Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Empty worlds

13»

Comments

  • Loke666Loke666 Member EpicPosts: 21,441
    Xodic said:

    I meant that developers discover new continents to migrate to instead of dealing with what they had. It's funny as hell to look at an EverQuest or World of Warcraft map today, they span through space and time.

    OK, fine, It's not the Columbus effect, it's the Stephen Hawking effect.
    Ah, well you probably should have named it after Amerigo Vespucci instead then, there is a reason it is called "America" after him and not "Columbia", Columbus thought he was in India which already was discovered and that he just had found a shortcut...

    I like "Hawkins effect". :) And yes, adding new continents and timelines is a solutions far too many devs use way too often. There are cases when you more or less  need to add a new landmass since your gameworld really is full but when one consider that the zones tend to be rather small compared to actual regions it would be better to actually get the original continent to a large enough size first.

     The whole timeline thing is just silly unless you have a Doctor Who MMO.
  • LithuanianLithuanian Member UncommonPosts: 430
    I would go for quests in low-lvl regions.
    Let's take Lotro as an example. Lonelands, almost empty region. But at level 105 advanced scouts report activity of GrumpyHand Orcs, camped in some secret cave. And yes, rare resource nodes started to pop up here. Or: for lvl.100 quest you need to escort 20 NPCs in same Lonelands.
    Another problem are developers themselves. If I create lvl.20 content, I should think about lvl.40: what would encourage players to visit lvl.20 area? If we have Rift raid, what is to keep players to raid there at lvl.85?
    In short, it's mostly up to lack of imagination of developers.

  • ikcinikcin Member RarePosts: 2,211
    Eldurian said:
    ikcin said:
    Ungood said:
    While this in an MOBA, they have a Leveling System, (it was going to be PvE/PvP, but due to budget they pretty much scrapped the PvE and just made an MOBA)

    Anyway, they have levels, but all the levels offer is Gear Options, not more direct power. So a level 1 can in fact kill a level 6 character.

    That kind of system could also work.

    I know the logic is not your strong side, but some things are obvious - gear, levels, game skills, it does not matter, all is the same - if something allows you to gain power and advantage in solo linear manner - it is a vertical progression. If a character can beat another character because of its gear is not different from a level gap.

    So lvl 1 with a good gear will beat lvl 6 with bad gear, but what about lvl 6 with a good gear?

    In horizontal progression the different skills are not unquestionably better. It's like in SMITE I only had certain god's I could play as but I never really felt like "Oh if only I could unlock X god then I could truly compete!" There were people using god's I had access to doing better and worse than me so I knew it really came down to player skill in the end. Meanwhile in vertical progression games I have absolutely felt like "If I could do more than 1% of their healthbar per hit and they didn't one shot me, I could absolutely beat this guy."

    Vertical progression apologists may try to sell us on this "There is no real difference" nonsense but anyone who has played a horizontal progression game, played a vertical progression game, and has two brain cells to rub together knows the difference is dramatic.

    Horizontal progression is not skill related. Take the weapons in Dark souls games, with enchanting a low grade weapon could become as powerful as a high grade, and every weapon has unique characteristics. This is a horizontal progression too, but with gear. It is possible even with the levels if for example every level gives you the option to increase only one stat. So some players will become very strong, but very slow, others will be very fast, but weak, most will be balanced. Well it will be more complicated, but anyway. So the difference is the linear increase of the power.
    cameltosis
  • EldurianEldurian Member EpicPosts: 2,736
    edited March 2018
    ikcin said:
    Eldurian said:

    In horizontal progression the different skills are not unquestionably better. It's like in SMITE I only had certain god's I could play as but I never really felt like "Oh if only I could unlock X god then I could truly compete!" There were people using god's I had access to doing better and worse than me so I knew it really came down to player skill in the end. Meanwhile in vertical progression games I have absolutely felt like "If I could do more than 1% of their healthbar per hit and they didn't one shot me, I could absolutely beat this guy."

    Vertical progression apologists may try to sell us on this "There is no real difference" nonsense but anyone who has played a horizontal progression game, played a vertical progression game, and has two brain cells to rub together knows the difference is dramatic.

    Horizontal progression is not skill related. Take the weapons in Dark souls games, with enchanting a low grade weapon could become as powerful as a high grade, and every weapon has unique characteristics. This is a horizontal progression too, but with gear. It is possible even with the levels if for example every level gives you the option to increase only one stat. So some players will become very strong, but very slow, others will be very fast, but weak, most will be balanced. Well it will be more complicated, but anyway. So the difference is the linear increase of the power.
    I have never played Dark Souls but the system you're describing sounds nothing like horizontal progression.

    I'll give you two examples of actual horizontal progression games.

    In MOBAs such as SMITE or LoL you start with certain playable characters and unlock more via either swiping or play. None of these characters are definitely better than others. They are different. For instance you start with Thor as an assassin in SMITE. In the hands of a good player Thor is a great assassin. Last time I played he was top tier / high in the meta and everything. I unlocked Basset and Thanatos because I liked their playstyle but people with Thor who were better than me could still totally stomp me, and I could stomp people playing Thor who were worse than me.

    In Guild Wars 1 fairly early into the game you unlocked armor that had the best stats and more armor advancements were purely cosmetic. You also hit level cap halfway through the game. Up until you had the best armor, max level, and a solid set of 7 regular skills plus an elite the game was vertical progression. Past that point running around unlocking more skills was horizontal progression as you could only run a max of 8 skills with one of them being elite. The final build I was rocking people with endgame was all original skills I got during the first half of the game plus 1 elite skill because those original skills were so solid. Other people had crazy builds they unlocked endgame. Usually I was better than them because I had strong mastery over my build and it was solid.

    In horizontal progression every advancement you make is matched by an equal trade off. In vertical progression advancement is not matched by equal tradeoffs. You switch from a 20 damage sword to a 50 damage sword or upgrade your 20 damage sword to a 50 damage sword. Either way if the sword you have now is straight better than your original sword and you didn't have to dump stats in other areas to do that vertical progression has happened.

    So if you're saying:

    "Take the weapons in Dark souls games, with enchanting a low grade weapon could become as powerful as a high grade, and every weapon has unique characteristics."

    You're essentially saying "By vertically progressing my low grade weapon I can make it as good as powerful as a high grade weapon." You see the difference?
  • Morgenes83Morgenes83 Member UncommonPosts: 197
    @continent topic: As far as the travelling to the new continent is seamless and there are still reasons to go back to the mainland (e.g. high lvl dungeons, quests, resources or trainers/vendors) everything is OK.

    @horizontal/vertical progression: GW1 is a really good example.
    What you got was new skins and new skills leading to more variety in builds and appearance, but a skill you got at lvl1 was still as useful as one you got later.
    There was some kind of vertical progress as a +15% damage weapon was rare in pve, but +14% was easy to get.

    Tbh hitting a 100hp mob with a 10 damage weapon or a 1000hp mob with a 100damage weapon where is the progression here? Its just in your mind if you talk about pve.

    I think most would still be as pleasured to hunt for that different (but not better) skill, for that rare armor, or for that weapon that gives you 1% more damage, as they were in GW1 its just no one tried that again.

    Talking bout the 1% more damage. Do we always have to have that power creep. Isn't it enough that with 5 levels above to do only 2-5% more damage. Do you really need that satisfaction that you can kill lowbies/lowlvl mobs with 2 hits?
    I think as long as I get better looking armor, some new skills and slightly better weapons (same damage but extra mods is also OK as long as they aren't op) I think the progression is still there.

    But sadly as the community is now it will be: +15%damage weap or kick gtfo +14%damage losers.

    1997 Meridian 59 'til 2019 ESO 

    Waiting for Camelot Unchained & Pantheon

Sign In or Register to comment.