Some games are utilizing multiple servers so when you see for example 70 player max,that would be ONE node,one map. I have also mentioned many times in the past,how many people does one ever see at one time and how many does one interact with?
A game like Ark might have 70 on a node but the entire game and the amount of players you could interact with could be a LOT more.
I would also ask this question,what determines the MMO the login screen or the game?I can tell you this much,a login screen is NOT a game,you could have 500 million people login to a login server but if there not gaming then who cares?
So on that note,if a developer keeps sticking everyone in an instance where the might only be a maximum of 6/12/18/24 players ,then how is that any different than the games with 70 player max per node?
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
While many of these strike home.. I think the Bitching about if a game is an MMO is by far the most overplayed trends in Online Gaming right now.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
I have yet to see an mmo with survival sandbox features. Maybe 1, the ark clone. Very few open world pvp mmos.
Pretty laughable op.
My answer, quests for progression.
On the contrary. There are tons of them. They're just all kickstarter MMOs that have yet to come out, and may never do so.
But the real answer - genderlocked Korean jailbait-filled gutter trash. Because that's basically all that is actually releasing these days.
Ignore ChildoftheShadows. He's just here to troll and post contrarian opinions that are not based in fact.
You know I’m right
No, he's right, you often do so by adding in unnecessarily caustic comments in the midst of your "reasoned" responses.
Try not chiding others in your replies by including baiting responses such as "pretty laughable", "lol, sure", "you know I'm right."
Or...just own up to being what you are, I often do as I enjoy dwelling under the bridge, but am just more subtle, an Online Provocateur if you will.
Oh topic, OP was referring to the many online multiplayer survival games "released" in recent years, Rust, Atlas, Dark & Light, Conan Exiles, Worlds Adrift, LoA, Life is Feudal, or in the works such as New World and a host of others you'll find with just a bit of research.
Survival mechanics are even found in FO76, Saga of Lucima (go figure), and others, which (along with FFA PVP in some of the other examples) many feel are just developer cop outs for not producing enough actual content.
But you know all this, though I feel willfully being obtuse is an overused tool of the trade.
Cheers.
I'm wrong, though you yourself just mentioned "online multiplayer survival games".. you know as well as I do those are not MMOs that's why you didn't say as such.
Trolling – (verb), as it relates to internet, is the deliberate act, (by a Troll – noun or adjective), of making random unsolicited and/or controversial comments on various internet forums with the intent to provoke an emotional knee jerk reaction from unsuspecting readers to engage in a fight or argument
Considering the context here the OP is the actual troll - "Which trends do you think are the most overdone in current MMO development? For me, it's Survival Sandbox and Open World PvP." He picks two topics that are very rare in actual MMO's and I'm certain he's well aware of what he's doing.
Yes, I could have gone off topic by pointing out most survival games aren't MMOs, but that triggers an entirely different debate.
I knew what he meant, too many new survival type "games", whether MMO or just multiplayer and too often they choose to go the FFA PVP route, in some form or another.
Population Zero comes to mind, Last Oasis and soon New World.
Besides, the question was just what we thought was an overplayed trend, and his OP wasn't really trolling, though your attempt to defend your actions by trying to paint him as one is yet another standard tool in the trollbox, well done.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
There are plenty of other features / trends / paradigms that I dislike, but I think most of them are still early in their evolution and haven't been overplayed (yet). But the two I listed are both things that I feel have no place in the market anymore and that including them at all will be a detriment to the game.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Should we count expansions/new content being developed and released for existing MMORPGs as "current MMO development"?
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
Should we count expansions/new content being developed and released for existing MMORPGs as "current MMO development"?
If the mmo is live, currently being developed, and is following some trend then why not?
Cool. Then my vote is for Mind-Numbing, Repetitive End Game Gear Grind. Miserable Skinner Box Treadmills.
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
P2W CASH SHOPS - F2P games should be "Pay to progress faster/more quickly" rather than P2W or "Pay to succeed in less than 10 years".
People that work already pay. Why? Because they have less time to
invest in playing. Plus they often have families that require at least
some of their free time in order to maintain (w/out getting divorced or
w/e). Some people who play online games even do other things besides
play games in their free time. Regardless of whether they work or not.
Only independently wealthy people can usually afford to pay and play
for 8-18 hours a day.
Free players pay by
investing more time and energy into a game than paying players do. They
also perform a service by helping to provide content for those that do
pay. In many MMORPGs, paying players might often have trouble finding
players to group with if it weren't for free players. Games with PVP
might find it hard to get enough people to play a match if it weren't
for free players. Only the most popular MMORPGs with the highest
populations don't have these problems. Or usually don't have these
problems.
However, I found that queuing for
dungeons/multi-player content in FFXIV could sometimes involve long
waiting periods. Especially for DPS roles.
The question is, do developers want people to play their games or not? If they want high populations, they need the free players. Do they want to encourage the free players to keep playing, or do they want the free players to move on to any other of the numerous F2P games available?
Also, people that do pay get sick and tired of aggressive marketing practices and designs that are clearly put in place for no other reason than to demand that they pay or demand that they pay more. Players aren't stupid. Well, at least not all players are stupid.
Games do need to make money. This is true. However, there's a difference between good business practices and designs that will encourage people to pay in order to support one's product/company and bad business practices and designs that will encourage people to spend their money elsewhere.
LOOT BOX GAMBLING
GAMBLING TO REFINE/UPGRADE GEAR, ENCHANTMENTS, ETC.
Never lowering prices in the Cash Shop no matter how much money developers have made. And no matter how old the game is. Making it harder for free players to play for free. Even though free players perform a service for these games by helping to provide content for those that do pay.
BEING MORE CONCERNED WITH DEVELOPING CASH COW GAMES THAN INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT. Better games will draw in more players and make more money in the long run. I'm pretty sure.
"We cannot rewrite history's pain, but we can learn from our mistakes." - lyrics from a song I was listening to recently.
EDIT: Another terrible business practice we see in our modern world is
that many corporations/companies will treat returning, loyal, or
long-term customers with contempt. They give good deals to new
customers in order to hook them in, then try to nickel and dime any and
all older customers.
(Corporations also
seem to treat many of their employees with contempt as well. Very
little loyalty shown to someone who has worked at a given company for
years. But that's outside the scope of this topic.)
Post edited by Ancient_Exile on
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
Moved the content of this post into my last post above.
Post edited by Ancient_Exile on
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
P2W CASH SHOPS - F2P games should be "Pay to progress faster/more quickly" rather than P2W or "Pay to succeed in less than 10 years".
People that work already pay. Why? Because they have less time to
invest in playing. Plus they often have families that require at least
some of their free time in order to maintain (w/out getting divorced or
w/e). Some people who play online games even do other things besides
play games in their free time. Regardless of whether they work or not.
Only independently wealthy people can usually afford to pay and play
for 8-18 hours a day.
Free players pay by
investing more time and energy into a game than paying players do. They
also perform a service by helping to provide content for those that do
pay. In many MMORPGs, paying players might often have trouble finding
players to group with if it weren't for free players. Games with PVP
might find it hard to get enough people to play a match if it weren't
for free players. Only the most popular MMORPGs with the highest
populations don't have these problems. Or usually don't have these
problems.
However, I found that queuing for
dungeons/multi-player content in FFXIV could sometimes involve long
waiting periods. Especially for DPS roles.
The question is, do developers want people to play their games or not? If they want high populations, they need the free players. Do they want to encourage the free players to keep playing, or do they want the free players to move on to any other of the numerous F2P games available?
Also, people that do pay get sick and tired of aggressive marketing practices and designs that are clearly put in place for no other reason than to demand that they pay or demand that they pay more. Players aren't stupid. Well, at least not all players are stupid.
Games do need to make money. This is true. However, there's a difference between good business practices and designs that will encourage people to pay in order to support one's product/company and bad business practices and designs that will encourage people to spend their money elsewhere.
LOOT BOX GAMBLING
GAMBLING TO REFINE/UPGRADE GEAR, ENCHANTMENTS, ETC.
Never lowering prices in the Cash Shop no matter how much money developers have made. And no matter how old the game is. Making it harder for free players to play for free. Even though free players perform a service for these games by helping to provide content for those that do pay.
BEING MORE CONCERNED WITH DEVELOPING CASH COW GAMES THAN INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT. Better games will draw in more players and make more money in the long run. I'm pretty sure.
"We cannot rewrite history's pain, but we can learn from our mistakes." - lyrics from a song I was listening to recently.
EDIT: Another terrible business practice we see in our modern world is
that many corporations/companies will treat returning, loyal, or
long-term customers with contempt. They give good deals to new
customers in order to hook them in, then try to nickel and dime any and
all older customers.
(Corporations also
seem to treat many of their employees with contempt as well. Very
little loyalty shown to someone who has worked at a given company for
years. But that's outside the scope of this topic.)
First of all, I don't like CS's at all. They remove playable content from the game, and they allow players with the money and willingness to gain advantages.
Secondly: "The question is, do developers want people to play their games or not? If they want high populations, they need the free players. Do they want to encourage the free players to keep playing, or do they want the free players to move on to any other of the numerous F2P games available?"
None of this is an issue if the game is better than others. If it's not, then you aren't distinguishing your game from all the others, and you'll be stuck in the same boat.
Yes, you can get more players by offering FtP. But if you do that, and also have CS items that allow faster progression or other advantages, then you'll have more-than-not gamers playing for free AND buying those advantages. Then your CS will control you, and not the other way around.
Edit to add: Oh, and grouping sucks. That means content created for group sizes and controlled. It means players playing with strangers. It means a lack of socialness. It brings all the bad things that other games have experienced.
Let players build social groups and enhance that game play. Then they have other players that they know and trust. Let these social groups (guilds) form alliances and give that meaningful game play. (This expands the player pool of trust.) That's the reason to not have big Power Gaps. It's a much better situation.
Of course I prefer subscription w/out cash shop. And, yes, a better game will most likely have a higher population. I was simply writing in terms of the reality we face at present in many games.
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
Of course I prefer subscription w/out cash shop. And, yes, a better game will most likely have a higher population. I was simply writing in terms of the reality we face at present in many games.
That reality is different in the West than it is in the East, for some reason. Eastern gamers seem very willing to buy CS, and much more willing to play PvP it seems.
That reality (at least in the West) is also changing. I get a strong sense that Western gamers are tired of the CS's and senseless game designs of static rinse-and-repeat. Things like that run their course. Always. I think we are seeing it all start to crumble. WoW is a clear indication of that, in my mind. But I admit, it's still too early to be certain.
Raph Koster had a blog entry years ago about "The Long Tail." It describes this phenomena, and it appears to be happening now.
Of course I prefer subscription w/out cash shop. And, yes, a better game will most likely have a higher population. I was simply writing in terms of the reality we face at present in many games.
That reality is different in the West than it is in the East, for some reason. Eastern gamers seem very willing to buy CS, and much more willing to play PvP it seems.
That reality (at least in the West) is also changing. I get a strong sense that Western gamers are tired of the CS's and senseless game designs of static rinse-and-repeat. Things like that run their course. Always. I think we are seeing it all start to crumble. WoW is a clear indication of that, in my mind. But I admit, it's still too early to be certain.
Raph Koster had a blog entry years ago about "The Long Tail." It describes this phenomena, and it appears to be happening now.
Cool. I'll bookmark the article and try to check it out later.
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
Comments
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com//Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Some games are utilizing multiple servers so when you see for example 70 player max,that would be ONE node,one map.
I have also mentioned many times in the past,how many people does one ever see at one time and how many does one interact with?
A game like Ark might have 70 on a node but the entire game and the amount of players you could interact with could be a LOT more.
I would also ask this question,what determines the MMO the login screen or the game?I can tell you this much,a login screen is NOT a game,you could have 500 million people login to a login server but if there not gaming then who cares?
So on that note,if a developer keeps sticking everyone in an instance where the might only be a maximum of 6/12/18/24 players ,then how is that any different than the games with 70 player max per node?
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I knew what he meant, too many new survival type "games", whether MMO or just multiplayer and too often they choose to go the FFA PVP route, in some form or another.
Population Zero comes to mind, Last Oasis and soon New World.
Besides, the question was just what we thought was an overplayed trend, and his OP wasn't really trolling, though your attempt to defend your actions by trying to paint him as one is yet another standard tool in the trollbox, well done.
Cheers
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
ONE game for everybody!
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Cool. Then my vote is for Mind-Numbing, Repetitive End Game Gear Grind. Miserable Skinner Box Treadmills.
This isn't a signature, you just think it is.
"Mining" = Smashing rocks easily found on the top of the ground surface.
2. New game coming to the West - when it's a failed far eastern offering
3. Crippling pc input to accommodate controllers
4. Paid beta - if you want me to test, then it's a favour I'm doing you.
5. Diablo mobile - ok not really relevant just wanted to chuck that in :-)
Secondly:
"The question is, do developers want people to play their games or not? If they want high populations, they need the free players. Do they want to encourage the free players to keep playing, or do they want the free players to move on to any other of the numerous F2P games available?"
None of this is an issue if the game is better than others. If it's not, then you aren't distinguishing your game from all the others, and you'll be stuck in the same boat.
Yes, you can get more players by offering FtP. But if you do that, and also have CS items that allow faster progression or other advantages, then you'll have more-than-not gamers playing for free AND buying those advantages.
Then your CS will control you, and not the other way around.
Edit to add:
Oh, and grouping sucks.
That means content created for group sizes and controlled.
It means players playing with strangers.
It means a lack of socialness.
It brings all the bad things that other games have experienced.
Let players build social groups and enhance that game play. Then they have other players that they know and trust.
Let these social groups (guilds) form alliances and give that meaningful game play. (This expands the player pool of trust.)
That's the reason to not have big Power Gaps.
It's a much better situation.
Once upon a time....
Eastern gamers seem very willing to buy CS, and much more willing to play PvP it seems.
That reality (at least in the West) is also changing.
I get a strong sense that Western gamers are tired of the CS's and senseless game designs of static rinse-and-repeat.
Things like that run their course. Always. I think we are seeing it all start to crumble. WoW is a clear indication of that, in my mind. But I admit, it's still too early to be certain.
Raph Koster had a blog entry years ago about "The Long Tail." It describes this phenomena, and it appears to be happening now.
Ahh, his search engine works well.
https://www.raphkoster.com/2007/05/29/mmo-long-tails/
Once upon a time....
Cool. I'll bookmark the article and try to check it out later.