casual, 'wow player' crowd. EVE is a very niche game. It has a very loyal fanbase. The idea to generate revenue for a niche game is to have a very loyal fan base. In order to do that you have to have a smooth launch, polished gameplay and most importantly needs to be fun.

    It seems as if you value quantity, whereas I value quality. That's the difference between you and I.

    All this, and the responses you've got all thread..   And almost all MMORPGs force you into group content at the endgame anyways.  So, unless all the responders here simply level to max and quit immediately...  They all gladly participate in group content.

     

    Besides, as you pointed out, damn near no one who supports the focus on group content in MMORPGs asks that it be the only way to do content.  Those who like to argue simply use the phrase to bolster their opinions.

    image
  • MuktukMuktuk Member UncommonPosts: 84
    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    Too much work. Too much coordination with others. Hard to do that with strangers.

    I would much rather solo.

    I agree.  I like being part of a living world with the option to group, but I also want to be able to solo stuff for the most rewarding content.

Sign In or Register to comment.