my biggest complaint too. It doesn't feel like a world at all, its too video-gamey with loading screens and invisible walls that completely take me out of any immersion. I want to know where zones are and how to travel to them, not select where to go on a list.
Isn't it possible to make infinite randomly generated seemingly empty maps to the sides, just to give the illusion of getting lost in the woods or the desert, discouraging players to leave the main track, but also allowing for exploration as a skill?
Starting off the amount of loading screen in this game is insane. You have to go through 4 loading screens if you want to visit a friend's house on another server. The tick rate for the game is abysmal which makes combat feel clunky, especially in pvp. Glamour (the game's vanity system), is unintuitive and frustrating at best. The cash shop is huge and has a lot of cool emotes/mounts/outfits that aren't possible to get in game. I dont understand why people shit on blizzard's cash shop while ff14's is 100x worse.
Overall the game is fun but its not the second coming like a lot of people claim it is.
People are mad about the tokens yeah, but whenever a new mount drop on the cash shop the community flips their shit saying it should be earnable ingame. Meanwhile over in ff14 land its the exact opposite. I've seen people praising the devs over outfits available only with real money
2 years ago
Anonymous
not that anon but people flip their shit in XIV too. Like with what happened with cruise chaser. People have always complained about not being able to get the scion outfits without paying too.
But CBUIII's deal with SE yada yada, shikata ga nai and so on
Players want a fantasy world. Games with leveling usually have time-gating because the content is limited to a few activities, often that aren't cohesive (to character and worldbuilding). WoW has pet battles, dungeons, raids, instanced PvP, questing, professions, world PvE, world PvP. Approximately none of these are relevant to the others. Pet battles don't win you items, bonuses, or areas; dungeons and raids are removed from potential risks; instanced PvP is limited by 4 questlines to unlock covenants (and further reputation grind) and doesn't very much contribute to the world; professions are limited to a few crafted pieces per character; world PvE doesn't reward quality currency or gear; world PvP has little incentive: The world stays the same; character status is permanent; PvE isn't affected; npcs aren't dynamic; it's still impossible to control resources and zones -- people can simply play MOBAs if they want PvP, and it starts everybody at approximate fairness. You *want* players to play all day (people use media as entertainment all day a lot, and video games are interactive), especially if items are bet, which is the most adrenergic style of play. This is where the most spending, fun, and advertisement is. Make a real money auction house; let players take others' items on PvP servers. Risk defines community because of emergent and compelling gameplay; Rust, Minecraft, and ARK are some of the most played games.
Linear, permanent equipment is the problem. What is a character to do once gear is had? Economy is the what to do, so items should be losable so that risk: reward and variety: depth are central (players can have more, such as size, mobility, and abilities rivaling comics, and the capability of attacking groups, if power is transient).
There are a handful of games that exactly are based around what you mention
https://crowfall.com/ , is one of the first PVP MMOs that is actually designed FOR PVP not just griefers and an afterthought bolted onto the rest of the game world. There are "eternal kingdoms" with low level resources, but are safe - players can build their own or band together and have a guild house/hall , and other permanent resources. However to get these resources you need to go to "campaign worlds". These have different rules - some are FFA , some are 2 faction, some 3 faction , and are basically studded with resource nodes. Its up to you to go there and claim a node and hold it as long as you can. You can build a whole fort around it etc.. . or siege someone else's. Fighting in the campaign world or even one player mining or harvesting some random thing gives resources. At the end of however long the campaign is there are winners and losers, and everyone gets to take home their shit and this is waht's used to upgrade your Eternal Kingdom's resources. Gear is craftable by design and you need better resources to make better gear as well as proper crafting materials/stations. You can swap between different classes/races too (the player is a "crow" soul, who can inhabit different bodies if desired) and combat has physical presence - tanks literally block and can form a shieldwall formation etc. There's more to it, but if you liked the old games like Shadowbane, want Game of Thrones style territory capture and intrigue, this is its spiritual successor and finally the tech has caught up and is viable. Its not perfect but there's a lot to like if you want a truly PVP focused MMO.
>implement the gameplay dynamic that routinely kills MMORPGs by making the game actively hostile to Average Joe
Risk systems are fricking awful for MMORPGs. Ark, Rust gameplay loops are designed specifically for everyone's progress to be reset. People play MMORPGs specifically for character growth, and by extension, progression permanence. I play an MMO where one of the devs continually tries to make high risk an active part of the game because Ultima Online made him cum super hard - risk was actively engaged by the playerbase, but 5 years later risk is such a joke that you can free farm for hours without seeing another soul.
Originally there was a separate server for risk. It declined to such a sorry state that when one guild was banned for exploiting in a raid, half the server's population disappeared. So they merged the servers and implemented an optional risk mode, which again failed as the same inherent issues with item loss systems in a permanent progression gameplay loop began to set in. Various methods of trying to force players to engage in risk are employed (exclusive BiS crafting materials, endgame drops, PvP events) and none ever work to get anyone to play risk except the exact same 2-3 guilds of people every time.
Which in reality is the problem; When the same group of people succeed in a risk based system more than a few times in a row, it becomes progressively less likely for them to ever fail. Especially when the gulf becomes wide enough to make competition feel impossible, more often than not the average player stops playing your game. Why would they continue to? They will always be at a disadvantage, and an MMORPG by design does not wipe progress. The other issue is that most sane people do not want to lose months of progress to a corpse camping israelite.
I feel that a fun exercise would be to compile a list of every MMORPG with a successful prominent risk system contrasted by a similar list of those that failed.
>implement the gameplay dynamic that routinely kills MMORPGs by making the game actively hostile to Average Joe
It doesn't routinely affect MMORPGs because there are approximately zero A+ MMOs with item loss.
>Ark, Rust gameplay loops are designed specifically for everyone's progress to be reset.
ARK's usual gamemodes are persistent.
Minecraft doesn't have a progress reset.
>People play MMORPGs specifically for character growth, and by extension, progression permanence.
What are characters supposed to do when they have their items? Item loss contributes to how many playstyles are possible because a dynamic economy allows PvE to be repeatable for rewards and content always relevant.
>When the same group of people succeed in a risk based system more than a few times in a row, it becomes progressively less likely for them to ever fail.
Gameplay should be skill-based to an extent, and items would be available enough that it wouldn't happen up to an extent; when it does, they deserve it.
>The other issue is that most sane people do not want to lose months of progress to a corpse camping israelite.
Then only play with what you can afford.
>It doesn't routinely affect MMORPGs because there are approximately zero A+ MMOs with item loss.
What could possibly be the culprit of this bizarre phenomenon?!
>ARK's usual gamemodes are persistent.
My bad, I didn't know the official gamemode never wiped. >Minecraft doesn't have a progress reset.
I avoided Minecraft because I wouldn't say that the RPG servers in that game have equivalent time investment for losable progress compared to the average player's expectation for an MMORPG. Granted there are so many variations of those it is hard to make that generalization...
>What are characters supposed to do when they have their items?
They beat that part of the game. They are free to enjoy the rest of the MMORPG experience. Your prospective successful MMORPG does have gameplay beyond beating on loot pinatas and e-peen measuring, right Anon? There are options for other rewards other than zug zug bigger number, wouldn't you agree? Items representing the end-all-be-all of progress in an MMORPG is a sad symptom of homogenized game design across the genre.
>how many playstyles are possible >allows PvE to be repeatable for rewards and content always relevant.
This PvE had better be exceptionally good or expansive, preferably both. Even the best PvE content can get stale surprisingly fast, I'd say especially so if it is farmed as a form of sustenance as your solution would suggest. I wouldn't say this playstyle would be any appealing to me, but to each their own really
>Gameplay should be skill-based >items would be available enough
Wouldn't stop the same groups from winning all the time, and they don't deserve to be made the reason players leave.
>Then only play with what you can afford.
No one wants to play a suboptimal version of their character because they're scared they will not be able to play the optimal version at all otherwise. It is bad game design to offer a useful reward that realistically can't be used until you're already winning.
>What could possibly be the culprit of this bizarre phenomenon?!
If they don't exist, there's no evidence of their popularity. Strategy is obviously fun; PvP games are some of the most popular.
>They beat that part of the game. They are free to enjoy the rest of the MMORPG experience.
So, they have nothing to do. See approximately every theme park MMO.
>This PvE had better be exceptionally good or expansive, preferably both.
The gameplay should be fun, and it's a PvP game, so players are building their character and the world.
>Wouldn't stop the same groups from winning all the time
One group winning every PvP engagement would be exciting.
>No one wants to play a suboptimal version of their character because they're scared they will not be able to play the optimal version at all otherwise.
If everybody's playing a game because it's the most varied:deep experience, or perhaps the only item loss sandbox, people will play with lesser playstyles because the gameplay is still fun and because they want status.
It's just a single player game with multiplayer aspects. You could achieve the same thing by multiple people all playing the same single player game in a discord call.
its not even a good joke
possibly the worst excuse for a mmo i've ever played
and i've played everything from WoW to PoE to New World to TESO to some Korean MMOs
The response to WoW's death has been pathetic enough, but I think XIVgays are genuinely going to start committing public suicides when that game begins to fall off.
>FF14 highest level character boost >$25 >WoW's highest level character boost >$60 >FF14 race/gender change >$10 and often on sale for $7.50 >WoW race change >$25
>monthly bank >monthly cash shop additions. >datamined stuff just go straight to the cash shop >events? 1 year into the cash shop
Puts Korean mmos to shame
You can buy gold for real money in WoW, and with gold you can buy BiS BoE gear at the start of raids. If you want world first or any meaningful progress in WoW you have to p2w.
>monthly bank
stop hoarding shit, game gives plenty of space for free on top of armory chest, armoire, and glamor dresser >monthly cash shop additions
implying WoW doesn't do this too >datamined stuff to cash shop
PvP sucks anyway >event stuff to cash shop
do the events moron they're not hard
the whale mount holds 8 people
an entire raid party
$42/8 since only one person needs to buy it
what the frick at you going to do with that many people anyway
wrong type of thread troony
here we cope with our seething wow hatred by shitting on all wow-esque le themepark mmos, we don't do it by pretending a console wow clone is a masterpiece
It easily could. EVE should remove skill points (26y of subscriptions or $6.5k) and allow starter characters to do anything. FFXIV and WoW should have sandbox economies. Any game could be playable all day in 1 month.
Vanilla WoW and BC in the world of 2007 were golden age tier videogames while Wotlk was where they had potential to take the correct choice and go hardcore but the influence of activision killed WoW and retroactively damaged its reputation.
I think in general killing the Lich King was a bad idea because it marked a trend in the lore where they constantly had to have world ending bad guys upstaging each other.
Yogg Saron should have been the primary bad guy of Wrath and the Lich King should have just peaced out after the scourge was dealt with and basically said ill get you next time.
>My MUDS and first generation MMOs like UO were less homosexualy lil' zoomie!
cope. Need to be playing DnD with an actual real life in person friend group for this genre to not be cringe.
vertical progress is necessary, imo eve has the perfect progression system (although it should be based on building skills through usage rather than them just ticking up even while you’re offline)
the balance of deciding if you want to keep climbing the ship size ladder vs specializing in smaller hulls is really cool especially when everything has its place to be useful
>eve has the perfect progression system
People are too bored because approximately nothing is available or optimal until you put millions of skillpoints into it. A sandbox should have everything available to everyone; that's why people play.
Leveling is archaic. People have been leveling for 17 years and have many F2P alternatives, some with similar PvP. Survival Crafting games showed that people want realistic, immersive ways to thrive in a persistent world and have status. ARK lets you clear whole areas of resources; efficiency has a lot of upgrades; and starter quality equipment can be made in large amounts very easily, with ascendant quality requiring lots of resources and providing a lot of damage and armor. Giving players a lot to do is easy, but characters have to be able to lose status because everything else is correlative, and adrenergic gameplay is the most fun.
gw2's problem isn't horizontal progress, it's that the game itself is shit >pve open world just exists for the world map progress grind and the meta upgrade progress >pve fractals are decent at 1-25 but afterwards become annoying to go through >instanced pvp has always been conceptually the most fun gamemode but it's been abandonned for so long by the devs and the meta has staled the gamemode to death >wpvp is just about deathballing, roaming is excessively difficult to pull off with so many mechanics playing against you
Every game can be made for everybody. Physiology is near, if not, 100% similar, the same starter cells, mathematical propagation, and systems. Learning a playstyle can be done in 1 hour. People enjoy extrinsic motivation (getting things), and item rewards are important, but intrinsic motivation (mastery, choice, and socialization) are way more.
"""Smart""" people who try to be clever while failing to ask themselves if anything is wrong with their fundamental approach (this is what separates an intellectual from a non-intellectual) is a big part of why everything is such a farce right now. Not just with games, but with business in general.
People are not machines, and there are a lot of factors that will vary from person to person. How much free time do they have? What are their interests? How good are they at a particular type of game? Are there any genres that they're bored of? Do they want to interact with people? Are they looking to relax or sweat? What do they find aesthetically pleasing? You'll even run into cases where people like or dislike a game because something about it reminds them of a time in their lives.
This magic key to making a game that's literally aimed at everybody doesn't exist, and by chasing it, you just wind up saturating the market with one type of game. That's what happened with the "We want the Call of Duty audience" shit, only for Minecraft and Souls to come along and show how stupid that mindset is.
Definitely sounds like something that those """smart""" people who are running everything into the ground with their half-baked pseudo-intellectual horseshit would say.
When dealing with the question of what's satisfying, there's a calculation of effort, results, and compensation. If you give a kid a trophy for strolling down the track in gym class, he's not going to care about that stupid thing. He might even find it insulting. It makes those trophies obtainable, though, right? Therefor, depth! Fricking moronic.
Then you have to deal with the fact that the amount of effort needed to get the same results will vary from person to person. If you take an old woman and have her play a FPS game, she'll probably play for ten minutes, fail at basic competency, and then refuse to play again. Being that bad at something isn't fun, and she just doesn't care enough to get better. However, if you take a FPS fan, that same game might be too simplistic to be rewarding. You can't design the game around both audiences. You can sell to 10M FPS fans or try to make a game for everybody that's actually for nobody.
tl;dr: If you try to come up a clever business plan that tries to outright deny the presence of people's individual competencies, interests, goals, problems, relationships, etc, it's doomed to failure and you're not as smart as you think you are.
>Definitely sounds like something that those """smart""" people who are running everything into the ground with their half-baked pseudo-intellectual horseshit would say.
Not a refutation.
>You can't design the game around both audiences.
People being too old to function is a nutrition problem. Would you like to try again?
You make the overworld trash hit so hard you're forced to group up and the entire game is a slow boring slog. Boom I fixed mmos
Also the forced socialization is somehow far superior to other more natural socialization because I say so for undetermined reasons.
A group listing is OK to have. Games should not have factions, and grouping should be an optimal when equipment is mediocre. PvP should control areas outside of cities and near resources, and items should be losable (at least via material durability) because dynamic gameplay comes from risk: reward.
Dunno why but I became less social in games these days, is it cuz I'm old now or cuz new games are so anti social that I'm conditioned to play alone now? No idea.
Nobody cares what you want homosexual people like you are why it needs to be forced catering to anti-social fricks too much is what killed the genre to begin with.
You don't want it because you have never played a game that has done it. All of todays games do as much as possible to keep you from interacting with other players to limit problems. Truth is if you make it so the problem is the world/enemies then people will put aside their differences to band together to advance their character. Out of this grows friendships and memories that can last a life time
Make grouping up fun and beneficial (which happens naturally in a sandbox economy), and make the world risky (especially because of PvP) and rewarding. People will want to play all day.
Gameplay vs. mobs isn't most of for what people play. Bosses and loot are way more important. Mobs should be a challenge, and world building NPC behavior should exist while NPCs are still in games, but real players should be the main challenge in accessing areas because they're dynamic and skillful.
Nothing, the genre needs an actual population in order to be "massive" which means catering to the lowest common denominator. Which is getting lower and lower as the medium becomes more popular. Also they were never all that good, coming from someone who played RO for years.
>the genre needs an actual population in order to be "massive" which means catering to the lowest common denominator
People like variety and depth. Strategy is fun to think about and play.
I like my games open but I also like to be fully aware of where to go next in the main story so i'll have full knowledge to where to go to progress in the game and what i can do to pass the time/grind for xp.
this method was how i was able to get my character to level 30 in DCU Online while I always get completely lost and tune out with Champions Online.
OSRS is the only proper MMO.
Other MMOs are just "the game begins when you hit max level" kind of shit where you wank raids and pvp, nothing else.
I get tired doing "get 15 boar hides" guests in every MMO. Only fetch quests and shitty dialog that nobody cares about.
They are nice social environments when you get all your fancy cosmetics, but VR chat is better for socializing.
I like being able to do different stuff, rather than having to rush max level for content to be available.
Do tell what are the fun things you do as low level character in WoW or FFXIV
Not FF or WoW as examples but I've been playing Lotro online for a litle as a new account and the low level experience isn't too bad. Gathering and crafting aren't too bad, you got the quest content and additional meta content that's basically just an extra set of objectives with kill counts and exploration. It's probably mainly the story tying in with Lord of the Rings that's the only reason why it has staying power though, so mileage may vary
MMO's are basically just extended grinds, WoW and FF have their second grind after the leveling content and OSRS is all about the leveling and getting the super rare drops. It's nothing more than a pick your poison kind of deal
Same. Came back to it, everything is free up to 2014 or something, which is actually really good, thats up to rohan so alot of content
Right now i feel like im at a crossroads. I have a lvl 40~ hunter ive had for 8 years and all other characters are low level
Im basically trying out all the formerly p2p classes with different races
So ive done hobbit warden, high elf LM, elf champion, dwarf tank (briefly because i hate ered luin and dwarves)
Will try out RK but for some reason im not too keen on Beorning, maybe just kinda too obvious to me with the "offensive class that can transform into animal and go roar and scratch people"
Was also thinking of getting more into raids and crafting rather than just questing. Might also grind more LP to try out the Yondershire pack, i got about 600 and used some on 2 characters riding skill (a sshame that Riding isnt free now, but its cheap to unlock)
osrs is single player mmo about collecting 10000000 boar hides. not to progress the game or to unlock something cool. so you can show off you wasted your time
basically cheevos mogs mount shit
Right side is just the natural progression of the left side's game design.
>muh map size
Easily 70% of that map space is just window dressing that has no use or point to visiting it beyond "it looks neat". No matter how interesting that environmental design is, you're going to be sick of it after your 20th trip through assfrick forest when all assfrick forest brings to the table is that it makes it take longer to reach the actual content.
>muh Wiki
Mmo quest design is typically absurdly ignorant and likes to waste as much of your time as possible. Of course people are going to use wikis so they know to bring a rope, a pie dish, and 3 iron bars to shit huffer canyon when they do the quest, because the npc is going to ask them for each of those things one at a time and make you do 3 trips back to fricking bank for it.
More variables and less permanence so gaylord metagamers can't suck the fun out of it. There should be stats like weight that are determined by how beefy your race is, for example. There should also be stats for guile and speech, to name a couple others. Simplicity and homogeneity are killers to an mmo. Don't get me wrong, there should be some circumstances where you're able to pop online for a few hours and just have a good time doing something like a minigame or BG or whatever, but when the game starts revolving around that (like modern WoW) it slowly loses its depth and identity. Also the worlds usually just suck. Same old walking sim shit.
Race bonuses would approximately only be fun if it was possible switching races.
Bonuses should come from equipment and should start simple (size, mobility, and abilities) and still allow every character to do whatever if they have the equipment for it.
Humans take the path of least resistance. Accept this already and you can finally accept that MMOs just aren't for you. If you make an MMO like the one on the left, people will instead play the one on the right. This is why FF11 has 5000 players and FF14 has millions even though they're both easily accessible right now. Even OSRS becomes more and more like nu-RS every year, because that's what the players want.
It's like people crying about meta gaming. If the option of convenience exists, most people will take it. You can't change this.
I hate how modern MMO players dont want to have any interaction with other players. If they want to play a single player game why not play one instead?
Playing with moronic strangers was a lot more feasible when you are like 13 when playing the games.
Nowadays I dont want to deal with moronic homosexuals that fricking suck at their class just cuz the game forces it.
It's because modern games do everything they can to stop me from interacting with other people.
-Extremely linear progression. If I'm level 20 and my buddy is level 25, the game tells us we should be playing in two completely different maps with completely different quests. Back in the day, as long as two characters where reasonably close in levels to each other, they could party up and go kill monsters.
-Huge focus on story, dialogues and cinematics, which are inherently single-player experiences. Why would I need to group up with other people in order to watch a movie? What are we gonna do, co-op reading?
-Complete lack of any challenge whatsoever. Why in the world would I look for other people to kill 15 bears with, if said bears die in three seconds and deal barely any damage? Most of the time leveling up with other people is not only SLOWER than playing alone, but less fun as well because the game becomes even easier.
All an MMO needs is a cool open-world with interesting lore and locations, zero forced cinematics and dialogues, varied non-self sufficient classes, and enemies that can kick your ass if you try to fight them 1v1. There, I just fixed the MMO genre, the playerbase is social again.
Eve used to be great with huge 50k+ online.
Several things killed the project.
Lack of proper game development, such as game simplification and lots of nerfs instead of further developing of roleplay elements, such were character models, captain quarters, promised station walking access e.t.c.
Poor investing choices, such as dust and valkyre. (Probably was simply money laundering, profits were stolen instead investing).
Game is deserved to be dead. It was great, I still miss it sometimes.
No, I don't want a sandbox. I don't want mass PvP, full loot, deep economy, believable politics and all that shit. What I want is a fun themepark PvE videogame where the open-world is dangerous, that's it.
Take Vanilla WoW, but make it hard and make sure no class is able to level-up alone at a reasonable speed (ie, no Hunters soloing the entire game). Also, make quests more co-op friendly or remove them all together. That's all I want.
You're still thinking about post-WoW MMOs, where low-level zones are absolutely worthless. In Ragnarok Online the entire world is always relevant, some of the best loot is found in "low-level" zones. Even the concept of "low-level" and "high-level" zones doesn't really apply to this game.
And when a level 20 can party-up with a level 23, a level 27 and a level 31, finding groups is easy unless the game is completely dead.
Final Fantasy 11
Yes, and supposedly Everquest 1 as well. But I want a modern game, with modern combat and modern QoL features. And modern graphics as well.
I tried FF11 on a private server and I could barely make sense of the interface and the controls.
Most people don't want to level or quest for hundreds of hours.
Because in modern MMOs leveling up is a complete waste of time. There's nothing valuable you can do or find at level 30 compared to level 60, when the "real" game starts.
Of course no one wants to do it.
The problem with MMOs is that they are treated as "MMOs".
Imagine if you took every classic team-based shooter like CS and TF2, every boomer shooter, every battle royale, and all the miscellaneous singleplayer and CO-OP FPS games, and DELETED THEM, and instead every single FPS game ever released was an overwatch clone, and when you talk about FPS games it's assumed that you're talking about some variation of overwatch. That's MMOs.
The biggest mistake that MMOs are currently making is assuming that all MMO players belong in the same group and need to be playing the same MMO. Even worse than the FPS example above, MMOs aren't even "about" anything particular, there's no center that unifies all MMO players.
Some koreabrains who want to solo grind levels and do epic looking attack skills forever are completely incompatible with old school players who want to interact with other players and work through things together, who are incompatible with WoW gays who want to do guild raids forever, who are incompatible with roleplayers and socializers to whom the gameplay is of secondary importance, who are incompatible with solo PVP Black folk who want to gank noobs, who are incompatible with people who want big group PVP battles. And that's not even mentioning a bunch of lost children who are in the completely wrong genre, like people who want to have an "adventure" and "discover cool places", or people who want an epic story and questlines.
The MMO "genre" is a completely incoherent mixed bag of incompatible ideas and points of appeal. If we want to get good MMOs we need to start splitting it into multiple subgenres so we can split incompatible people who are currently stuck at a tug of war pulling MMOs into incompatible directions.
Yes, and that's why I respect GW2, despite all its faults: they made an exploration collectathon game ten years ago, it's still the same exact game today.
You're critiquing theme parks, but I don't think an argument exists vs. sandboxes because people being able to do whatever they want is OK.
That's not what he's saying at all. What's he's saying is that modern MMOs are a mishmash of genres because they try to appeal to everyone.
If let's say I like the idea of M+ in WoW, I'd rather have a game with no open-world, no PvP and no story, but a shitload of dungeons. But this isn't the case with WoW because they feel the need to add a little bit of everything... and every mode feels half-assed as a result.
2 years ago
Anonymous
He's saying that people choose playstyles, but that's compatible because nothing's stopping them. Thus, a sandbox is conclusive.
mmos have never been good
the entire idea is flawed from the start, and only ever existed as a very early way to talk and hang out with friends
there's a reason the only notable ones were the super casual one that brainwashed a generation and are only now waking up and the one that explicitly goes out of its way to be as un-mmo as possible
>they remove almost all of the good parts of rpgs and ramp up to a thousand all of the bad parts and then charge you a monthly fee for the privilege
That's vague.
>yes they're drawn out
Lasting playability comes from a variety of activities that define status.
>modern MMO needing a wiki
What? If anything, that would apply way more to older MMOs. Like FFXI for example, where the game basically gives you frick all in the way of guidance for quests so your only real chance to completing them is reading BG wiki.
You're conveniently leaving out the fact the image on the left has been deleted from existence because players are autistic, will map out the most efficient and time saving way to do things, and exclude you from groups if you don't follow the pdf that explains it. The image on the right is the result of 20 years of players optimizing fun out of games so that people can actually play together without fracturing a community to pieces.
ancient MMOs used to be social activities with a game attached
MMOs today are games with some social activity tacked on
You are literally nostalgic for the 90s and 00s equivalent of facebook and twitter
ancient MMOs used to be social activities with a game attached
MMOs today are games with some social activity tacked on
You are literally nostalgic for the 90s and 00s equivalent of facebook and twitter
For me it wasn't a game, it was my life. Player vs player conflict, politics and drama is the only thing I lived for back in the days. And I played real games for real people: Lineage II and EVE Online. Now it is not the same: most conflicts are non-issue or are resolved quickly, same thing for the game interactions. For instance, 15 years ago you could ambush a rival guild on a world boss that spawns once per 10 days and take the loot that has low chance to drop from that boss, but it boosts people so hard it's insane. Now these kind of bosses do not exist, or else normalgays would screech.
The best MMO I've ever played was a shitty 2D isotropic Korean ripoff called DarkEden because the conflict between players was the main focus of the game. Except for a few safe zones, the whole world was open PVP, you could even kill people on your own faction, though you would lose alignment and start to lose items if you did it too much. The world was dangerous and dynamic, and it was because the people in the game made it that way. The monsters in the world were just a backdrop to the conflicts that would play out between the players.
Make a game where other players are the most dangerous thing. Tap into the base tribal parts of our brains that make us want to group up and kill each other. Make people fight over resources, over land, for revenge, or just to cause trouble and they will become invested in the world.
I'm waiting for the day when another MMO can capture the pure chaotic spirit of that game, where people knew each other by name because you bonded over killing the enemy.
Sure, you'd get destroyed by some giga douches and your leveling zone would get shut down, but the tides were always turning and soon it would be you who was the one ruining other people's day.
Make a violent, despicable, beautiful world where people are allowed to be bastards and kill each other, and you will capture their hearts and minds.
People will always optimize the fun out of any MMO where the main focus is PVE content. What makes an MMO an MMO is the multiplayer aspect. If you make the focus of the game other players rather than quests and content, then you will return to the heart of what an MMO is supposed to be.
PVP games can be optimized too and the fun can be sucked out. Look at EVE Online and Dark Souls multiplayer.
The more difficult and lengthy the grinds are, the more players will socialize (as long as partying up is the optimal strat).
This causes people to actually do MMO shit. Also it means lots of the game isn't just hit max level -> raid endlessly.
But people b***h when a game takes ages to hit max level (or even has no max level). Because gamers want the socialization and "soul" of a grindy korean MMO, but they also want to instantly be max level and powerful without putting in any effort. Essentially having their cake and eating it too.
>The more difficult and lengthy the grinds are, the more players will socialize (as long as partying up is the optimal strat).
No it doesn't. It means people will be extremely incentivized to optimize the grind so as to reduce the amount of time it takes. And exclude/shame/excommunicate anyone who does not follow the optimal path. It is explicitly what destroys mmos.
Tedium doesn't make people do "MMO shit" or "soul", the good stuff is in spite of the tedium this anon has it right
>The more difficult and lengthy the grinds are, the more players will socialize (as long as partying up is the optimal strat).
No it doesn't. It means people will be extremely incentivized to optimize the grind so as to reduce the amount of time it takes. And exclude/shame/excommunicate anyone who does not follow the optimal path. It is explicitly what destroys mmos.
. This is a common error and how shitstains like WildStar ended up as they did because someone decided to just make things HARDCORE FOR THE REAL HARDCORE which led to the death of the game. An example; because they designed dungeons that, if you didn't run them as perfect, timed runs you got shitty silver/bronze prizes that gave you nothing instead of the gold rank prize that gave you the "gear you NEED to progress to the first tier of raiding, statwise", it meant nobody taught noobs how to play or played with anyone who wasn['t already capable gear or technique wise of getting gold rank, lest they'd waste half an hour or more. As expected, everyone who wasn't a hardcore progression type quit because there was nobody to teach them and they would not move any further. This is just one of many, many examples for how shitty things can be.
One major issue is people looking back with rose tinted glasses >That old MMO I remember first/most beloved was fun >That old MMO I remember first/most beloved had some tedious grindy shit in it >That's what's missing, so that is what made the fun - >FALLACY
They figure "well it took hours of camping to get the drop, raiding was a sub-game of organizing/time management/drama before several hours blocked out for the content, or we had to walk and summon each other to the dungeon etc" and assume that is what made it good when that is not the case at all. >Nobody talks anymore!
This isn't because of raid finder, dungeon finder, or any other QoL improvement, its because of people sometimes being shitty. You focus on the time you met that friend, significant other, guildmate etc... in a group, but ignore the hundreds of times you had an at best polite, minimal communication as required for tactics. I'm out of room but it goes on from there - tedium/grind is to be avoided.
>ctrl f combat >0 found
how has no one mentioned the absolutely trash autoattack combat system that has plagued every mmo? i wanted to play WoW for like 2 years after it came out based on screenshots, friend hype, the promise of playing a neat fantasy world with friends, etc. finally got a subscription, and canceled it after one day upon finding out the combat was the gayest most boring fricking thing ever. do something else. even elder scrolls (not online) combat would be better. or soulslike combat. maybe even TURN-BASED combat would be better.
If Vindictus and DFO don't count, yeah it would be BnS. The balance of a fast paced gameplay while having content that supports it by constantly aiming to challenge you with its mechanics.
It's not really a problem being able to Wiki information. A studio could make resources have plausible locations and could provide a map with where; questing isn't always some obvious route (and usually isn't intriguing or rewarding enough to be searching simulators). Optimizing routes is fun, but characters strategically playing together is better.
They're a screaming minority and after around two weeks would be forgotten.
2 years ago
Anonymous
If that were true, it wouldn't be a pervasive of a problem as it is. In fact, we are the minority. The majority of people want to optimize or follow optimization. As unfortunate as it is.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Fun gameplay has people playing however they want.
2 years ago
Anonymous
It absolutely doesn't. It will be optimized regardless of how enjoyable it is or not. Look at monster hunter.
2 years ago
Anonymous
If people don't have their favorite equipment playstyle for PvE, they'll still do it. It events are randomly located, people will do what they usually would and go to an even that spawns nearby.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>the fault is on the meta
just admit you're a shitter who cant play video games anymore
2 years ago
Anonymous
Variety and depth allow mastery, choice, and socialization.
>Nobody wants them in the community
They are the community homosexual. MMOs have two endgames, style and power, get used to it. The social aspect got replaced by Discord. Don't like it? Well there's a reason MMOs died.
Someone will map out the randomness. How to trigger events, the specific potential spawn points of said random events, and then plot an optimized rotation/path through them.
You should really read a reply chain before you post.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Random events can't be triggered. Players aren't going to sit at specific spawn points in a huge world.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>random events can't be triggered
theres no such thing as true random in video games. there are variables that simulate randomness and people are autistic enough to track that and path an optimal route. >players aren't going to sit at specific spawn points in a huge world
an entire 15 years of people waiting for time lost proto drake spawns in wow, and people autistically making entire website trackers to track NM's in eureka/bozja disagrees with your sentiment.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>there are variables that simulate randomness and people are autistic enough to track that and path an optimal route.
No.
>an entire 15 years of people waiting for time lost proto drake spawns in wow
Events that consistently spawn are lucrative to do.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>consistently spawn >random amount of time within a certain window that is hours long
You've defeated your own argument. By your own admission you've stated if something is lucrative enough, people will wait for it. No amount of randomness matters. And if its lucrative, someone, many even, will attempt to optimize it. Be it by learning about the downtime between spawns, the location of spawns, the requirements for spawns to occur, etc.
If what you are advocating for is TRUE 100% randomness, how do you balance the influx of materials/items/gear from something potentially spawning 6 times in a 5 minute period? You as a developer have zero control over the influx of items/money into your games economy, and balance then goes out the window. It's a flawed premise from the start.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>random amount of time within a certain window that is hours long
You made that up, but even if it was hours, going to an event or doing other activities and making money would be more lucrative than sitting at a potential spawn point.
>If what you are advocating for is TRUE 100% randomness, how do you balance the influx of materials/items/gear from something potentially spawning 6 times in a 5 minute period?
By setting the rate at which specific items drop.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>You made that up
No, I fricking didn't you assclown. >The spawn time of Time-Lost Proto-Drake is estimated to be around 2-8 hours. >Time-Lost Proto-Drake shares his spawn timer, spawn points and flight routes with Vyragosa, a dragon required for the Frostbitten achievement. >Vyragosa spawns more often than Time-Lost Proto-Drake
>by setting the rate at which specific items drop
how can you possibly do this with no control over how often an event that drops said items spawns? limiting the amount that drop hourly? congrats, people will form trains to collect items listed and go from random spawn to random spawn, then the world will be dead until the ability to gather the items again is refreshed.
2 years ago
Anonymous
You mentioned a specific WoW event. I replied with "events that consistently spawn". What do you think that means?
>how can you possibly do this with no control over how often an event that drops said items spawns?
A studio would obviously set the rate at which random events happen.
You're appealing to extremes.
2 years ago
Anonymous
If you cannot follow a reply chain and the concept of the conversation that is occurring that is not my problem. You accused me of making something up, and have now shifted the goalposts when I provided proof I did not. You're arguing in bad faith, knock it off. > A studio would obviously set the rate at which random events happen
So then people will learn that rate and find a way to optimize their gameplay around it. Why are you so determined to be continuously smacked like this?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>If you cannot follow a reply chain and the concept of the conversation that is occurring that is not my problem.
Quote something I've posted that's irrelevant.
>You accused me of making something up, and have now shifted the goalposts when I provided proof I did not.
>consistently spawn >random amount of time within a certain window that is hours long
You've defeated your own argument. By your own admission you've stated if something is lucrative enough, people will wait for it. No amount of randomness matters. And if its lucrative, someone, many even, will attempt to optimize it. Be it by learning about the downtime between spawns, the location of spawns, the requirements for spawns to occur, etc.
If what you are advocating for is TRUE 100% randomness, how do you balance the influx of materials/items/gear from something potentially spawning 6 times in a 5 minute period? You as a developer have zero control over the influx of items/money into your games economy, and balance then goes out the window. It's a flawed premise from the start.
spawn
amount of time within a certain window that is hours long
That's obviously not the meaning of consistent.
I didn't shift the goalposts.
>So then people will learn that rate and find a way to optimize their gameplay around it.
No they won't. The world is too big, and the spawns are too random.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>consistently spawn
It does consistently spawn. Every 2-8 hours. >No they won't. The world is too big, and the spawns are too random.
This is a fricking pipe dream and not an even remotely attainable feat. Name one game that does this currently, or even an engine that could potentially be the framework for something like this. Explain how true randomness is attained, and how it will not be abused should a bunch of spawns happen immediately near a town. Define how item drops will be controlled, and how that will not negatively impact the rate at which people play the game? If 3 random events suddenly spawn near each other, but item drops are limited, what reason would a player have to go to the other two events, or do ANYTHING at all until they are once again able to obtain items? At that point you're playing an idle simulator no different from cookie clicker waiting to use cooldowns to progress (analogous to waiting for item cooldowns).
2 years ago
Anonymous
TLPD isn't "lucrative".
You can have set spawnpoints and random spawns.
Play Arma: Wasteland.
2 years ago
Anonymous
You answered none of my questions whatsoever. At this point I believe I am correct in assuming your concession because you obviously lack the foresight to think about concepts before you spout them.
2 years ago
Anonymous
You're pretending to not know about what you're talking.
2 years ago
Anonymous
You're preaching fairy tale bullshit that has no practical applications in a real video game.
2 years ago
Anonymous
What about consistent, random spawns and set drop rates is fairytale bullshit that has no practical applications in a real video game?
It would be easy limiting drops according to what's already available. If it hasn't been used in a while, it would be OK to spawn more.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>It would be easy limiting drops according to what's already available. If it hasn't been used in a while, it would be OK to spawn more.
So now there isn't true random in play. Theres a system of priority spawning, which absolutely can and will be abused. Congrats. >What about consistent, random spawns and set drop rates is fairytale bullshit
The idea it cannot be optimized. Because it absolutely will be.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>So now there isn't true random in play. Theres a system of priority spawning, which absolutely can and will be abused.
It's setting drop rates according to what's available. How can that be abused?
>The idea it cannot be optimized. Because it absolutely will be.
How?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Define how it determines what "available" means? Does it track every players inventory? Is there a set threshold of numbers of items existing on the server? what about players who are logged out? What about inactive players? What's stopping a group of players from farming hundreds of thousands of the item, thereby locking the spawn of it, and then never logging those characters in, or using the items, effectively gatekeeping an entire playerbase from obtaining them, and selling the items off individual at excessively high prices to control a monopoly?
You are really not thinking this through.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Does it track every players inventory?
Yes.
>Is there a set threshold of numbers of items existing on the server?
Yes.
>what about players who are logged out? What about inactive players?
I already mentioned that if an item wasn't used for a while, more would spawn.
>What's stopping a group of players from farming hundreds of thousands of the item
Do you think before you type notions such as this?
2 years ago
Anonymous
You did not respond to my last point because you have no rebuttal to it, so I will ask again.
What is stopping a group of players from farming items until the server dictates there is enough of them, and then moving/trading the items amongst themselves or slowly to other players thereby holding a monopoly?
2 years ago
Anonymous
The best sets would likely be a few per server, if more than 1.
If they can get multiple of a set and control the price, that's OK.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>sets
so theres no limit on basic reagents for say, potions? or leather? or ore? Have you thought an ounce about what the impact of gatekeeping the most basic important items of an mmo would do?
2 years ago
Anonymous
The drop rate for materials would be based on how many are used.
2 years ago
Anonymous
that makes no sense moron. It's dictated by how often they're used? at what point are things cut off then? whats stopping a group from slowly using the supply of items they're monopolizing and farming the items back with their friends before others can?
2 years ago
Anonymous
It can be a static value and still be derived from how much is used, maybe being updated once a day or something. If somebody bought all of a material, the price would go up, and more likely wouldn't be available for a little while.
2 years ago
Anonymous
You still haven't explained to me how a group of people cannot manipulate this shitty system. You keep dancing around it. It's exceptionally easy to do so according to your own rules.
2 years ago
Anonymous
What do you mean “still”? That’s my first post in this thread, anon. I’m not the guy you may have been arguing with - it just struck me as odd that you’re claiming something completely unrecognisable to me is overshadowing something I play regularly. I have no idea what you’re going on about beyond that.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>that's my first post in the thread
I'm, not reading past your second sentence because you lied to me. One would think you wouldn't be so dumb as to think you could get around Gankerx explicitly dictating when a new IP posts the thread.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Kek. 7/10, you got me to respond.
Have a pic of me as a reward.
2 years ago
Anonymous
What's this gay /soc/ shit?
[...]
homosexual, and stay gone.
2 years ago
Anonymous
It's realistic. What do you think is manipulatable?
2 years ago
Anonymous
If a set number of the item can only exist on the server at a time, a group of people could farm that item until it reaches the threshold, and hold a monopoly over it.
If the game allows more items to spawn when preexisting items are used or depleted, the group uses the items within their group, and has others farming the items to maintain their stranglehold.
If the game detects inactivity with items and then allows more to spawn, the group of players shuffles the items amongst themselves in combination with the previous point to maintain their stranglehold.
You have offered no solutions whatsoever to combat any of this.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>If a set number of the item can only exist on the server at a time, a group of people could farm that item until it reaches the threshold, and hold a monopoly over it.
This doesn't matter up to an extent, and beyond that, the game can spawn more.
>If the game allows more items to spawn when preexisting items are used or depleted, the group uses the items within their group, and has others farming the items to maintain their stranglehold.
A group would likely have to pay others to have all of an item.
>If the game detects inactivity with items and then allows more to spawn, the group of players shuffles the items amongst themselves in combination with the previous point to maintain their stranglehold.
See above.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>a group would likely have to pay others to have all of an item
Says fricking who? Get a clan of 50 people monopolizing a key resource and everyone has to pay whatever they dictate. >this doesnt matter to an extent and beyond that, the game can spawn more
how does it determine to do that >see above
How does the game determine whether to do that.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Says fricking who? Get a clan of 50 people monopolizing a key resource and everyone has to pay whatever they dictate.
Guild size could be limited, but controlling a resource wouldn't necessarily be hard to do. Money sinks should be enough that people want to trade and make money. Territories being able to make people rich via taxes would have the most skillful making the most money.
>how does it determine to do that
By defining how much use is relevant. People want to have fun, and playstyle availability is important.
>How does the game determine whether to do that.
A balance should exist of solo players able to take on whole servers (by kiting, picking off individuals, and disengaging) and between groups of people able to versus each other if they want.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>guild size could be limited
does nothing, make multiple guilds for a group of people. >by defining how much is is relevant
how does it do this >A balance should exist of solo players able to take on whole servers (by kiting, picking off individuals, and disengaging) and between groups of people able to versus each other if they want.
This has frick all nothing to do with preventing the points I've laid out. You're blathering on about inconsequential shit that will do FRICK ALL NOTHING to prevent a group of 50 to 100 (if not more) dedicated players or bots gobbling up a resource, learning about how the system for respawning/refilling availability of it works, and then manipulating it to their explicit benefit. You have no god damn answers and are blathering on about random shit because you have no actual solution to the problem I've posed you.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>does nothing, make multiple guilds for a group of people.
Everybody playing together is fine; then there's not a monopoly. Only a few guilds playing together and controlling some of the economy is only so likely because people are skillful and enjoy competition.
>how does it do this
The studio would know how much action is happening.
>This has frick all nothing to do with preventing the points I've laid out. You're blathering on about inconsequential shit that will do FRICK ALL NOTHING to prevent a group of 50 to 100 (if not more) dedicated players or bots gobbling up a resource, learning about how the system for respawning/refilling availability of it works, and then manipulating it to their explicit benefit. You have no god damn answers and are blathering on about random shit because you have no actual solution to the problem I've posed you.
I added a point because I already addressed your queries.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Everybody playing together is fine; then there's not a monopoly
That's not at all what I said. limiting guild membership to combat market manipulation when there is scarcity in the game is pointless. it will be worked around immediately. >enjoy competition
no, its because they see it as an opportunity to exert control, and any time that happens in a game, it leads to RMT. Period. >The studio would know how much action is happening
so you're asking the devs to watch the market like a hawk and at the slightest hint of market manipulation, intervene? at that point what is the purpose of having scarcity in the first place? >I added a point because I already addressed your queries.
You've done no such thing, and in fact only opened up yet more holes in your own argument with every single reply.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>That's not at all what I said.
I replied to that specific in the next sentence.
People are skillful, so they can farm materials and can versus guilds trying to have control over specific playstyles.
>no, its because they see it as an opportunity to exert control
I was saying that people enjoy PvP, so, if they didn't all play together, they would be suboptimal; if they did all play together, they could have scheduled / rules-enforced PvP; if they wanted control beyond that, people would either be able to counter them or wouldn't.
>so you're asking the devs to watch the market like a hawk and at the slightest hint of market manipulation, intervene?
It would be easy understanding how effective people are at PvE, what playstyles are available, and how exciting PvP is. Market manipulation is fine up to the point that people can't do activities.
>You've done no such thing
I have; you haven't listed an example of controlling the economy that a studio should actually control.
2 years ago
Anonymous
so your solution to people manipulating the market and exerting control over it is... opt in pvp?
Look I'm gonna be real with you chief. Either you don't know what you're saying and you're a dumbass, or the language barrier here is too conflicting for us to have proper discourse in a meaningful way and we should end this discussion here. You repeatedly respond in ways that are not at all relevant to what I'm saying. Your english is strange and frankly difficult to understand.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>so your solution to people manipulating the market and exerting control over it is... opt in pvp?
What suggested that?
>Look I'm gonna be real with you chief. Either you don't know what you're saying and you're a dumbass, or the language barrier here is too conflicting for us to have proper discourse in a meaningful way and we should end this discussion here. You repeatedly respond in ways that are not at all relevant to what I'm saying. Your english is strange and frankly difficult to understand.
Quote anything that hasn't been conclusive or readable.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Quote anything that hasn't been conclusive or readable
The character limit won't allow me to post every single sentence you type in reply that goes on a wild tangent that has barely anything to do with what I've said. For a while I genuinely considered you were posting AI response replies. I tried to politely tell you the conversation is clearly not working as english is obviously not your first language, don't be a b***h about it.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Not a critique.
2 years ago
Anonymous
It explicitly is a critique you stupid homosexual.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Post something that hasn't been relevant to the discussion.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>I was saying that people enjoy PvP, so, if they didn't all play together, they would be suboptimal; if they did all play together, they could have scheduled / rules-enforced PvP; if they wanted control beyond that, people would either be able to counter them or wouldn't. >Only a few guilds playing together and controlling some of the economy is only so likely because people are skillful and enjoy competition. > Money sinks should be enough that people want to trade and make money. Territories being able to make people rich via taxes would have the most skillful making the most money.
I'm not going to keep wasting my time on this bullshit. You're clearly either shoving things into an AI to feed you responses to copy paste here, or you're blissfully ignorant of your actual grasp of the english language. Each of these examples goes on a wild irrelevant tangent instead of addressing the question they are responding to, and do NOTHING to actually answer it.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Quote what hasn't been resolved.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I did you disingenuous little b***h esl goblin.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Everybody playing together is fine; then there's not a monopoly
are you saying it would take literally every player in the game to get enough of an item to reach the server limit? at that point its effectively unlimited
2 years ago
Anonymous
>are you saying it would take literally every player in the game to get enough of an item to reach the server limit?
I didn't say every player would have exactly what they wanted.
2 years ago
Anonymous
that has nothing to do with what i said
2 years ago
Anonymous
What other problem exists with enough simultaneous items that players can be effective with something but not optimal unless they pay for the gear?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>collect all the green grass the server dictates can be gathered on the server >green grass is the main ingredient for basic health and mana potions >continue to manipulate the obtaining of this item, gatekeeping the most basic of resources
Boy that sure was fricking easy
2 years ago
Anonymous
A common item becoming so rare and controlled is an option. It would be OK.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>it would be ok for a single guild to control the most basic resource all players would require to progress in the game >its ok for a single guild to completely gate progression through the game by outright not selling the resource as their guild progresses, steadily locking down more resources because nobody can progress due to lack of having basic health and mana potions
You're a fricking dipshit. What the frick lol.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>"Mana and health potions are required to do anything."
Why?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Why would they not be? The argument can be applied to anything homosexual. >monopolize iron, preventing players from improving their weapons and armor, since they need base iron tools to even be strong enough to progress to whatever next ore there is >monopolize food sources preventing people from crafting food and missing out on important buffs >monopolize literally anything in the game that is a basic necessity, and the system actively encourages you to do so to exert control
You're being a pedantic b***h.
2 years ago
Anonymous
If people want a common item, they can farm it. There's a point where the price can only be as high as the time is valuable.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>if people want a common item, they can farm it
how can they fricking do that when a guild has locked down the item due to the scarcity imposed by the game to the point it does not spawn anymore to be gathered, and inflates the price of the items sold to intentionally damage progression for other people so the people controlling the resource have a significant tactical or monetary edge?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>how can they fricking do that when a guild has locked down the item due to the scarcity imposed by the game to the point it does not spawn anymore to be gathered
I'm not sure the game would stop spawning a common item completely; mediocre equipment would plausibly be available so that new players have options.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Set spawnpoints and random spawns
Ok, so now everyone knows where everything spawns, they will plot a course of shortest distance between spawn locations, track whether the items that drop from said random event are on cooldown from being attained, and move in a train between spawn locations with scouts that scan for whether the event starts.
You literally just described fricking hunts in ffxiv. You're a dipshit.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>now everyone knows where everything spawns, they will plot a course of shortest distance between spawn locations, track whether the items that drop from said random event are on cooldown from being attained
You mean the likelihood that it will spawn somewhere? Why? If they're not close to one that's up, they're more likely to be near the next one.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>the likelihood it will spawn somewhere
You just said SET spawnpoints with RANDOM spawns. Holy shit keep your argument consistent.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I've been talking about set spawnpoints with random spawns the whole time. There is no reason for people to sit at empty spawnpoints. That's still true.
Tracking how often something drops doesn't make only going to specific areas resulting. It would be much more logical to get what you can and trade on the auction house.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>it would be much more logical to get what you can and trade on the auction house
mathematically untrue, according to almost every random spawn in existence. Especially with a sense of community. If a monster spawns that drops items to everyone that hits it, the community will set up a network of players that flag when something shows up, everyone will show up, hit the thing, then move on. This is literally done in ffxiv currently.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>mathematically untrue, according to almost every random spawn in existence.
Something that has even a 1% drop rate isn't likely going to be at the spawn your partial-knowledge algorithm suggests anywhere near as much as you could simply play the game and get what you want from others.
A studio wouldn't drop a rare set for everybody.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>A studio wouldnt drop a rare set for everybody
Of course not, but from say, literally every map of eureka in xiv, its established players will wait at a boss or event spawn, and then kill the spawn once most nearby players are there to ensure everyone gets rewards. Regardless of whether its a guaranteed or lower drop.
2 years ago
Anonymous
It would be a PvP game. Multiple people at an event would plausibly PvP each other. Even if people are smart enough to play together, an event would have a limited number of items drop.
2 years ago
Anonymous
By having pvp you've alienated 50% of your potential audience as is.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>potential audience
Nobody cares about women playing videogames. They aren't gamers, I don't care how many of them play candy crush.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>By having pvp you've alienated 50% of your potential audience
lmao, where do you carebear shitters come from, let me guess- you're an ff4.0 player?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Factual statements don't make you a carebear, homosexual. It's factually true. Name one modern mmo that is successful by forcing pvp.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Name one modern mmo that is successful by forcing pvp.
Name one modern mmo that's good.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>name one modern mmo thats good
Name one mmo thats good.
2 years ago
Anonymous
UO.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>name one mmo thats good
name one mmo
2 years ago
Anonymous
Sandbox and PvP MMOs not having an A+ option != likelihood of success.
2 years ago
Anonymous
It doesnt matter if sometimes they get lucky with a spawn in town. It would be statistically unlikely
2 years ago
Anonymous
>it doesn't matter if sometimes they get lucky
it absolutely does when you have potentially hundreds of thousands of people playing your game. Holy shit man.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Items are removed from the economy or have to be upkept with materials.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Items are removed from the economy
Explain how this would be done. The server buys the items from you? That doesn't solve currency inflation. It just takes them away? That's punishing players for playing the game. >upkept with materials
now you're incentivizing people even more to spreadsheet shit.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Explain how this would be done.
Durability requiring material repairs makes materials valuable; there have to be materials to have gear consistently.
Full loot PvP on PvP servers has corpses on timers so that if loot isn't taken it disappears.
>now you're incentivizing people even more to spreadsheet shit.
From where do you think dynamic item availability comes?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Full loot pvp
People will not play games where they can lose their entire investment to a server tick. It works for niche games like osrs. It does not work for modern games. Stop pushing this stupid fricking idea.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Ctrl+F "Minecraft", "Rust", "ARK".
2 years ago
Anonymous
>games where gear hardly matters and most servers run 8-10x resource gain so you can immediately obtain shit again, thereby fully invalidating the point of full loot
great post moron.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Gear matters in each of those games.
Official servers are what's relevant.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>People will not play games where they can lose their entire investment to a server tick.
And yet people played and still play UO.
Bizarre...
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Players aren't going to sit at specific spawn points in a huge world.
some of the best gear in FFXI was from random drops from rare/random spawned Notorious Monsters and that's literally exactly what people did
Then players leave the game because there is no consistency and anything to look towards since anything good would be removed really it would be best to just make a mmo with no gear and try to balance the classes at that point but still a meta will appear its inevitable
nah gameplay should be watching cutscenes and occasionally facerolling some easy fight where you spam the same rotation you use on everything else in the game, it's peak mmo design
MMOs need to go back to the reincarnation system where if you're level 200, you can restart to level 1 with better stats.
I played one where after you reincarnate, you get a cool spell that buffs you and your party members for 5 hours, you can also buff new players in town.
Most old MMOs became functionally same as new MMOs when you know what your doing and given most MMO players are autistic about there grinding so they just beelined the content anyway since most of that big open world is pointless filler hell ffxiv for as linear as it is at least had the idea to make exploration and side quests mandatory to fly in new area's which in most old mmos you never had a reason to explore you just found what you needed to grind on or do your quests do them and go find a new area to grind
Unironically Metaverse-like shit is what you want.
Heavy social aspect with some game component.
Kinda like the Ready Player One game world.
Problem is, we are still on wii-fit level of shitty characters and social media is not globally centralized (yet).
The streaming service is tho, it there's a digital world, any service can easily connect your membership to a "digital cinema"
If I want to hang out with people in a world, I can do that in the real world. If I want to play a game, I'd play a game. A virtual chatroom with "some game component" is useless.
Considering mmo's are as big as every, this is how it's going to continue to go. If a company can make just as much money putting in half as much work then that company is making twice the profits.
When the MMOs decided to be EQ clones instead of UO clones the fate of the genre was sealed. It all became about raid and gear progression instead of fully realized virtual worlds.
just make them hard again its that easy
i dont want to start out as a god killing 100 enemies in a tutorial showing off all my would-be skills
give me a variety of weapons to choose from at the start and ill do the rest as long as content is still challenging
And yet lots of people still play it.
I wonder if in the process of studying WoW when they were working ARR, Creative Business Unit III came to the conclusion that MMOs as they were were on their way out and decided that their themepark style that is very non-MMO was the future.
I mean, they're seeing success right now but idk if that can be attributed to this hypothesis
The best MMO I've ever played was a shitty 2D isotropic Korean ripoff called DarkEden because the conflict between players was the main focus of the game. Except for a few safe zones, the whole world was open PVP, you could even kill people on your own faction, though you would lose alignment and start to lose items if you did it too much. The world was dangerous and dynamic, and it was because the people in the game made it that way. The monsters in the world were just a backdrop to the conflicts that would play out between the players.
Make a game where other players are the most dangerous thing. Tap into the base tribal parts of our brains that make us want to group up and kill each other. Make people fight over resources, over land, for revenge, or just to cause trouble and they will become invested in the world.
I'm waiting for the day when another MMO can capture the pure chaotic spirit of that game, where people knew each other by name because you bonded over killing the enemy.
Sure, you'd get destroyed by some giga douches and your leveling zone would get shut down, but the tides were always turning and soon it would be you who was the one ruining other people's day.
Make a violent, despicable, beautiful world where people are allowed to be bastards and kill each other, and you will capture their hearts and minds.
People will always optimize the fun out of any MMO where the main focus is PVE content. What makes an MMO an MMO is the multiplayer aspect. If you make the focus of the game other players rather than quests and content, then you will return to the heart of what an MMO is supposed to be.
Tarkov kind of does this, though it is poorly implemented with instanced raids. It is not an MMO, nor does it try to be. It is a lobby-based shooter game with looting mechanics. BSG's vision of an open persistent world is kind of what I would like to see, but the instant death nature of that game means there are no defensive plays and it encourages bush camping, which is just no fun. Also, BSG will never achieve their vision with Tarkov because they are not technically competent enough to make it happen.
Rust kind of captures that spirit, but its formula just doesn't quite get there. I would argue that the cost of death is too high. If you make it so that players can lose everything they have spent hours or days working towards in an instant, it turns people off immensely.
Sure but they aren't what people want from an mmorpg
Fortnite is popular too, that doesn't mean you should try to emulate it with a game of a different genre
Nobody cares about your washed up moron game that is having to scrape the bottom of the barrel after the shitshow that was ATLAS and rely on the face of fast and furious to market their next turd.
2 years ago
Anonymous
It's a shooter, which is skillful.
2 years ago
Anonymous
the shooting is the least important aspect of ARK by far.
I always thought this was interesting but we have had enough games with this concept that I know it's not really fun. The balance of power is decided on a server by who is the biggest neet and has the most players in their guild. If you're just some guy playing by himself you will NEVER achieve anything in the game unless you join the big guild and become a worker bee.
Also everyone will watch streamers for the most meta builds to gank you while you're leveling or doing whatever. The only people that have fun in those games are the ones with the power and I'm not even sure they are having fun as they are almost always incredibly angry individuals who lose their shit when they get rekt
The technical limitations of that game actually helped it in that aspect. There was no party or guild system, or even a friends list so people mainly did their own thing. Most conflicts were small skirmishes, rarely were multiple people grouping up together to control an area.
I'm not sure how well that would work in today's gaming environment where people can just rely on things like Discord and Reddit to organize large groups of people, even if the game itself doesn't support it.
Maybe Kayaba Akihiko was right, the only way to get people invested and prevent them from meta-gaming the fun out of it is to trap them in the game. Otherwise, we will always use our tools of communication to organize large groups and dominate.
>The balance of power is decided on a server by who is the biggest neet and has the most players in their guild.
You don't have to control territory to have fun.
It's possible having enough strategy and options (both momentary and over large periods) that every playstyle is played by everyone.
That sounds extremely fun, but that's a recipe for disaster.
RPGs = high investment of time.
High investment means extreme grief when something is lost
Extreme Grief + PVP pisses people off to the extreme. You'd have people making real death threats. I wouldn't be surprised if they stopped supporting the game because they got real life death threats.
I believe the original game is still going in Korea, even though it came out in the mid 90's. Death was not a big deal in that game, you just respawned. Another main feature of that game was that the level cap was insanely high, nobody ever got to the max level because it just took too long.
This is literally just HELLMOO, and it shows that people don't actually want to fight each other in an unforgiving environment. Corp guilds are a big thing and pk'ing isn't done as a form of etiquette unless you're a dick. Even then players will warn other players about you in the world chat.
It's literally impossible to make a good MMO because their whole appeal is the discovery and sense of adventure and comradery with other players, but that can only last for so long as more and more people reach max level and leave new players in the dust, making the experience miserable for both parties.
This is why most MMOs only last for like a month before they die off completely, these games are at their best played at launch with a bunch of others who have no idea what to do and where to go - the moment people start reaching endgame and optimized strats and builds start propping up online the game is on its deathbed.
I agree with you but the issue with most MMO's is they have 0 content aside from grinding pre end game. There should be stuff to do to progress your character at every level. I don't just mean fishing or some dumb bullshit.
And how do you even go with this considering current player mindset?
MMO players have wisened up in the recent years. They want to be more equal and more fair, and with this level cap you need to sit on your ass 24/7 every day and kill boars. Ain't nobody got time for that. People will leave = another dead MMO.
Mabinogi solved this to a degree with it's Rebirth system, and any game that allows multiple leveling of jobs/classes will help ensure lower level people will not be left alone
This can be further enhanced by a level-sync function along with incentives for max level people to gain experience points even at the current max level
You reminded me i had this shit installed still after getting scammed by/vm/ into playing it
I think its alright but at the end of the day its just another silly, sameish asian mmo that feels like ive played it before
It's a bit of a clusterfrick nowadays, but it was genuinely impressive for it's time and has a lot of systems/ideas I believe more MMOs should try to incorporate
A truly free-form system where you're able to equip and use whatever you want
The rebirth system which rewards leveling multiple times with character growth in the form of AP
Life skills that actually benefit your character with useful stats along with the perks the skills themselves bring
I think it did a lot right before taking a turn for the worst
That doesn't really solve anything though and in fact it exacerbates the issue.
As I said, MMO's are at their best when you're totally clueless playing alongside other clueless people, cause that's when you actually get to go on an actual adventure in the game and figure things out by yourself through mutual cooperation.
Grouping up with someone who's already reached the end and has seen everything isn't the same at all, they already know how it all works and will often just carry you and explain everything leaving no room for exploration or failure, you're just following a list of optimized checkmarks laid out to you by someone else. That's not cooperation because the new player is contributing nothing.
I can agree that there's some charm to be found in learning/exploring alongside other new players as a new player yourself, but to say they're at their best when you're ONLY playing alongside new players isn't something I feel I can agree with
Whether you're playing with other new players or people who are max level, in the end it all comes down to a matter of the type of individuals you play with
You can have max level player who throw caution to the wind with new players, in an attempt to make things more entertaining/exciting and are generally OK with letting people take their time and explore, just like how some new players who look up videos/watch streamers/read Wikis before doing anything and couldn't give a shit about exploration and just want to go from point A to point B asap
Thinking back on it, I feel like the game where I felt the most comradery was probably FFXI myself, where I was constantly with high level people even as a lower level, but it's system was essentially built on it
Something else to add to this; the MMO market, and by extension the community has dramatically shifted over the last 15 years
You're more likely to run into the latter type of new player than you are the type of individual who generally enjoys exploring
I've experienced this more recently with the launch of PSO2NGS last year
I've been thinking about this a lot and I think this is why FFXI was so good. There wasn't a ton of info in it's early years so it was mostly trial and error and the game required people to discover the world together.
Dataminers literally killed MMOs.
I think the ideal MMO in my mind would not have super flashy skills or spells. Just basic classes and abilities that a group has to use to survive the world. The map would be huge and leveling up would require the group to journey across to specific locations with the group having the ability to rest/explore caves etc along the way. I think the scale would have to be massive though to keep people from mapping everything out in a week and knowing everything
Studios copying WoW has been the problem. A few developers is enough to make a couple of characters, items, areas, and activities per day and have an MMO of content in 1 month.
For me it was the insane power creep that came with transcendent classes.
for me it was renewal, which gradually made the game more and more like a solo oriented theme park. private servers and the japanese official server are still pretty active though. I wish oriro would come back soon so I could continue leveling my gc crusa
Yes, if you like lord of the rings and chill bit of grinding and world exploration
Can you tell them you saw my shill threads so i can get 100 lotro points deposited to my account
Blame the fact that older players need incentives to help newer players get through old content. If you look at pre-2.1 FFXIV dungeons, they're built more roundabout. What winds up happening is that the older players just run the newer players through it anyways. It might as well be a corridor.
Some of the newer content still has interesting level design, though. Like making one party stand in the computer room to warn the other parties about traps.
>AAAA WHY CANT I JUST DO THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN, WHY DO I HAVE TO DO THIS QUEST THAT MAKES MY BRAIN THINK A LITTLE AND ACTUALLY GIVES ME MORE XP
Stop making mmos for autistic neets who treat it like a job.
Focus on the casual audience and give players plenty of reason to hang around towns and socialize.
Minigames, events, and player created content should be the primary focus above all else. The game should still be fun even if I never kill a single mob.
All combat should revolve around parties and content should be equally distributed for all levels.
If players still insist on grinding by themselves it should be as miserable and time consuming as possible to drive off spergs who refuse to communicate.
They tried this with MapleStory 2 and it didn't really work out
MapleStory 2 also had a fricking awful raiding scene though so I'm sure that didn't help any on the gameplay side of things
I was talking about 2. It was one of the only highlights of the game. The style and the UGC.
2 years ago
Anonymous
My point is breasts doesn't change the fact everything else was hideous and it wasn't enough to keep the game alive. Believe it or not not every person is a braindead coomer.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I didn't say it was enough to keep it alive. I'm saying the UGC and the artstyle was one of the only reasons it stayed alive as long as it did, and would have died even sooner without it, because the gameplay certainly wasn't.
you can't fix mmos because mmo players want them to be shit. just look at the threads about fixing the trinity and all the posters who literally can't think outside of the triangle or think that getting rid of tab targeting makes the game not a mmo anymore. mmos are the only genre where people are willing to pay money to not have to play the game.
Not necessarily, it's a mentality problem, for some reasons homosexuals have decide that they get their best dopamine rush by seeing big numbers or obtaining "rare" items (even if they aren't rare but are perceived as such, for example a powerful item with a low drop rate but that can be farmed indefinitely, making it just an item you have to grind out), these are the type of players you should avoid getting in your mmo, because their presence will frick up the game for everyone else and so the game should be built in a way to have the least appeal possible to them.
that is the core mmo audience though. even in old mmos that people act nostaligic about the stories they tell are always about how they were the first to find something or the only one to have some item or the best at some skill. no one ever played mmos for the gameplay. it was just a platform to build epeen.
look at it another way. if a mmo dev accidentally broke loot tables so nothing would drop how many people would keep raiding for the fun of it vs camping on the game forums refusing to log in until it's fixed?
There was an anon's post on mmos maybe a week ago, I wish I saved it. But the gist was that MMOs are completely an illusion, you think you're getting strong and getting rare items but at the end of the day it's just being drip-fed to you by developers. Your progress can be rolled back any time, and your strength is directly tied to when the devs decide to release new content. And if you exploit to actually gain an advantage from beyond the game and actually become powerful, your account is donezo.
>w many people would keep raiding for the fun
But that's the issue, you shouldn't have to repeat the same raid a million of times until the next one comes out, raids are fine, they should be very hard though and they should be played out for the challenge and to conquer the out not to grind every single item in there because you NEED it, the main activities of mmos should be sandbox activities, PvP, Economy and anything that can actually influence the world of your character, the focus should NEVER be put into gameplay loops like raids of dailies of any sort, on this front EvE online is a good example, shame about the gameplay and "leveling" system.
2 years ago
Anonymous
dota only has one map and there are people who have been playing it for almost 20 years now just for "fun."
2 years ago
Anonymous
ASShomosexualS players are the lowest common denominator and should be considered subhumans.
In that case you're not playing a game, you're just paying to dress up a virtual barbie doll.
Anyone who derives fun from being the only wienersucker to own different a specific color of clothes needs to be put down.
Get a bunch of white nerds in a room and they'll create an awesome mmo. The problem with modern MMOs is they are made by MBAs.
You want to know why MMOs today are linear and made for kids? Because that's how you get the most runtime per hour spent world building. Why are they made for kids? Because that's how you get the widest audience. Everything is made to get the most money out for the least amount of work / employees.
Whenever you get a bunch autistic enthusiasts together you get the real deal instead.
WoW was originally built by nerds that loved the lore and the world and it shows. FF xiv was built by a bunch of spergs that loved that universe and it shows.
The games that followed, Tera and the rest, were built by people that wanted to cash in on the craze, and it shows too.
Fixing MMOs will take a new company made up of enthusiasts from top to bottom. No MBAs, no diversity quotas, just enthusiastic nerds.
mmo's require way too much budget nowadays for a few nerds to make one, let alone maintain one with the sheer amount of servers you need. just stick to indie games at this point, accept that mmo's are dead and no one is able to make an actual good one
You make the game 95% cutscene, remove most of the multiplayer aspects, and make every class in the game just do a rotation that does damage and nothing else
bonus points for dungeons that are linear hallways and having no endgame besides a couple of raids
then you just add bunny girls and people will praise it as the greatest mmo ever made
Just make a modern update to ffxi, one with more stuff to do and faster paced gameplay, but with the same emphasis on exploration and discovery, and on forming parties with other people
I don't care if morons hate LFGing to play the game, play a single player game if you wanna play by yourself you gays
Remember .hack//Infection?
Do that but with a real MMO
teaming up with people you meet in the hub towns to go through procedurally generated dungeons with random monsters traps and treasure and occasionally seasonal event and story areas/dungeons
But they are because their autism drove off everybody else.
Devs aren't going to piss off their only customers.
WoW and XIV players WANT theme park mmos so that's all we get.
because wow is a shit game for a large variety of reasons
the notion of an mmo from the mid 2000s is simply not usable
hell everquest mmos have a better shot of being succesful than they do
People have other games to play than a theme park MMO.
2 years ago
Anonymous
well yes that is also a large part of the reason as to why they and most live service games are dead
they, especially more modern ones, are designed to eat up all your time, so a single person can only play 1, maybe 2 total
>Make a game that caters to roleplayers and not minmaxers
this. no matter how much open map design you shove in, if there's an optimal path to the objectively best build/gear/etc your game is a monkey game in disguise.
>Make a game that caters to roleplayers and not minmaxers
this. no matter how much open map design you shove in, if there's an optimal path to the objectively best build/gear/etc your game is a monkey game in disguise.
Shroud of the Avatar (Lord British's last game before he got targeted by cryptoshitter NFTrannies to make a blockchain game. ) is a good example of this. Its a 3D title but a spiritual successor to Ultima games and is heavily about RP. You can actually talk/type to NPCs with keywords, highlighted and hidden. NPC will have generic names like A City Guard until you hail them and ask them their name and then they'll be Guard Therston etc. There's a frickload of RP stuff and a VERY comprehensive non-instanced housing system. Same thing with trades. There's a lot to like about it if you're not a graphics prostitute (its Unity so it can be played on most anything and has a lot of custom shit). There's a llot of in game RP communities too.
Also if you want EverQuest-like, Pantheon: Rise of the Fallen is in the works. We're yet to see what happens and how well they'll be able to take the awesome worldbuilding without the tedium, but we'll see. Its in closed testing currently.
>Shroud of the Avatar
I actually came across it a few days ago because it was mentioned in some youtube comments, it kinda looked interesting but going by steam reviews it seems dead right now.
I think we should look forward instead of looking back, old concepts like Everquest and Ultima won't sell today.
Imagine a game where you have servers with thousands of people playing and every single one has their own instance of the world, unaffected by other people. But you're still able to see and talk to everyone else playing the game, only that they appear as translucent ghosts unless you group up and share a branching instance of the world together.
You could play it singleplayer and you would still have a sense of community as the world around you would be sprawling with people. Dungeons and raid areas that normally would be instanced and disconnected from the world would now be full of people. You could have invasion-like PvP mechanics where you enter other players and groups worlds to slay them.
This concept would allow developers to create a brand new type of MMOs where they don't have to design around large amounts of people competing for spawns or resources, or clans roaming around ganking, but instead something more akin to a singleplayer experience; amplified by multiplayer on a massive scale.
The best of both worlds.
I thought about persistence, say you have two players each in their own instance and they both have a bunch of different monsters they've killed behind them. Then they group up and enter a fresh instance where all the monsters are alive through some in-game lorefriendly way. They kill some monsters and part ways.
When they return to their own instances they'll realize that the monsters they've killed together carries over to their instance, on top of the monsters they killed before grouping up. Anything that happens in any instance you're a part of will carry over to your individual instance.
because mmo players don't want gameplay, they want a never-ending stream of repetitive low-effort content, they don't even want to actually play with other people
That image is pretty dumb. WoW Classic shows what happens when you take a modern audience and have them play the old version, the current audience will just optomise it. So you can have a huge sprawling map, but after a few times, the players will run it a certain way, which is deemed the quickest and its ran that way forever. Might as well do the hallway shit.
Also you cannot fix the mmo genre. It had its time in the sun, similar to RTS, and its just time to move on. The genre is fundamentally flawed and cannot be fixed. For example, for an MMO to be good, it needs to be a time sink in some form or another to keep the playerbase constantly online as much as possible, but its not smart to demand your playerbase to spend 8+ or even 2+ hours per day. PVP is also a requirement, but there is no good way to implement PVP in the game because 99% of the playerbase will avoid any encounter, if they can, unless its stacked in their favor which causes one party to not have an enjoyable time, while this is a requirement for pvp to be good, eventually the more casual players will just stop playing because they dont want to put up with bullshit.
Theres just too many games to play now that have a social component to them that dont require as much time investment as a good MMO requires. Move on.
Nobody has really tried making an MMO that isn't a time-sink before which is why I think it will work. Look at Elden Ring as an example, it had way over a million concurrent players when it launched and after 6 months it was down to 20k, which is about the same numbers as New World. No matter how much time-sink shit they put in the game it won't matter because most people have a finite amount of time to play games every day anyway.
When ER releases their DLC I guarantee those numbers will be back up to well over a million. Now Imagine that they could keep pumping out content for the game, people would play the frick out of it. So why won't this work for an MMO?
Most games are MMOs but they're considered gen 3 MMOs. The single player except you can see eachother genre, or hub/menu matchmaking games. Think Destiny 2, Fo76, Warframe, GW1, and Phantasy Star online. And to a lesser extent monster hunter, rust/ARK, or even fortnite.
I really wouldn't be surprised if we got another Final Fantasy MMO. Which was a always online single player game where you can see other players in the hub areas, and can queue into missions with either NPCs or real players. With the "endgame" being the same dungeons and boss fights with larger damage numbers and AI disabled.
Basically take what people want and expect from modern MMOs and reduce the server cost, or near outright removes them if you go peer to peer. Always online fricks over pirates. And your main audience can still use it as a afk simulator to show off their cosmetic DLC.
>The single player except you can see eachother genre, or hub/menu matchmaking games. Think Destiny 2, Fo76, Warframe, GW1, and Phantasy Star online. And to a lesser extent monster hunter, rust/ARK, or even fortnite.
They're called MMO-lites, and like you said they're the true successors to MMOs nowadays.
MMOs have to actually be good standalone games now on top of having good infrastructure to host thousands of players at once. As it stands right now MMOs are just a niche genre with watered down combat/systems and a chore fest. MMOs were a product of their time and only thrived because the internet was still novel and people were social in games. Now people just go on discord with their friends and play whatever game they want. The demand for MMOs are romanticized and it would take something revolutionary like SAO-tier VR to revitalize the genre.
This. Why bother making a good mmo when you can just make a good game with maybe some multiplayer. There's no incentive to making MMOs unless it's with a big IP, and if you have a big IP you know people will eat it up anyway so you don't need to make it any good. It's the death cycle of MMOs.
This. Why bother making a good mmo when you can just make a good game with maybe some multiplayer. There's no incentive to making MMOs unless it's with a big IP, and if you have a big IP you know people will eat it up anyway so you don't need to make it any good. It's the death cycle of MMOs.
MMOs used to be social hubs with chill people you could exchange stories with. The moment people stopped interacting with others online is the day MMOs' fate was sealed.
Setting the above aside, my main gripe with MMOs was the copious amounts of padding. Stuff like enchanting bullshit that could burn your gear. Nothing worse than losing an entire week's worth of progress because a diceroll said frick you. This was all aggravated by the fact that dominant guilds would camp and time the spawn spots of mobs and bosses that yielded the materials you needed.
Why should I commit a bunch of time playing a mediocre game when I could play other games that specialize in things I'm interested in, and also do it better?
Their only answer to this question for the past 2 decades is, "because you can play with a lot of people at once", and it's no longer an acceptable answer.
>MMOs then
1000$ for full xXxPussy_SlayerxXx set with frickton attack and def stats which makes you literally invincible. >MMO's now
1000$ for another useless pet's reskin.
Do you talk to random people in an MMO?
Do you really feel an attachment to those people if they're just in a screen?
VR isn't like that. In VR aren't just screen people, and yet it's hard to relate with those that still see everyone else as screen people.
most of this map is empty and lifeless
even with the update of picking which expac you want to do for leveling 99% of the time you'll pick the fastest one and ignore the rest
which means even more of the world will be untouched
Unironically, the thing that makes MMOs possible is also the thing thats killing it. For an MMO to be able to live and prosper, connectivity needs to be dialed down as much as possible. Every time a new game comes out, 50 million gays already made guides on whats the best way to earn gold, whats the best pvp build, and how to frick your mom in 3 seconds or less. Unfortunately, the only way this would be possible is through fantasy bullshit technology.
You stupid homosexuals literally don't play anything, that's why you think the MMO genre is broken. Rust, Life is Feudal: MMO, Atlas. All great games, and work exactly how people who started playing Ultima Online when it first released had imagined the genre to go.
>Atlas >Life is feudal >good games
holy shit frick off moron. you cant be serious.
Atlas was a fricking flop, piece of shit that barely functioned on release and has been summarily abandoned by its developers. the game was such a scam you could literally open the ARK menu inside of it.
>game barely functions on release
Okay. And? Is that all you have to say about it? Casual tasteless homosexuals who don't play anything and only watch shit on Twitch should have that shit branded to their skull, so that we know that's where they get their opinions from.
I bought the game and refunded it because of how much of a lazy fricking cash grab it was you projecting autistic triple Black person. You're a studio wildcard wienersucker. The game was broken on release, still is broken to this day, and was fricking abandoned because it's only purpose was to be a slightly reskinned ark to double dip and fund all their gay animation and dlc/sequel projects.
Congrats wildcard wienersucker you ignored my entire post to fellate for your shitty broken abandoned pirate game that has less than 1000 concurrent players because it was SHIT and ABANDONED.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I'm not even reading your posts at this point lol. All I'm hearing is REEEEEE
2 years ago
Anonymous
I'm sure ignoring dissenting opinions has gone real well for you and the less than 700 people currently playing your supposedly fantastic game.
>ripoff
If you keep calling games that improve on a previous formula a ripoff, you'd be stuck on Spacewar! forever and videogames wouldn't advance at all.
I would play Lost Ark to be quite honest, I felt like doing it the other day, but then I remembered how braindead it is. There's barely any combat, you just run from one npc to another occasionally stopping to kill trash mobs with no tactics or thought required. Really weird shit.
Wat? No I want satisfying character progression and combat, items dropping with different modifiers to choose between to customize my character...like a normal Diablo clone.
Every mmorpg derived from wow will be absolute shit. >worst quests in any video game ever >gameplay pseudo crpg sometimes good but encounter design is fricking trash except for some raid bosses >no rewards for exploring >no rewards for anything except go quest or dungeon gringd >endless progression where if you login one year after you played everyone does 10x more dmg and have more hp even though you grinded the best set ever made
There do exist games where people won't write guides because knowledge is a thing best kept secret for your own clans success. You wouldn't know about any of them of course, but I'm just saying.
GW2 perfected the mmo formula. All content is relevant, no power increases making your earned loot turn into skins as a new patch comes out. Looking deep into the endgame makes you hate all other MMOs garbage systems. I regret not pushing through the rough part of getting used to the combat and systems. It really can't be accurately judged until you have geared yourself correctly and understood how all the mechanics interact. The game genuinely has a lively playerbase and there are people everywhere since relevant content is everwhere. Theres some homosexualry sprinkled in a few places but definately not as much as modern disgusting garbage.
You need to kill about 15,000 monsters before you can start killing dragons kid, and another 15,000 before you can even think of going into the Blackwing Lair. Get to it.
Isn't left just a FFXIV map? It just shows that no one really cared too much about trekking the areas. I think people forget that actually walking or riding around was actually a pain/hassle. I remember in Mabinogi I always hated going to Bangor.
Solutions already exist, but mmoautists don't want to use them. So the answer is no, you can't fix the MMO genre because MMO autists won't accept the necessary changes.
Final Fantasy XIV perfected the MMO genre
the invisible walls ruin it it's like you're trapped in a tiny cube
my biggest complaint too. It doesn't feel like a world at all, its too video-gamey with loading screens and invisible walls that completely take me out of any immersion. I want to know where zones are and how to travel to them, not select where to go on a list.
Isn't it possible to make infinite randomly generated seemingly empty maps to the sides, just to give the illusion of getting lost in the woods or the desert, discouraging players to leave the main track, but also allowing for exploration as a skill?
moron
homosexual.
>final fantasy xiv
>mmo
I love XIV but dont say this
Its not even an MMO its more like a JRPG with a lot of multiplayer content
moron homosexual
Yeah by making it a single player game lmao
Makes sense, the worst part of MMOs is usually other people.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
ff14 has the best writing out of any mmo but has a ton of problems when it comes to gameplay
never played it, what don't you like?
Starting off the amount of loading screen in this game is insane. You have to go through 4 loading screens if you want to visit a friend's house on another server. The tick rate for the game is abysmal which makes combat feel clunky, especially in pvp. Glamour (the game's vanity system), is unintuitive and frustrating at best. The cash shop is huge and has a lot of cool emotes/mounts/outfits that aren't possible to get in game. I dont understand why people shit on blizzard's cash shop while ff14's is 100x worse.
Overall the game is fun but its not the second coming like a lot of people claim it is.
im pretty sure wowgays shat on their own cash shop because of tokens and w/e
People are mad about the tokens yeah, but whenever a new mount drop on the cash shop the community flips their shit saying it should be earnable ingame. Meanwhile over in ff14 land its the exact opposite. I've seen people praising the devs over outfits available only with real money
not that anon but people flip their shit in XIV too. Like with what happened with cruise chaser. People have always complained about not being able to get the scion outfits without paying too.
But CBUIII's deal with SE yada yada, shikata ga nai and so on
It perfected the online singleplayer RPG with optional co-op
Character and world building are small.
Players want a fantasy world. Games with leveling usually have time-gating because the content is limited to a few activities, often that aren't cohesive (to character and worldbuilding). WoW has pet battles, dungeons, raids, instanced PvP, questing, professions, world PvE, world PvP. Approximately none of these are relevant to the others. Pet battles don't win you items, bonuses, or areas; dungeons and raids are removed from potential risks; instanced PvP is limited by 4 questlines to unlock covenants (and further reputation grind) and doesn't very much contribute to the world; professions are limited to a few crafted pieces per character; world PvE doesn't reward quality currency or gear; world PvP has little incentive: The world stays the same; character status is permanent; PvE isn't affected; npcs aren't dynamic; it's still impossible to control resources and zones -- people can simply play MOBAs if they want PvP, and it starts everybody at approximate fairness. You *want* players to play all day (people use media as entertainment all day a lot, and video games are interactive), especially if items are bet, which is the most adrenergic style of play. This is where the most spending, fun, and advertisement is. Make a real money auction house; let players take others' items on PvP servers. Risk defines community because of emergent and compelling gameplay; Rust, Minecraft, and ARK are some of the most played games.
Linear, permanent equipment is the problem. What is a character to do once gear is had? Economy is the what to do, so items should be losable so that risk: reward and variety: depth are central (players can have more, such as size, mobility, and abilities rivaling comics, and the capability of attacking groups, if power is transient).
PvP servers should have full loot.
There are a handful of games that exactly are based around what you mention
https://crowfall.com/ , is one of the first PVP MMOs that is actually designed FOR PVP not just griefers and an afterthought bolted onto the rest of the game world. There are "eternal kingdoms" with low level resources, but are safe - players can build their own or band together and have a guild house/hall , and other permanent resources. However to get these resources you need to go to "campaign worlds". These have different rules - some are FFA , some are 2 faction, some 3 faction , and are basically studded with resource nodes. Its up to you to go there and claim a node and hold it as long as you can. You can build a whole fort around it etc.. . or siege someone else's. Fighting in the campaign world or even one player mining or harvesting some random thing gives resources. At the end of however long the campaign is there are winners and losers, and everyone gets to take home their shit and this is waht's used to upgrade your Eternal Kingdom's resources. Gear is craftable by design and you need better resources to make better gear as well as proper crafting materials/stations. You can swap between different classes/races too (the player is a "crow" soul, who can inhabit different bodies if desired) and combat has physical presence - tanks literally block and can form a shieldwall formation etc. There's more to it, but if you liked the old games like Shadowbane, want Game of Thrones style territory capture and intrigue, this is its spiritual successor and finally the tech has caught up and is viable. Its not perfect but there's a lot to like if you want a truly PVP focused MMO.
>implement the gameplay dynamic that routinely kills MMORPGs by making the game actively hostile to Average Joe
Risk systems are fricking awful for MMORPGs. Ark, Rust gameplay loops are designed specifically for everyone's progress to be reset. People play MMORPGs specifically for character growth, and by extension, progression permanence. I play an MMO where one of the devs continually tries to make high risk an active part of the game because Ultima Online made him cum super hard - risk was actively engaged by the playerbase, but 5 years later risk is such a joke that you can free farm for hours without seeing another soul.
Originally there was a separate server for risk. It declined to such a sorry state that when one guild was banned for exploiting in a raid, half the server's population disappeared. So they merged the servers and implemented an optional risk mode, which again failed as the same inherent issues with item loss systems in a permanent progression gameplay loop began to set in. Various methods of trying to force players to engage in risk are employed (exclusive BiS crafting materials, endgame drops, PvP events) and none ever work to get anyone to play risk except the exact same 2-3 guilds of people every time.
Which in reality is the problem; When the same group of people succeed in a risk based system more than a few times in a row, it becomes progressively less likely for them to ever fail. Especially when the gulf becomes wide enough to make competition feel impossible, more often than not the average player stops playing your game. Why would they continue to? They will always be at a disadvantage, and an MMORPG by design does not wipe progress. The other issue is that most sane people do not want to lose months of progress to a corpse camping israelite.
I feel that a fun exercise would be to compile a list of every MMORPG with a successful prominent risk system contrasted by a similar list of those that failed.
>implement the gameplay dynamic that routinely kills MMORPGs by making the game actively hostile to Average Joe
It doesn't routinely affect MMORPGs because there are approximately zero A+ MMOs with item loss.
>Ark, Rust gameplay loops are designed specifically for everyone's progress to be reset.
ARK's usual gamemodes are persistent.
Minecraft doesn't have a progress reset.
>People play MMORPGs specifically for character growth, and by extension, progression permanence.
What are characters supposed to do when they have their items? Item loss contributes to how many playstyles are possible because a dynamic economy allows PvE to be repeatable for rewards and content always relevant.
>When the same group of people succeed in a risk based system more than a few times in a row, it becomes progressively less likely for them to ever fail.
Gameplay should be skill-based to an extent, and items would be available enough that it wouldn't happen up to an extent; when it does, they deserve it.
>The other issue is that most sane people do not want to lose months of progress to a corpse camping israelite.
Then only play with what you can afford.
>It doesn't routinely affect MMORPGs because there are approximately zero A+ MMOs with item loss.
What could possibly be the culprit of this bizarre phenomenon?!
>ARK's usual gamemodes are persistent.
My bad, I didn't know the official gamemode never wiped.
>Minecraft doesn't have a progress reset.
I avoided Minecraft because I wouldn't say that the RPG servers in that game have equivalent time investment for losable progress compared to the average player's expectation for an MMORPG. Granted there are so many variations of those it is hard to make that generalization...
>What are characters supposed to do when they have their items?
They beat that part of the game. They are free to enjoy the rest of the MMORPG experience. Your prospective successful MMORPG does have gameplay beyond beating on loot pinatas and e-peen measuring, right Anon? There are options for other rewards other than zug zug bigger number, wouldn't you agree? Items representing the end-all-be-all of progress in an MMORPG is a sad symptom of homogenized game design across the genre.
>how many playstyles are possible
>allows PvE to be repeatable for rewards and content always relevant.
This PvE had better be exceptionally good or expansive, preferably both. Even the best PvE content can get stale surprisingly fast, I'd say especially so if it is farmed as a form of sustenance as your solution would suggest. I wouldn't say this playstyle would be any appealing to me, but to each their own really
>Gameplay should be skill-based
>items would be available enough
Wouldn't stop the same groups from winning all the time, and they don't deserve to be made the reason players leave.
>Then only play with what you can afford.
No one wants to play a suboptimal version of their character because they're scared they will not be able to play the optimal version at all otherwise. It is bad game design to offer a useful reward that realistically can't be used until you're already winning.
>What could possibly be the culprit of this bizarre phenomenon?!
If they don't exist, there's no evidence of their popularity. Strategy is obviously fun; PvP games are some of the most popular.
>They beat that part of the game. They are free to enjoy the rest of the MMORPG experience.
So, they have nothing to do. See approximately every theme park MMO.
>This PvE had better be exceptionally good or expansive, preferably both.
The gameplay should be fun, and it's a PvP game, so players are building their character and the world.
>Wouldn't stop the same groups from winning all the time
One group winning every PvP engagement would be exciting.
>No one wants to play a suboptimal version of their character because they're scared they will not be able to play the optimal version at all otherwise.
If everybody's playing a game because it's the most varied:deep experience, or perhaps the only item loss sandbox, people will play with lesser playstyles because the gameplay is still fun and because they want status.
It's just a single player game with multiplayer aspects. You could achieve the same thing by multiple people all playing the same single player game in a discord call.
>literally the perfect example of the OP image on the right
>perfected
We really need a new sandbox mmo
its not even a good joke
possibly the worst excuse for a mmo i've ever played
and i've played everything from WoW to PoE to New World to TESO to some Korean MMOs
very possibly the worst game i've yet played
I was wondering what fricking game fits that description and then I saw this post
The response to WoW's death has been pathetic enough, but I think XIVgays are genuinely going to start committing public suicides when that game begins to fall off.
kys
You stupid fricking moron, 14's story comes first. The MMO aspect is a complete after-thought.
>Perfected
>Was so shit they had to remake it from scratch
>ff14
>mmo
haha what
Tranime garbage
>Tranime
Go back
you're posting on a tranime website, though
High quality bait. On the off chance this post is sincere: when do you plan on trooning our?
Low hanging bait
Otherwise, its barely a mmo, and the worst type of it too. A sub MMO with a very israeli and expensive cash shop to boot.
>FF14 highest level character boost
>$25
>WoW's highest level character boost
>$60
>FF14 race/gender change
>$10 and often on sale for $7.50
>WoW race change
>$25
>monthly bank
>monthly cash shop additions.
>datamined stuff just go straight to the cash shop
>events? 1 year into the cash shop
Puts Korean mmos to shame
You can buy gold for real money in WoW, and with gold you can buy BiS BoE gear at the start of raids. If you want world first or any meaningful progress in WoW you have to p2w.
>monthly bank
stop hoarding shit, game gives plenty of space for free on top of armory chest, armoire, and glamor dresser
>monthly cash shop additions
implying WoW doesn't do this too
>datamined stuff to cash shop
PvP sucks anyway
>event stuff to cash shop
do the events moron they're not hard
the whale mount holds 8 people
an entire raid party
$42/8 since only one person needs to buy it
what the frick at you going to do with that many people anyway
>the cultist unironically defends cash shop in a sub game with "it sucks anyway" or "you dont need it"
>most of WoW store is mounts for $25
you need to keep buying more mounts to keep up with your fat ass
wrong type of thread troony
here we cope with our seething wow hatred by shitting on all wow-esque le themepark mmos, we don't do it by pretending a console wow clone is a masterpiece
fpbp
reminder that about 30% of Ganker's population is South American and thus sub-based games enrage them like no other
but its not even an mmo? there is no economy, there is no pvp, there are no mmo pillars to speak of. its just a social room for furries?
You have accidentally typed XIV.
An easy mistake, as we have all seen.
But yes, XI is the simply the best.
A true wonder, that stands above the rest
based poster. I don't even care about the game but to see Ganker seethe is good enough for me.
MMOs have always been time wasting trash for braindead homosexuals. The entire genre doesn't have one decent game to its name, fricking pathetic.
Final Fantasy XIV
are you joking or are you just that fricking braindead?
I don't know how someone can look at FFXIV's "gameplay" and call it good
It's good
I guess it would be to someone with room temperature IQ
That's not even a mmo, never mind a good game.
Theme parks are surpassed by sandboxes.
It easily could. EVE should remove skill points (26y of subscriptions or $6.5k) and allow starter characters to do anything. FFXIV and WoW should have sandbox economies. Any game could be playable all day in 1 month.
thread should have ended here
Vanilla WoW and BC in the world of 2007 were golden age tier videogames while Wotlk was where they had potential to take the correct choice and go hardcore but the influence of activision killed WoW and retroactively damaged its reputation.
I think in general killing the Lich King was a bad idea because it marked a trend in the lore where they constantly had to have world ending bad guys upstaging each other.
Yogg Saron should have been the primary bad guy of Wrath and the Lich King should have just peaced out after the scourge was dealt with and basically said ill get you next time.
idk if that's a warlock succubus or kerrigan from starcraft but either way i'm highly aroused
both. kerrigan has a succubus skin in heroes of the storm
True. And it's potential to ever become a genre worth playing in the future is non-existent too, thanks to monetization practices now.
A company could design and advertise a better game than others easily.
You zoomers really need to shut the frick up. Your kind thinks wow invented mmos.
>My MUDS and first generation MMOs like UO were less homosexualy lil' zoomie!
cope. Need to be playing DnD with an actual real life in person friend group for this genre to not be cringe.
Full loot pvp with no instancing is the only way to make PvE in an mmo fun and exciting
horizontal progress instead of purely vertical progress (levelling up)
vertical progress is necessary, imo eve has the perfect progression system (although it should be based on building skills through usage rather than them just ticking up even while you’re offline)
the balance of deciding if you want to keep climbing the ship size ladder vs specializing in smaller hulls is really cool especially when everything has its place to be useful
>vertical progress is necessary
No.
>eve has the perfect progression system
People are too bored because approximately nothing is available or optimal until you put millions of skillpoints into it. A sandbox should have everything available to everyone; that's why people play.
Leveling is archaic. People have been leveling for 17 years and have many F2P alternatives, some with similar PvP. Survival Crafting games showed that people want realistic, immersive ways to thrive in a persistent world and have status. ARK lets you clear whole areas of resources; efficiency has a lot of upgrades; and starter quality equipment can be made in large amounts very easily, with ascendant quality requiring lots of resources and providing a lot of damage and armor. Giving players a lot to do is easy, but characters have to be able to lose status because everything else is correlative, and adrenergic gameplay is the most fun.
Gw2 did that and it fricking sucked. Without progress there's not motivation to improve.
gw2's problem isn't horizontal progress, it's that the game itself is shit
>pve open world just exists for the world map progress grind and the meta upgrade progress
>pve fractals are decent at 1-25 but afterwards become annoying to go through
>instanced pvp has always been conceptually the most fun gamemode but it's been abandonned for so long by the devs and the meta has staled the gamemode to death
>wpvp is just about deathballing, roaming is excessively difficult to pull off with so many mechanics playing against you
GW2's horizontal progression is cosmetic.
>MMOs then: For milking money from autistic subhumans
>MMOs now: For milking cash from children
Every game can be made for everybody. Physiology is near, if not, 100% similar, the same starter cells, mathematical propagation, and systems. Learning a playstyle can be done in 1 hour. People enjoy extrinsic motivation (getting things), and item rewards are important, but intrinsic motivation (mastery, choice, and socialization) are way more.
"""Smart""" people who try to be clever while failing to ask themselves if anything is wrong with their fundamental approach (this is what separates an intellectual from a non-intellectual) is a big part of why everything is such a farce right now. Not just with games, but with business in general.
People are not machines, and there are a lot of factors that will vary from person to person. How much free time do they have? What are their interests? How good are they at a particular type of game? Are there any genres that they're bored of? Do they want to interact with people? Are they looking to relax or sweat? What do they find aesthetically pleasing? You'll even run into cases where people like or dislike a game because something about it reminds them of a time in their lives.
This magic key to making a game that's literally aimed at everybody doesn't exist, and by chasing it, you just wind up saturating the market with one type of game. That's what happened with the "We want the Call of Duty audience" shit, only for Minecraft and Souls to come along and show how stupid that mindset is.
Definitely sounds like something that those """smart""" people who are running everything into the ground with their half-baked pseudo-intellectual horseshit would say.
When dealing with the question of what's satisfying, there's a calculation of effort, results, and compensation. If you give a kid a trophy for strolling down the track in gym class, he's not going to care about that stupid thing. He might even find it insulting. It makes those trophies obtainable, though, right? Therefor, depth! Fricking moronic.
Then you have to deal with the fact that the amount of effort needed to get the same results will vary from person to person. If you take an old woman and have her play a FPS game, she'll probably play for ten minutes, fail at basic competency, and then refuse to play again. Being that bad at something isn't fun, and she just doesn't care enough to get better. However, if you take a FPS fan, that same game might be too simplistic to be rewarding. You can't design the game around both audiences. You can sell to 10M FPS fans or try to make a game for everybody that's actually for nobody.
tl;dr: If you try to come up a clever business plan that tries to outright deny the presence of people's individual competencies, interests, goals, problems, relationships, etc, it's doomed to failure and you're not as smart as you think you are.
>Definitely sounds like something that those """smart""" people who are running everything into the ground with their half-baked pseudo-intellectual horseshit would say.
Not a refutation.
>You can't design the game around both audiences.
People being too old to function is a nutrition problem. Would you like to try again?
>socialization in the modern era dominated by matchmaking and quickplay, and social media
it's past your bedtime grandpa
in the modern era dominated by matchmaking and quickplay, and social media
What's your point?
You make the overworld trash hit so hard you're forced to group up and the entire game is a slow boring slog. Boom I fixed mmos
Also the forced socialization is somehow far superior to other more natural socialization because I say so for undetermined reasons.
>AAHHHHH I NEED TO TALK TO PEOPLE TO FORM GROUPS TO COMPLETE CONTENT GROUP FINDER SAVE MEEE AHHHHHHH
>AAAAHHHHHHH I CAN'T TALK TO PEOPLE NORMALLY THEY NEED TO BE FORCED TO TALK TO ME OR I CAN'T DO ANYTHING
A group listing is OK to have. Games should not have factions, and grouping should be an optimal when equipment is mediocre. PvP should control areas outside of cities and near resources, and items should be losable (at least via material durability) because dynamic gameplay comes from risk: reward.
Forced socialization is honestly the reality for people on the computer. You have to make them do it or they toil away alone in the corner.
>Forced socialization
I kinda dont want that.
Dunno why but I became less social in games these days, is it cuz I'm old now or cuz new games are so anti social that I'm conditioned to play alone now? No idea.
Because they design games to be inherently anti-social and don't make you communicate. FFXI required you talk to your party or it would be shit.
Nobody cares what you want homosexual people like you are why it needs to be forced catering to anti-social fricks too much is what killed the genre to begin with.
You don't want it because you have never played a game that has done it. All of todays games do as much as possible to keep you from interacting with other players to limit problems. Truth is if you make it so the problem is the world/enemies then people will put aside their differences to band together to advance their character. Out of this grows friendships and memories that can last a life time
Playing together is often the most efficient way to play. It's fun having players being optimal in unique ways. Play Supreme Commander FA.
Make grouping up fun and beneficial (which happens naturally in a sandbox economy), and make the world risky (especially because of PvP) and rewarding. People will want to play all day.
Gameplay vs. mobs isn't most of for what people play. Bosses and loot are way more important. Mobs should be a challenge, and world building NPC behavior should exist while NPCs are still in games, but real players should be the main challenge in accessing areas because they're dynamic and skillful.
Mmos were never good
>Elwynn Forest vs Thousand Needles
you didnt quest in 1k needles if you think that. maybe its true post cata with the flooding.
More like Felwood
>hires taxi from lumbridge to varrock
SOVL
we go back in time to a pre WoW era when MMOs were actually fun
Ever question wasn't fun. It was just novel.
Nothing, the genre needs an actual population in order to be "massive" which means catering to the lowest common denominator. Which is getting lower and lower as the medium becomes more popular. Also they were never all that good, coming from someone who played RO for years.
>the genre needs an actual population in order to be "massive" which means catering to the lowest common denominator
People like variety and depth. Strategy is fun to think about and play.
Force the entire mmo playerbase to play the same game.
EVE is approximately the only game worth that. People could PvE well enough to afford skill points.
WoW still has some of the best gameplay in the industry because of trinity and CC and gap-closer PvP.
>playing mmos
Simultaneous characters and a persistent world would make MMO the best genre. More choices is more strategy.
>MMOs then
>target audience is a drawing
>MMOs now
>target audience are cool chimps
I like my games open but I also like to be fully aware of where to go next in the main story so i'll have full knowledge to where to go to progress in the game and what i can do to pass the time/grind for xp.
this method was how i was able to get my character to level 30 in DCU Online while I always get completely lost and tune out with Champions Online.
Questing should be an option.
Make good MMOs.
Ie don't make GW/GW2/WoW/FFXIV/ESO/
I miss leveling up my rings in ever quest private server
I was one of the top damage dealers in ever quest. I was a glass mage elf conjurer. you don't need hit points if you can't get hit.
OSRS is the only proper MMO.
Other MMOs are just "the game begins when you hit max level" kind of shit where you wank raids and pvp, nothing else.
I get tired doing "get 15 boar hides" guests in every MMO. Only fetch quests and shitty dialog that nobody cares about.
They are nice social environments when you get all your fancy cosmetics, but VR chat is better for socializing.
so instead of the 'get 10 boar hides' you prefer the tan 2 million boar hides?
I like being able to do different stuff, rather than having to rush max level for content to be available.
Do tell what are the fun things you do as low level character in WoW or FFXIV
Not FF or WoW as examples but I've been playing Lotro online for a litle as a new account and the low level experience isn't too bad. Gathering and crafting aren't too bad, you got the quest content and additional meta content that's basically just an extra set of objectives with kill counts and exploration. It's probably mainly the story tying in with Lord of the Rings that's the only reason why it has staying power though, so mileage may vary
MMO's are basically just extended grinds, WoW and FF have their second grind after the leveling content and OSRS is all about the leveling and getting the super rare drops. It's nothing more than a pick your poison kind of deal
Same. Came back to it, everything is free up to 2014 or something, which is actually really good, thats up to rohan so alot of content
Right now i feel like im at a crossroads. I have a lvl 40~ hunter ive had for 8 years and all other characters are low level
Im basically trying out all the formerly p2p classes with different races
So ive done hobbit warden, high elf LM, elf champion, dwarf tank (briefly because i hate ered luin and dwarves)
Will try out RK but for some reason im not too keen on Beorning, maybe just kinda too obvious to me with the "offensive class that can transform into animal and go roar and scratch people"
Was also thinking of getting more into raids and crafting rather than just questing. Might also grind more LP to try out the Yondershire pack, i got about 600 and used some on 2 characters riding skill (a sshame that Riding isnt free now, but its cheap to unlock)
Leveling economies require too much from players while not providing enough status and choice. Areas should be relevant at all times.
osrs is single player mmo about collecting 10000000 boar hides. not to progress the game or to unlock something cool. so you can show off you wasted your time
basically cheevos mogs mount shit
Tibia was better
Honestly OpenTibia is still pretty fun sometimes. But CIPSoft completely fricked up the real one and it gets worse every time they change something.
2D gameplay is surpassed by 3D.
kill off casuals and hardcore gays
Right side is just the natural progression of the left side's game design.
>muh map size
Easily 70% of that map space is just window dressing that has no use or point to visiting it beyond "it looks neat". No matter how interesting that environmental design is, you're going to be sick of it after your 20th trip through assfrick forest when all assfrick forest brings to the table is that it makes it take longer to reach the actual content.
>muh Wiki
Mmo quest design is typically absurdly ignorant and likes to waste as much of your time as possible. Of course people are going to use wikis so they know to bring a rope, a pie dish, and 3 iron bars to shit huffer canyon when they do the quest, because the npc is going to ask them for each of those things one at a time and make you do 3 trips back to fricking bank for it.
Making large maps strategic is simple. People should be able to control resources and areas because of funneling and edge-centric safety.
More variables and less permanence so gaylord metagamers can't suck the fun out of it. There should be stats like weight that are determined by how beefy your race is, for example. There should also be stats for guile and speech, to name a couple others. Simplicity and homogeneity are killers to an mmo. Don't get me wrong, there should be some circumstances where you're able to pop online for a few hours and just have a good time doing something like a minigame or BG or whatever, but when the game starts revolving around that (like modern WoW) it slowly loses its depth and identity. Also the worlds usually just suck. Same old walking sim shit.
Race bonuses would approximately only be fun if it was possible switching races.
Bonuses should come from equipment and should start simple (size, mobility, and abilities) and still allow every character to do whatever if they have the equipment for it.
Thanks, I was thinking about trying an MMO until I saw this image.
Humans take the path of least resistance. Accept this already and you can finally accept that MMOs just aren't for you. If you make an MMO like the one on the left, people will instead play the one on the right. This is why FF11 has 5000 players and FF14 has millions even though they're both easily accessible right now. Even OSRS becomes more and more like nu-RS every year, because that's what the players want.
It's like people crying about meta gaming. If the option of convenience exists, most people will take it. You can't change this.
FFIX has few players because it's from 2000.
People like convenience because the games are mediocre.
I hate how modern MMO players dont want to have any interaction with other players. If they want to play a single player game why not play one instead?
because moronic devs keep making mmos instead of single player rpgs for some reason like this is the mid 2000s
Singleplayer games are shelved in 1 month or 2. See Elden Ring. Multiplayer games are the most lastingly playable, skillful, and exciting.
>mmos
>skillful
is this bait
There's nothing inherent about massive multiplayer design that makes it less about skill, what are you, moronic?
Playing with moronic strangers was a lot more feasible when you are like 13 when playing the games.
Nowadays I dont want to deal with moronic homosexuals that fricking suck at their class just cuz the game forces it.
Haha yeah imagine if there were adults playing the game back then what would they have done You fricking moron
The most played MMOs have little APM or strategy.
"Community" is a game design problem.
It's because modern games do everything they can to stop me from interacting with other people.
-Extremely linear progression. If I'm level 20 and my buddy is level 25, the game tells us we should be playing in two completely different maps with completely different quests. Back in the day, as long as two characters where reasonably close in levels to each other, they could party up and go kill monsters.
-Huge focus on story, dialogues and cinematics, which are inherently single-player experiences. Why would I need to group up with other people in order to watch a movie? What are we gonna do, co-op reading?
-Complete lack of any challenge whatsoever. Why in the world would I look for other people to kill 15 bears with, if said bears die in three seconds and deal barely any damage? Most of the time leveling up with other people is not only SLOWER than playing alone, but less fun as well because the game becomes even easier.
All an MMO needs is a cool open-world with interesting lore and locations, zero forced cinematics and dialogues, varied non-self sufficient classes, and enemies that can kick your ass if you try to fight them 1v1. There, I just fixed the MMO genre, the playerbase is social again.
You basically want online sandbox like wurm or H&H or eve.
But nobody interested in those type of games outside of couple hundreds autists.
Eve used to be great with huge 50k+ online.
Several things killed the project.
Lack of proper game development, such as game simplification and lots of nerfs instead of further developing of roleplay elements, such were character models, captain quarters, promised station walking access e.t.c.
Poor investing choices, such as dust and valkyre. (Probably was simply money laundering, profits were stolen instead investing).
Game is deserved to be dead. It was great, I still miss it sometimes.
No, I don't want a sandbox. I don't want mass PvP, full loot, deep economy, believable politics and all that shit. What I want is a fun themepark PvE videogame where the open-world is dangerous, that's it.
Take Vanilla WoW, but make it hard and make sure no class is able to level-up alone at a reasonable speed (ie, no Hunters soloing the entire game). Also, make quests more co-op friendly or remove them all together. That's all I want.
>no class is able to level-up alone at a reasonable speed
So basically make game almost unplayable for new players.
You're still thinking about post-WoW MMOs, where low-level zones are absolutely worthless. In Ragnarok Online the entire world is always relevant, some of the best loot is found in "low-level" zones. Even the concept of "low-level" and "high-level" zones doesn't really apply to this game.
And when a level 20 can party-up with a level 23, a level 27 and a level 31, finding groups is easy unless the game is completely dead.
Yes, and supposedly Everquest 1 as well. But I want a modern game, with modern combat and modern QoL features. And modern graphics as well.
I tried FF11 on a private server and I could barely make sense of the interface and the controls.
Because in modern MMOs leveling up is a complete waste of time. There's nothing valuable you can do or find at level 30 compared to level 60, when the "real" game starts.
Of course no one wants to do it.
Final Fantasy 11
Most people don't want to level or quest for hundreds of hours.
The problem with MMOs is that they are treated as "MMOs".
Imagine if you took every classic team-based shooter like CS and TF2, every boomer shooter, every battle royale, and all the miscellaneous singleplayer and CO-OP FPS games, and DELETED THEM, and instead every single FPS game ever released was an overwatch clone, and when you talk about FPS games it's assumed that you're talking about some variation of overwatch. That's MMOs.
The biggest mistake that MMOs are currently making is assuming that all MMO players belong in the same group and need to be playing the same MMO. Even worse than the FPS example above, MMOs aren't even "about" anything particular, there's no center that unifies all MMO players.
Some koreabrains who want to solo grind levels and do epic looking attack skills forever are completely incompatible with old school players who want to interact with other players and work through things together, who are incompatible with WoW gays who want to do guild raids forever, who are incompatible with roleplayers and socializers to whom the gameplay is of secondary importance, who are incompatible with solo PVP Black folk who want to gank noobs, who are incompatible with people who want big group PVP battles. And that's not even mentioning a bunch of lost children who are in the completely wrong genre, like people who want to have an "adventure" and "discover cool places", or people who want an epic story and questlines.
The MMO "genre" is a completely incoherent mixed bag of incompatible ideas and points of appeal. If we want to get good MMOs we need to start splitting it into multiple subgenres so we can split incompatible people who are currently stuck at a tug of war pulling MMOs into incompatible directions.
You're critiquing theme parks, but I don't think an argument exists vs. sandboxes because people being able to do whatever they want is OK.
Yes, and that's why I respect GW2, despite all its faults: they made an exploration collectathon game ten years ago, it's still the same exact game today.
That's not what he's saying at all. What's he's saying is that modern MMOs are a mishmash of genres because they try to appeal to everyone.
If let's say I like the idea of M+ in WoW, I'd rather have a game with no open-world, no PvP and no story, but a shitload of dungeons. But this isn't the case with WoW because they feel the need to add a little bit of everything... and every mode feels half-assed as a result.
He's saying that people choose playstyles, but that's compatible because nothing's stopping them. Thus, a sandbox is conclusive.
>But nobody interested in those type of games outside of couple hundreds autists.
Minecraft, Rust, ARK, ets shows that autistic is you.
mmos have never been good
the entire idea is flawed from the start, and only ever existed as a very early way to talk and hang out with friends
there's a reason the only notable ones were the super casual one that brainwashed a generation and are only now waking up and the one that explicitly goes out of its way to be as un-mmo as possible
What's your critique?
they remove almost all of the good parts of rpgs and ramp up to a thousand all of the bad parts and then charge you a monthly fee for the privilege
>lasting
yes they're drawn out
>skillfull and exciting
lmao
>they remove almost all of the good parts of rpgs and ramp up to a thousand all of the bad parts and then charge you a monthly fee for the privilege
That's vague.
>yes they're drawn out
Lasting playability comes from a variety of activities that define status.
>lmao
Not a rebuttal.
>>mmo now
still confusing.
it should be more simple, and you didn't add automovement, autotargeting, and autoatacking.
while not forgeting auto quest.
This thread again. Fricking trap them in it's the only way to make them care enough about the game.
What are some MMOs besides vanilla WoW that are like left?
>besides vanilla wow
wow was the original mmo for dumb casuals
Left side map does look like somebody who hasn't played wow in a while tried to draw Elwyn Forest from memory,
Exploration is more about what happens on the way.
MMOs were originally for naked Italian men?
>modern MMO needing a wiki
What? If anything, that would apply way more to older MMOs. Like FFXI for example, where the game basically gives you frick all in the way of guidance for quests so your only real chance to completing them is reading BG wiki.
picrel is the only time any MMO targetted POCs bro
You're conveniently leaving out the fact the image on the left has been deleted from existence because players are autistic, will map out the most efficient and time saving way to do things, and exclude you from groups if you don't follow the pdf that explains it. The image on the right is the result of 20 years of players optimizing fun out of games so that people can actually play together without fracturing a community to pieces.
Game knowledge is fun and rewarding. Characters should start with access to everything so that playstyles are more than following guides.
Ok before we go deeper into how to fix MMOs, define what a MMO is
see
That’s not tell me what MMOs are
Massively multiplayer online
Do pretty much any game where 100+ people can interact with each other on the map right?
Bigger than that, 100s could just be a battlefield game. Need thousands across dozens of zones and MMO is usually tied to RPG
So MMOs don't exist.
>it's been so long since a game actually had massively multiplayer that zoomers think this
He didn't stand in Org in 2004 and have his mind blown by the scale and volume
You asked to define what mmo is. I did as you asked. I'm not going to debate or argue with you on any other point. Someone else can oblige you.
An MMO should probably be defined as 500 players+ in a persistent world.
ancient MMOs used to be social activities with a game attached
MMOs today are games with some social activity tacked on
You are literally nostalgic for the 90s and 00s equivalent of facebook and twitter
ancient MMOs used to be social activities with a "game" attached
MMOs today are "games" with some social activity tacked on
For me it wasn't a game, it was my life. Player vs player conflict, politics and drama is the only thing I lived for back in the days. And I played real games for real people: Lineage II and EVE Online. Now it is not the same: most conflicts are non-issue or are resolved quickly, same thing for the game interactions. For instance, 15 years ago you could ambush a rival guild on a world boss that spawns once per 10 days and take the loot that has low chance to drop from that boss, but it boosts people so hard it's insane. Now these kind of bosses do not exist, or else normalgays would screech.
PVP games can be optimized too and the fun can be sucked out. Look at EVE Online and Dark Souls multiplayer.
The more difficult and lengthy the grinds are, the more players will socialize (as long as partying up is the optimal strat).
This causes people to actually do MMO shit. Also it means lots of the game isn't just hit max level -> raid endlessly.
But people b***h when a game takes ages to hit max level (or even has no max level). Because gamers want the socialization and "soul" of a grindy korean MMO, but they also want to instantly be max level and powerful without putting in any effort. Essentially having their cake and eating it too.
>The more difficult and lengthy the grinds are, the more players will socialize (as long as partying up is the optimal strat).
No it doesn't. It means people will be extremely incentivized to optimize the grind so as to reduce the amount of time it takes. And exclude/shame/excommunicate anyone who does not follow the optimal path. It is explicitly what destroys mmos.
One of the better posts recently.
Instantly being max level is important because many games are available, especially free, some having similar gameplay.
Tedium doesn't make people do "MMO shit" or "soul", the good stuff is in spite of the tedium this anon has it right
. This is a common error and how shitstains like WildStar ended up as they did because someone decided to just make things HARDCORE FOR THE REAL HARDCORE which led to the death of the game. An example; because they designed dungeons that, if you didn't run them as perfect, timed runs you got shitty silver/bronze prizes that gave you nothing instead of the gold rank prize that gave you the "gear you NEED to progress to the first tier of raiding, statwise", it meant nobody taught noobs how to play or played with anyone who wasn['t already capable gear or technique wise of getting gold rank, lest they'd waste half an hour or more. As expected, everyone who wasn't a hardcore progression type quit because there was nobody to teach them and they would not move any further. This is just one of many, many examples for how shitty things can be.
One major issue is people looking back with rose tinted glasses
>That old MMO I remember first/most beloved was fun
>That old MMO I remember first/most beloved had some tedious grindy shit in it
>That's what's missing, so that is what made the fun -
>FALLACY
They figure "well it took hours of camping to get the drop, raiding was a sub-game of organizing/time management/drama before several hours blocked out for the content, or we had to walk and summon each other to the dungeon etc" and assume that is what made it good when that is not the case at all.
>Nobody talks anymore!
This isn't because of raid finder, dungeon finder, or any other QoL improvement, its because of people sometimes being shitty. You focus on the time you met that friend, significant other, guildmate etc... in a group, but ignore the hundreds of times you had an at best polite, minimal communication as required for tactics. I'm out of room but it goes on from there - tedium/grind is to be avoided.
WOW LE EPIC DUNGEON AND LE EPIC RAID UH OH DONT STAND ON THE BIG RED CIRCLE OR YOU DIE!!
mmos have always been for numberschimps
>ctrl f combat
>0 found
how has no one mentioned the absolutely trash autoattack combat system that has plagued every mmo? i wanted to play WoW for like 2 years after it came out based on screenshots, friend hype, the promise of playing a neat fantasy world with friends, etc. finally got a subscription, and canceled it after one day upon finding out the combat was the gayest most boring fricking thing ever. do something else. even elder scrolls (not online) combat would be better. or soulslike combat. maybe even TURN-BASED combat would be better.
Think mmo wise I tera has the best combat or maybe BDO
Wrong, it was BnS.
If Vindictus and DFO don't count, yeah it would be BnS. The balance of a fast paced gameplay while having content that supports it by constantly aiming to challenge you with its mechanics.
>tera
had, all the servers shut down
because mmos are guaranteed to have bad combat so it's not worth bringing up
An MMO can have any combat. Networking is simply position, direction, and action.
Wikia killed the MMO genre
It's not really a problem being able to Wiki information. A studio could make resources have plausible locations and could provide a map with where; questing isn't always some obvious route (and usually isn't intriguing or rewarding enough to be searching simulators). Optimizing routes is fun, but characters strategically playing together is better.
>Make fully Open MMO
>Players upload video of the optimal route, gear, class
>Wonder why devs then scale back things
Sure is a mystery. Min/Max homosexuals ruined the MMO genre not the devs.
Make it randomly generated gear and regularly patch any optimal pooping equips that show up. Do not let your players get comfy or form metas.
>Players start to leave because they can't cheese or min/max
You can't win anon.
Frick those players and hope their houses burn down. Nobody wants them in the community and they drive good people away.
No one wants them but everyone follows them as people don't want to be non-optimal.
They're a screaming minority and after around two weeks would be forgotten.
If that were true, it wouldn't be a pervasive of a problem as it is. In fact, we are the minority. The majority of people want to optimize or follow optimization. As unfortunate as it is.
Fun gameplay has people playing however they want.
It absolutely doesn't. It will be optimized regardless of how enjoyable it is or not. Look at monster hunter.
If people don't have their favorite equipment playstyle for PvE, they'll still do it. It events are randomly located, people will do what they usually would and go to an even that spawns nearby.
>the fault is on the meta
just admit you're a shitter who cant play video games anymore
Variety and depth allow mastery, choice, and socialization.
>Nobody wants them in the community
They are the community homosexual. MMOs have two endgames, style and power, get used to it. The social aspect got replaced by Discord. Don't like it? Well there's a reason MMOs died.
Discord isn't enough to facilitate gameplay.
If they're a small disliked minority then chasing them away isn't actually an issue
People will map the tile patterns or do the math on drop tables and still optimize their way around it. It is an unwinnable scenario.
One of the best ways to provide loot is random events.
Someone will map out the randomness. How to trigger events, the specific potential spawn points of said random events, and then plot an optimized rotation/path through them.
So what?
You should really read a reply chain before you post.
Random events can't be triggered. Players aren't going to sit at specific spawn points in a huge world.
>random events can't be triggered
theres no such thing as true random in video games. there are variables that simulate randomness and people are autistic enough to track that and path an optimal route.
>players aren't going to sit at specific spawn points in a huge world
an entire 15 years of people waiting for time lost proto drake spawns in wow, and people autistically making entire website trackers to track NM's in eureka/bozja disagrees with your sentiment.
>there are variables that simulate randomness and people are autistic enough to track that and path an optimal route.
No.
>an entire 15 years of people waiting for time lost proto drake spawns in wow
Events that consistently spawn are lucrative to do.
>consistently spawn
>random amount of time within a certain window that is hours long
You've defeated your own argument. By your own admission you've stated if something is lucrative enough, people will wait for it. No amount of randomness matters. And if its lucrative, someone, many even, will attempt to optimize it. Be it by learning about the downtime between spawns, the location of spawns, the requirements for spawns to occur, etc.
If what you are advocating for is TRUE 100% randomness, how do you balance the influx of materials/items/gear from something potentially spawning 6 times in a 5 minute period? You as a developer have zero control over the influx of items/money into your games economy, and balance then goes out the window. It's a flawed premise from the start.
>random amount of time within a certain window that is hours long
You made that up, but even if it was hours, going to an event or doing other activities and making money would be more lucrative than sitting at a potential spawn point.
>If what you are advocating for is TRUE 100% randomness, how do you balance the influx of materials/items/gear from something potentially spawning 6 times in a 5 minute period?
By setting the rate at which specific items drop.
>You made that up
No, I fricking didn't you assclown.
>The spawn time of Time-Lost Proto-Drake is estimated to be around 2-8 hours.
>Time-Lost Proto-Drake shares his spawn timer, spawn points and flight routes with Vyragosa, a dragon required for the Frostbitten achievement.
>Vyragosa spawns more often than Time-Lost Proto-Drake
>by setting the rate at which specific items drop
how can you possibly do this with no control over how often an event that drops said items spawns? limiting the amount that drop hourly? congrats, people will form trains to collect items listed and go from random spawn to random spawn, then the world will be dead until the ability to gather the items again is refreshed.
You mentioned a specific WoW event. I replied with "events that consistently spawn". What do you think that means?
>how can you possibly do this with no control over how often an event that drops said items spawns?
A studio would obviously set the rate at which random events happen.
You're appealing to extremes.
If you cannot follow a reply chain and the concept of the conversation that is occurring that is not my problem. You accused me of making something up, and have now shifted the goalposts when I provided proof I did not. You're arguing in bad faith, knock it off.
> A studio would obviously set the rate at which random events happen
So then people will learn that rate and find a way to optimize their gameplay around it. Why are you so determined to be continuously smacked like this?
>If you cannot follow a reply chain and the concept of the conversation that is occurring that is not my problem.
Quote something I've posted that's irrelevant.
>You accused me of making something up, and have now shifted the goalposts when I provided proof I did not.
spawn
amount of time within a certain window that is hours long
That's obviously not the meaning of consistent.
I didn't shift the goalposts.
>So then people will learn that rate and find a way to optimize their gameplay around it.
No they won't. The world is too big, and the spawns are too random.
>consistently spawn
It does consistently spawn. Every 2-8 hours.
>No they won't. The world is too big, and the spawns are too random.
This is a fricking pipe dream and not an even remotely attainable feat. Name one game that does this currently, or even an engine that could potentially be the framework for something like this. Explain how true randomness is attained, and how it will not be abused should a bunch of spawns happen immediately near a town. Define how item drops will be controlled, and how that will not negatively impact the rate at which people play the game? If 3 random events suddenly spawn near each other, but item drops are limited, what reason would a player have to go to the other two events, or do ANYTHING at all until they are once again able to obtain items? At that point you're playing an idle simulator no different from cookie clicker waiting to use cooldowns to progress (analogous to waiting for item cooldowns).
TLPD isn't "lucrative".
You can have set spawnpoints and random spawns.
Play Arma: Wasteland.
You answered none of my questions whatsoever. At this point I believe I am correct in assuming your concession because you obviously lack the foresight to think about concepts before you spout them.
You're pretending to not know about what you're talking.
You're preaching fairy tale bullshit that has no practical applications in a real video game.
What about consistent, random spawns and set drop rates is fairytale bullshit that has no practical applications in a real video game?
It would be easy limiting drops according to what's already available. If it hasn't been used in a while, it would be OK to spawn more.
>It would be easy limiting drops according to what's already available. If it hasn't been used in a while, it would be OK to spawn more.
So now there isn't true random in play. Theres a system of priority spawning, which absolutely can and will be abused. Congrats.
>What about consistent, random spawns and set drop rates is fairytale bullshit
The idea it cannot be optimized. Because it absolutely will be.
>So now there isn't true random in play. Theres a system of priority spawning, which absolutely can and will be abused.
It's setting drop rates according to what's available. How can that be abused?
>The idea it cannot be optimized. Because it absolutely will be.
How?
Define how it determines what "available" means? Does it track every players inventory? Is there a set threshold of numbers of items existing on the server? what about players who are logged out? What about inactive players? What's stopping a group of players from farming hundreds of thousands of the item, thereby locking the spawn of it, and then never logging those characters in, or using the items, effectively gatekeeping an entire playerbase from obtaining them, and selling the items off individual at excessively high prices to control a monopoly?
You are really not thinking this through.
>Does it track every players inventory?
Yes.
>Is there a set threshold of numbers of items existing on the server?
Yes.
>what about players who are logged out? What about inactive players?
I already mentioned that if an item wasn't used for a while, more would spawn.
>What's stopping a group of players from farming hundreds of thousands of the item
Do you think before you type notions such as this?
You did not respond to my last point because you have no rebuttal to it, so I will ask again.
What is stopping a group of players from farming items until the server dictates there is enough of them, and then moving/trading the items amongst themselves or slowly to other players thereby holding a monopoly?
The best sets would likely be a few per server, if more than 1.
If they can get multiple of a set and control the price, that's OK.
>sets
so theres no limit on basic reagents for say, potions? or leather? or ore? Have you thought an ounce about what the impact of gatekeeping the most basic important items of an mmo would do?
The drop rate for materials would be based on how many are used.
that makes no sense moron. It's dictated by how often they're used? at what point are things cut off then? whats stopping a group from slowly using the supply of items they're monopolizing and farming the items back with their friends before others can?
It can be a static value and still be derived from how much is used, maybe being updated once a day or something. If somebody bought all of a material, the price would go up, and more likely wouldn't be available for a little while.
You still haven't explained to me how a group of people cannot manipulate this shitty system. You keep dancing around it. It's exceptionally easy to do so according to your own rules.
What do you mean “still”? That’s my first post in this thread, anon. I’m not the guy you may have been arguing with - it just struck me as odd that you’re claiming something completely unrecognisable to me is overshadowing something I play regularly. I have no idea what you’re going on about beyond that.
>that's my first post in the thread
I'm, not reading past your second sentence because you lied to me. One would think you wouldn't be so dumb as to think you could get around Gankerx explicitly dictating when a new IP posts the thread.
Kek. 7/10, you got me to respond.
Have a pic of me as a reward.
What's this gay /soc/ shit?
homosexual, and stay gone.
It's realistic. What do you think is manipulatable?
If a set number of the item can only exist on the server at a time, a group of people could farm that item until it reaches the threshold, and hold a monopoly over it.
If the game allows more items to spawn when preexisting items are used or depleted, the group uses the items within their group, and has others farming the items to maintain their stranglehold.
If the game detects inactivity with items and then allows more to spawn, the group of players shuffles the items amongst themselves in combination with the previous point to maintain their stranglehold.
You have offered no solutions whatsoever to combat any of this.
>If a set number of the item can only exist on the server at a time, a group of people could farm that item until it reaches the threshold, and hold a monopoly over it.
This doesn't matter up to an extent, and beyond that, the game can spawn more.
>If the game allows more items to spawn when preexisting items are used or depleted, the group uses the items within their group, and has others farming the items to maintain their stranglehold.
A group would likely have to pay others to have all of an item.
>If the game detects inactivity with items and then allows more to spawn, the group of players shuffles the items amongst themselves in combination with the previous point to maintain their stranglehold.
See above.
>a group would likely have to pay others to have all of an item
Says fricking who? Get a clan of 50 people monopolizing a key resource and everyone has to pay whatever they dictate.
>this doesnt matter to an extent and beyond that, the game can spawn more
how does it determine to do that
>see above
How does the game determine whether to do that.
>Says fricking who? Get a clan of 50 people monopolizing a key resource and everyone has to pay whatever they dictate.
Guild size could be limited, but controlling a resource wouldn't necessarily be hard to do. Money sinks should be enough that people want to trade and make money. Territories being able to make people rich via taxes would have the most skillful making the most money.
>how does it determine to do that
By defining how much use is relevant. People want to have fun, and playstyle availability is important.
>How does the game determine whether to do that.
A balance should exist of solo players able to take on whole servers (by kiting, picking off individuals, and disengaging) and between groups of people able to versus each other if they want.
>guild size could be limited
does nothing, make multiple guilds for a group of people.
>by defining how much is is relevant
how does it do this
>A balance should exist of solo players able to take on whole servers (by kiting, picking off individuals, and disengaging) and between groups of people able to versus each other if they want.
This has frick all nothing to do with preventing the points I've laid out. You're blathering on about inconsequential shit that will do FRICK ALL NOTHING to prevent a group of 50 to 100 (if not more) dedicated players or bots gobbling up a resource, learning about how the system for respawning/refilling availability of it works, and then manipulating it to their explicit benefit. You have no god damn answers and are blathering on about random shit because you have no actual solution to the problem I've posed you.
>does nothing, make multiple guilds for a group of people.
Everybody playing together is fine; then there's not a monopoly. Only a few guilds playing together and controlling some of the economy is only so likely because people are skillful and enjoy competition.
>how does it do this
The studio would know how much action is happening.
>This has frick all nothing to do with preventing the points I've laid out. You're blathering on about inconsequential shit that will do FRICK ALL NOTHING to prevent a group of 50 to 100 (if not more) dedicated players or bots gobbling up a resource, learning about how the system for respawning/refilling availability of it works, and then manipulating it to their explicit benefit. You have no god damn answers and are blathering on about random shit because you have no actual solution to the problem I've posed you.
I added a point because I already addressed your queries.
>Everybody playing together is fine; then there's not a monopoly
That's not at all what I said. limiting guild membership to combat market manipulation when there is scarcity in the game is pointless. it will be worked around immediately.
>enjoy competition
no, its because they see it as an opportunity to exert control, and any time that happens in a game, it leads to RMT. Period.
>The studio would know how much action is happening
so you're asking the devs to watch the market like a hawk and at the slightest hint of market manipulation, intervene? at that point what is the purpose of having scarcity in the first place?
>I added a point because I already addressed your queries.
You've done no such thing, and in fact only opened up yet more holes in your own argument with every single reply.
>That's not at all what I said.
I replied to that specific in the next sentence.
People are skillful, so they can farm materials and can versus guilds trying to have control over specific playstyles.
>no, its because they see it as an opportunity to exert control
I was saying that people enjoy PvP, so, if they didn't all play together, they would be suboptimal; if they did all play together, they could have scheduled / rules-enforced PvP; if they wanted control beyond that, people would either be able to counter them or wouldn't.
>so you're asking the devs to watch the market like a hawk and at the slightest hint of market manipulation, intervene?
It would be easy understanding how effective people are at PvE, what playstyles are available, and how exciting PvP is. Market manipulation is fine up to the point that people can't do activities.
>You've done no such thing
I have; you haven't listed an example of controlling the economy that a studio should actually control.
so your solution to people manipulating the market and exerting control over it is... opt in pvp?
Look I'm gonna be real with you chief. Either you don't know what you're saying and you're a dumbass, or the language barrier here is too conflicting for us to have proper discourse in a meaningful way and we should end this discussion here. You repeatedly respond in ways that are not at all relevant to what I'm saying. Your english is strange and frankly difficult to understand.
>so your solution to people manipulating the market and exerting control over it is... opt in pvp?
What suggested that?
>Look I'm gonna be real with you chief. Either you don't know what you're saying and you're a dumbass, or the language barrier here is too conflicting for us to have proper discourse in a meaningful way and we should end this discussion here. You repeatedly respond in ways that are not at all relevant to what I'm saying. Your english is strange and frankly difficult to understand.
Quote anything that hasn't been conclusive or readable.
>Quote anything that hasn't been conclusive or readable
The character limit won't allow me to post every single sentence you type in reply that goes on a wild tangent that has barely anything to do with what I've said. For a while I genuinely considered you were posting AI response replies. I tried to politely tell you the conversation is clearly not working as english is obviously not your first language, don't be a b***h about it.
Not a critique.
It explicitly is a critique you stupid homosexual.
Post something that hasn't been relevant to the discussion.
>I was saying that people enjoy PvP, so, if they didn't all play together, they would be suboptimal; if they did all play together, they could have scheduled / rules-enforced PvP; if they wanted control beyond that, people would either be able to counter them or wouldn't.
>Only a few guilds playing together and controlling some of the economy is only so likely because people are skillful and enjoy competition.
> Money sinks should be enough that people want to trade and make money. Territories being able to make people rich via taxes would have the most skillful making the most money.
I'm not going to keep wasting my time on this bullshit. You're clearly either shoving things into an AI to feed you responses to copy paste here, or you're blissfully ignorant of your actual grasp of the english language. Each of these examples goes on a wild irrelevant tangent instead of addressing the question they are responding to, and do NOTHING to actually answer it.
Quote what hasn't been resolved.
I did you disingenuous little b***h esl goblin.
>Everybody playing together is fine; then there's not a monopoly
are you saying it would take literally every player in the game to get enough of an item to reach the server limit? at that point its effectively unlimited
>are you saying it would take literally every player in the game to get enough of an item to reach the server limit?
I didn't say every player would have exactly what they wanted.
that has nothing to do with what i said
What other problem exists with enough simultaneous items that players can be effective with something but not optimal unless they pay for the gear?
>collect all the green grass the server dictates can be gathered on the server
>green grass is the main ingredient for basic health and mana potions
>continue to manipulate the obtaining of this item, gatekeeping the most basic of resources
Boy that sure was fricking easy
A common item becoming so rare and controlled is an option. It would be OK.
>it would be ok for a single guild to control the most basic resource all players would require to progress in the game
>its ok for a single guild to completely gate progression through the game by outright not selling the resource as their guild progresses, steadily locking down more resources because nobody can progress due to lack of having basic health and mana potions
You're a fricking dipshit. What the frick lol.
>"Mana and health potions are required to do anything."
Why?
Why would they not be? The argument can be applied to anything homosexual.
>monopolize iron, preventing players from improving their weapons and armor, since they need base iron tools to even be strong enough to progress to whatever next ore there is
>monopolize food sources preventing people from crafting food and missing out on important buffs
>monopolize literally anything in the game that is a basic necessity, and the system actively encourages you to do so to exert control
You're being a pedantic b***h.
If people want a common item, they can farm it. There's a point where the price can only be as high as the time is valuable.
>if people want a common item, they can farm it
how can they fricking do that when a guild has locked down the item due to the scarcity imposed by the game to the point it does not spawn anymore to be gathered, and inflates the price of the items sold to intentionally damage progression for other people so the people controlling the resource have a significant tactical or monetary edge?
>how can they fricking do that when a guild has locked down the item due to the scarcity imposed by the game to the point it does not spawn anymore to be gathered
I'm not sure the game would stop spawning a common item completely; mediocre equipment would plausibly be available so that new players have options.
>Set spawnpoints and random spawns
Ok, so now everyone knows where everything spawns, they will plot a course of shortest distance between spawn locations, track whether the items that drop from said random event are on cooldown from being attained, and move in a train between spawn locations with scouts that scan for whether the event starts.
You literally just described fricking hunts in ffxiv. You're a dipshit.
>now everyone knows where everything spawns, they will plot a course of shortest distance between spawn locations, track whether the items that drop from said random event are on cooldown from being attained
You mean the likelihood that it will spawn somewhere? Why? If they're not close to one that's up, they're more likely to be near the next one.
>the likelihood it will spawn somewhere
You just said SET spawnpoints with RANDOM spawns. Holy shit keep your argument consistent.
I've been talking about set spawnpoints with random spawns the whole time. There is no reason for people to sit at empty spawnpoints. That's still true.
Tracking how often something drops doesn't make only going to specific areas resulting. It would be much more logical to get what you can and trade on the auction house.
>it would be much more logical to get what you can and trade on the auction house
mathematically untrue, according to almost every random spawn in existence. Especially with a sense of community. If a monster spawns that drops items to everyone that hits it, the community will set up a network of players that flag when something shows up, everyone will show up, hit the thing, then move on. This is literally done in ffxiv currently.
>mathematically untrue, according to almost every random spawn in existence.
Something that has even a 1% drop rate isn't likely going to be at the spawn your partial-knowledge algorithm suggests anywhere near as much as you could simply play the game and get what you want from others.
A studio wouldn't drop a rare set for everybody.
>A studio wouldnt drop a rare set for everybody
Of course not, but from say, literally every map of eureka in xiv, its established players will wait at a boss or event spawn, and then kill the spawn once most nearby players are there to ensure everyone gets rewards. Regardless of whether its a guaranteed or lower drop.
It would be a PvP game. Multiple people at an event would plausibly PvP each other. Even if people are smart enough to play together, an event would have a limited number of items drop.
By having pvp you've alienated 50% of your potential audience as is.
>potential audience
Nobody cares about women playing videogames. They aren't gamers, I don't care how many of them play candy crush.
>By having pvp you've alienated 50% of your potential audience
lmao, where do you carebear shitters come from, let me guess- you're an ff4.0 player?
Factual statements don't make you a carebear, homosexual. It's factually true. Name one modern mmo that is successful by forcing pvp.
>Name one modern mmo that is successful by forcing pvp.
Name one modern mmo that's good.
>name one modern mmo thats good
Name one mmo thats good.
UO.
>name one mmo thats good
name one mmo
Sandbox and PvP MMOs not having an A+ option != likelihood of success.
It doesnt matter if sometimes they get lucky with a spawn in town. It would be statistically unlikely
>it doesn't matter if sometimes they get lucky
it absolutely does when you have potentially hundreds of thousands of people playing your game. Holy shit man.
Items are removed from the economy or have to be upkept with materials.
>Items are removed from the economy
Explain how this would be done. The server buys the items from you? That doesn't solve currency inflation. It just takes them away? That's punishing players for playing the game.
>upkept with materials
now you're incentivizing people even more to spreadsheet shit.
>Explain how this would be done.
Durability requiring material repairs makes materials valuable; there have to be materials to have gear consistently.
Full loot PvP on PvP servers has corpses on timers so that if loot isn't taken it disappears.
>now you're incentivizing people even more to spreadsheet shit.
From where do you think dynamic item availability comes?
>Full loot pvp
People will not play games where they can lose their entire investment to a server tick. It works for niche games like osrs. It does not work for modern games. Stop pushing this stupid fricking idea.
Ctrl+F "Minecraft", "Rust", "ARK".
>games where gear hardly matters and most servers run 8-10x resource gain so you can immediately obtain shit again, thereby fully invalidating the point of full loot
great post moron.
Gear matters in each of those games.
Official servers are what's relevant.
>People will not play games where they can lose their entire investment to a server tick.
And yet people played and still play UO.
Bizarre...
>Players aren't going to sit at specific spawn points in a huge world.
some of the best gear in FFXI was from random drops from rare/random spawned Notorious Monsters and that's literally exactly what people did
Then the game isn't very well designed.
Then players leave the game because there is no consistency and anything to look towards since anything good would be removed really it would be best to just make a mmo with no gear and try to balance the classes at that point but still a meta will appear its inevitable
A studio can consistently make fun gameplay.
An MMO should have gear because what is a character supposed to do when it has its class abilities?
Just make things random then moron
Or have resources contested
Most MMOs are theme parks; gameplay should be more compelling than trying to figure out fundamentals.
nah gameplay should be watching cutscenes and occasionally facerolling some easy fight where you spam the same rotation you use on everything else in the game, it's peak mmo design
Its pointless to make people discover what they will just search in the game wiki
what MMO is worth playing today?
What do you think makes an MMO fun?
MMOs need to go back to the reincarnation system where if you're level 200, you can restart to level 1 with better stats.
I played one where after you reincarnate, you get a cool spell that buffs you and your party members for 5 hours, you can also buff new players in town.
Neverwinter Online
Most old MMOs became functionally same as new MMOs when you know what your doing and given most MMO players are autistic about there grinding so they just beelined the content anyway since most of that big open world is pointless filler hell ffxiv for as linear as it is at least had the idea to make exploration and side quests mandatory to fly in new area's which in most old mmos you never had a reason to explore you just found what you needed to grind on or do your quests do them and go find a new area to grind
Flying either shouldn't be available or should be dismountable and/or combatable.
Post some MMO Map Kino (Hell)
Literally called Ant Hell
I remember this I think
You could only get through certain stone doors if you met certain requirements, right?
Yes but I also might be confusing it with the similarly as annoying area on the giants side.
Unironically Metaverse-like shit is what you want.
Heavy social aspect with some game component.
Kinda like the Ready Player One game world.
Problem is, we are still on wii-fit level of shitty characters and social media is not globally centralized (yet).
The streaming service is tho, it there's a digital world, any service can easily connect your membership to a "digital cinema"
If I want to hang out with people in a world, I can do that in the real world. If I want to play a game, I'd play a game. A virtual chatroom with "some game component" is useless.
Then you dont want to play mmos. MMOs are meant to be immersive worlds that blend a game and socialization together.
Sounds about right. I don't play any MMOs anymore.
Considering mmo's are as big as every, this is how it's going to continue to go. If a company can make just as much money putting in half as much work then that company is making twice the profits.
>mmos are as big as ever
They're absolutely not you moron. They're in decline and have been for ages.
Please don't use that r-word, sir.
Making quality is similar amounts of development.
>old thing GOOD
>new thing BAD
Never change, Ganker.
When the MMOs decided to be EQ clones instead of UO clones the fate of the genre was sealed. It all became about raid and gear progression instead of fully realized virtual worlds.
just make them hard again its that easy
i dont want to start out as a god killing 100 enemies in a tutorial showing off all my would-be skills
give me a variety of weapons to choose from at the start and ill do the rest as long as content is still challenging
If you only wanted challenging content, you could play basically any game. MMOs are about thriving and having status.
right is literally ffxiv
i booted up the trial and made some conjurer or some shit and the starter zone, and the next 3 zones were literally just outdoors corridors
it was such shit
i dont know of a single zone in wow that is that badly corridored or with so many invisible walls.
And yet lots of people still play it.
I wonder if in the process of studying WoW when they were working ARR, Creative Business Unit III came to the conclusion that MMOs as they were were on their way out and decided that their themepark style that is very non-MMO was the future.
I mean, they're seeing success right now but idk if that can be attributed to this hypothesis
I've leveled 50 characters across all expansions in WoW over the years. The game is very much a straight line and practically always has been.
The best MMO I've ever played was a shitty 2D isotropic Korean ripoff called DarkEden because the conflict between players was the main focus of the game. Except for a few safe zones, the whole world was open PVP, you could even kill people on your own faction, though you would lose alignment and start to lose items if you did it too much. The world was dangerous and dynamic, and it was because the people in the game made it that way. The monsters in the world were just a backdrop to the conflicts that would play out between the players.
Make a game where other players are the most dangerous thing. Tap into the base tribal parts of our brains that make us want to group up and kill each other. Make people fight over resources, over land, for revenge, or just to cause trouble and they will become invested in the world.
I'm waiting for the day when another MMO can capture the pure chaotic spirit of that game, where people knew each other by name because you bonded over killing the enemy.
Sure, you'd get destroyed by some giga douches and your leveling zone would get shut down, but the tides were always turning and soon it would be you who was the one ruining other people's day.
Make a violent, despicable, beautiful world where people are allowed to be bastards and kill each other, and you will capture their hearts and minds.
People will always optimize the fun out of any MMO where the main focus is PVE content. What makes an MMO an MMO is the multiplayer aspect. If you make the focus of the game other players rather than quests and content, then you will return to the heart of what an MMO is supposed to be.
You're asking for fricking Rust, or Tarkov.
Rust sucks wiener and so does Tarkov.
Tarkov kind of does this, though it is poorly implemented with instanced raids. It is not an MMO, nor does it try to be. It is a lobby-based shooter game with looting mechanics. BSG's vision of an open persistent world is kind of what I would like to see, but the instant death nature of that game means there are no defensive plays and it encourages bush camping, which is just no fun. Also, BSG will never achieve their vision with Tarkov because they are not technically competent enough to make it happen.
Rust kind of captures that spirit, but its formula just doesn't quite get there. I would argue that the cost of death is too high. If you make it so that players can lose everything they have spent hours or days working towards in an instant, it turns people off immensely.
Rust, Minecraft, and ARK are some of the most played games.
Sure but they aren't what people want from an mmorpg
Fortnite is popular too, that doesn't mean you should try to emulate it with a game of a different genre
Fortnite is a lobby game. People want Survival Crafting in an MMO because realism is what's predictable and rewardable, and all things are possible.
Why you would even consider comparing rust and ARK to minecraft is beyond me.
ARK is arguably better.
Nobody cares about your washed up moron game that is having to scrape the bottom of the barrel after the shitshow that was ATLAS and rely on the face of fast and furious to market their next turd.
It's a shooter, which is skillful.
the shooting is the least important aspect of ARK by far.
No, it's not.
Sounds like Air Rivals, I enjoyed the constant PVP the two factions had in that.
I always thought this was interesting but we have had enough games with this concept that I know it's not really fun. The balance of power is decided on a server by who is the biggest neet and has the most players in their guild. If you're just some guy playing by himself you will NEVER achieve anything in the game unless you join the big guild and become a worker bee.
Also everyone will watch streamers for the most meta builds to gank you while you're leveling or doing whatever. The only people that have fun in those games are the ones with the power and I'm not even sure they are having fun as they are almost always incredibly angry individuals who lose their shit when they get rekt
The technical limitations of that game actually helped it in that aspect. There was no party or guild system, or even a friends list so people mainly did their own thing. Most conflicts were small skirmishes, rarely were multiple people grouping up together to control an area.
I'm not sure how well that would work in today's gaming environment where people can just rely on things like Discord and Reddit to organize large groups of people, even if the game itself doesn't support it.
Maybe Kayaba Akihiko was right, the only way to get people invested and prevent them from meta-gaming the fun out of it is to trap them in the game. Otherwise, we will always use our tools of communication to organize large groups and dominate.
>The balance of power is decided on a server by who is the biggest neet and has the most players in their guild.
You don't have to control territory to have fun.
It's possible having enough strategy and options (both momentary and over large periods) that every playstyle is played by everyone.
That sounds extremely fun, but that's a recipe for disaster.
RPGs = high investment of time.
High investment means extreme grief when something is lost
Extreme Grief + PVP pisses people off to the extreme. You'd have people making real death threats. I wouldn't be surprised if they stopped supporting the game because they got real life death threats.
see EVE and OSRS, the best MMOs on the market and both have high risk PvP content.
OSRS has functionally had the high risk PVP optimized out of it. You only do PvP for fun, and rarely for any other reason.
I believe the original game is still going in Korea, even though it came out in the mid 90's. Death was not a big deal in that game, you just respawned. Another main feature of that game was that the level cap was insanely high, nobody ever got to the max level because it just took too long.
A game can have equipment as available as the auction house or adventuring out and getting lucky in a PvE event.
No one will play it.
This is literally just HELLMOO, and it shows that people don't actually want to fight each other in an unforgiving environment. Corp guilds are a big thing and pk'ing isn't done as a form of etiquette unless you're a dick. Even then players will warn other players about you in the world chat.
left: fallout 3
right: new vegas
By preventing games like WoW, XIV and other linear queue stimulators from being called MMOs
It's literally impossible to make a good MMO because their whole appeal is the discovery and sense of adventure and comradery with other players, but that can only last for so long as more and more people reach max level and leave new players in the dust, making the experience miserable for both parties.
This is why most MMOs only last for like a month before they die off completely, these games are at their best played at launch with a bunch of others who have no idea what to do and where to go - the moment people start reaching endgame and optimized strats and builds start propping up online the game is on its deathbed.
Reaching max level should be a massive time sink and not a priority.
I agree with you but the issue with most MMO's is they have 0 content aside from grinding pre end game. There should be stuff to do to progress your character at every level. I don't just mean fishing or some dumb bullshit.
And how do you even go with this considering current player mindset?
MMO players have wisened up in the recent years. They want to be more equal and more fair, and with this level cap you need to sit on your ass 24/7 every day and kill boars. Ain't nobody got time for that. People will leave = another dead MMO.
People can play something with way more variety and strategy.
Mabinogi solved this to a degree with it's Rebirth system, and any game that allows multiple leveling of jobs/classes will help ensure lower level people will not be left alone
This can be further enhanced by a level-sync function along with incentives for max level people to gain experience points even at the current max level
You reminded me i had this shit installed still after getting scammed by/vm/ into playing it
I think its alright but at the end of the day its just another silly, sameish asian mmo that feels like ive played it before
It's a bit of a clusterfrick nowadays, but it was genuinely impressive for it's time and has a lot of systems/ideas I believe more MMOs should try to incorporate
A truly free-form system where you're able to equip and use whatever you want
The rebirth system which rewards leveling multiple times with character growth in the form of AP
Life skills that actually benefit your character with useful stats along with the perks the skills themselves bring
I think it did a lot right before taking a turn for the worst
That doesn't really solve anything though and in fact it exacerbates the issue.
As I said, MMO's are at their best when you're totally clueless playing alongside other clueless people, cause that's when you actually get to go on an actual adventure in the game and figure things out by yourself through mutual cooperation.
Grouping up with someone who's already reached the end and has seen everything isn't the same at all, they already know how it all works and will often just carry you and explain everything leaving no room for exploration or failure, you're just following a list of optimized checkmarks laid out to you by someone else. That's not cooperation because the new player is contributing nothing.
I can agree that there's some charm to be found in learning/exploring alongside other new players as a new player yourself, but to say they're at their best when you're ONLY playing alongside new players isn't something I feel I can agree with
Whether you're playing with other new players or people who are max level, in the end it all comes down to a matter of the type of individuals you play with
You can have max level player who throw caution to the wind with new players, in an attempt to make things more entertaining/exciting and are generally OK with letting people take their time and explore, just like how some new players who look up videos/watch streamers/read Wikis before doing anything and couldn't give a shit about exploration and just want to go from point A to point B asap
Thinking back on it, I feel like the game where I felt the most comradery was probably FFXI myself, where I was constantly with high level people even as a lower level, but it's system was essentially built on it
Something else to add to this; the MMO market, and by extension the community has dramatically shifted over the last 15 years
You're more likely to run into the latter type of new player than you are the type of individual who generally enjoys exploring
I've experienced this more recently with the launch of PSO2NGS last year
I've been thinking about this a lot and I think this is why FFXI was so good. There wasn't a ton of info in it's early years so it was mostly trial and error and the game required people to discover the world together.
Dataminers literally killed MMOs.
I think the ideal MMO in my mind would not have super flashy skills or spells. Just basic classes and abilities that a group has to use to survive the world. The map would be huge and leveling up would require the group to journey across to specific locations with the group having the ability to rest/explore caves etc along the way. I think the scale would have to be massive though to keep people from mapping everything out in a week and knowing everything
It's OK to have datamining if the gameplay is fun enough to play all day.
Theme parks are linear. Discuss sandboxing.
Well lets first ask ourselves what killed it; and that is that WoW killed the genre
Studios copying WoW has been the problem. A few developers is enough to make a couple of characters, items, areas, and activities per day and have an MMO of content in 1 month.
I miss Ragnarok Online. A true open world MMO far ahead of its time.
Why did it die anyway?
For me it was the insane power creep that came with transcendent classes.
for me it was renewal, which gradually made the game more and more like a solo oriented theme park. private servers and the japanese official server are still pretty active though. I wish oriro would come back soon so I could continue leveling my gc crusa
Is LOTRO worth getting into?
Yes, if you like lord of the rings and chill bit of grinding and world exploration
Can you tell them you saw my shill threads so i can get 100 lotro points deposited to my account
Minmaxing Black folk and wikigays ruined MMOs. Korean MMO israeliteshit did, too.
>Minmaxing Black folk and wikigays ruined MMOs
So, bad game design did?
>play with noobs, pwn them, feel good
>noobs get good
>"omg, stop minmaxing!"
This video has already put me completely off ragnarok online
Also why do asians just pick random words from european popculture/myth
Makes me cringe anyways, frick weeb freaks
Why is there no monke MMO?
Is Gloria Victis good yet?
I love what they are going for though
Make GUILD WARS 1version 2, not GUILD WARS 2
FRICK YOU NU-ANET
target audience was always bottom right, it's just that they'd deluded themselves into thinking they were the vitruvian man
Are there any good open world Zombie mmos?
Like maybe project zomboid + tarkov + mmo
Blame the fact that older players need incentives to help newer players get through old content. If you look at pre-2.1 FFXIV dungeons, they're built more roundabout. What winds up happening is that the older players just run the newer players through it anyways. It might as well be a corridor.
Some of the newer content still has interesting level design, though. Like making one party stand in the computer room to warn the other parties about traps.
>AAAA WHY CANT I JUST DO THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN, WHY DO I HAVE TO DO THIS QUEST THAT MAKES MY BRAIN THINK A LITTLE AND ACTUALLY GIVES ME MORE XP
1. Remove Free to Play = Remove PayToWin trash
2. Don't saturate the market = Remove MMO Hoppers
3. Make all MMOs subscription or GW2 1.0 Buy to play
I too miss Ragnarok Online
Stop making mmos for autistic neets who treat it like a job.
Focus on the casual audience and give players plenty of reason to hang around towns and socialize.
Minigames, events, and player created content should be the primary focus above all else. The game should still be fun even if I never kill a single mob.
All combat should revolve around parties and content should be equally distributed for all levels.
If players still insist on grinding by themselves it should be as miserable and time consuming as possible to drive off spergs who refuse to communicate.
They tried this with MapleStory 2 and it didn't really work out
MapleStory 2 also had a fricking awful raiding scene though so I'm sure that didn't help any on the gameplay side of things
It probably would have done a lot better if they kept the beautiful hand drawn 2D artstyle instead of replacing it with THIS.
the thick chibis were one of the only reasons people stuck around.
Early maplestory had barely any sexual content at all and was significantly more popular.
I was talking about 2. It was one of the only highlights of the game. The style and the UGC.
My point is breasts doesn't change the fact everything else was hideous and it wasn't enough to keep the game alive. Believe it or not not every person is a braindead coomer.
I didn't say it was enough to keep it alive. I'm saying the UGC and the artstyle was one of the only reasons it stayed alive as long as it did, and would have died even sooner without it, because the gameplay certainly wasn't.
frick off back to second life
That's not how MMOs were then.
you can't fix mmos because mmo players want them to be shit. just look at the threads about fixing the trinity and all the posters who literally can't think outside of the triangle or think that getting rid of tab targeting makes the game not a mmo anymore. mmos are the only genre where people are willing to pay money to not have to play the game.
Trinity is quality.
Tab-targeting-with-hotkeys has a lot of potential.
People are willing to pay money to skip progress in a lot of games.
if people are willing to pay to not play a game, it's the biggest admission there is that it's bad
Not necessarily, it's a mentality problem, for some reasons homosexuals have decide that they get their best dopamine rush by seeing big numbers or obtaining "rare" items (even if they aren't rare but are perceived as such, for example a powerful item with a low drop rate but that can be farmed indefinitely, making it just an item you have to grind out), these are the type of players you should avoid getting in your mmo, because their presence will frick up the game for everyone else and so the game should be built in a way to have the least appeal possible to them.
that is the core mmo audience though. even in old mmos that people act nostaligic about the stories they tell are always about how they were the first to find something or the only one to have some item or the best at some skill. no one ever played mmos for the gameplay. it was just a platform to build epeen.
look at it another way. if a mmo dev accidentally broke loot tables so nothing would drop how many people would keep raiding for the fun of it vs camping on the game forums refusing to log in until it's fixed?
There was an anon's post on mmos maybe a week ago, I wish I saved it. But the gist was that MMOs are completely an illusion, you think you're getting strong and getting rare items but at the end of the day it's just being drip-fed to you by developers. Your progress can be rolled back any time, and your strength is directly tied to when the devs decide to release new content. And if you exploit to actually gain an advantage from beyond the game and actually become powerful, your account is donezo.
>w many people would keep raiding for the fun
But that's the issue, you shouldn't have to repeat the same raid a million of times until the next one comes out, raids are fine, they should be very hard though and they should be played out for the challenge and to conquer the out not to grind every single item in there because you NEED it, the main activities of mmos should be sandbox activities, PvP, Economy and anything that can actually influence the world of your character, the focus should NEVER be put into gameplay loops like raids of dailies of any sort, on this front EvE online is a good example, shame about the gameplay and "leveling" system.
dota only has one map and there are people who have been playing it for almost 20 years now just for "fun."
ASShomosexualS players are the lowest common denominator and should be considered subhumans.
In that case you're not playing a game, you're just paying to dress up a virtual barbie doll.
Anyone who derives fun from being the only wienersucker to own different a specific color of clothes needs to be put down.
>People are willing to pay money to skip progress in a lot of games.
yeah, mobile garbage that is explicitly designed to be not fun to play.
Get a bunch of white nerds in a room and they'll create an awesome mmo. The problem with modern MMOs is they are made by MBAs.
You want to know why MMOs today are linear and made for kids? Because that's how you get the most runtime per hour spent world building. Why are they made for kids? Because that's how you get the widest audience. Everything is made to get the most money out for the least amount of work / employees.
Whenever you get a bunch autistic enthusiasts together you get the real deal instead.
WoW was originally built by nerds that loved the lore and the world and it shows. FF xiv was built by a bunch of spergs that loved that universe and it shows.
The games that followed, Tera and the rest, were built by people that wanted to cash in on the craze, and it shows too.
Fixing MMOs will take a new company made up of enthusiasts from top to bottom. No MBAs, no diversity quotas, just enthusiastic nerds.
mmo's require way too much budget nowadays for a few nerds to make one, let alone maintain one with the sheer amount of servers you need. just stick to indie games at this point, accept that mmo's are dead and no one is able to make an actual good one
An MMO is approximately as simple to make as any other game. GTA games used to be made in 1 year.
You make the game 95% cutscene, remove most of the multiplayer aspects, and make every class in the game just do a rotation that does damage and nothing else
bonus points for dungeons that are linear hallways and having no endgame besides a couple of raids
then you just add bunny girls and people will praise it as the greatest mmo ever made
ashes of creation, unironically. don't care about the riot mmo because >riot. if ashes fails then this genre is really dead.
It's not a risk:reward sandbox.
>MMOs can't be successful without comba-
>is a dead game
Just make a modern update to ffxi, one with more stuff to do and faster paced gameplay, but with the same emphasis on exploration and discovery, and on forming parties with other people
I don't care if morons hate LFGing to play the game, play a single player game if you wanna play by yourself you gays
Few people know anything about FFXI.
Remember .hack//Infection?
Do that but with a real MMO
teaming up with people you meet in the hub towns to go through procedurally generated dungeons with random monsters traps and treasure and occasionally seasonal event and story areas/dungeons
PSO/PSO2 were pretty much this
Don't know why NGS went with the Open World meme
Kill every WoW and XIV player.
Then MMOs can be good again.
Wow and FFXIV players aren't to blame for all other MMOs being massive failures
But they are because their autism drove off everybody else.
Devs aren't going to piss off their only customers.
WoW and XIV players WANT theme park mmos so that's all we get.
>WoW and XIV players WANT theme park mmos
WoW's subscriptions were declining for over a decade. Players want a dynamic world.
because wow is a shit game for a large variety of reasons
the notion of an mmo from the mid 2000s is simply not usable
hell everquest mmos have a better shot of being succesful than they do
People have other games to play than a theme park MMO.
well yes that is also a large part of the reason as to why they and most live service games are dead
they, especially more modern ones, are designed to eat up all your time, so a single person can only play 1, maybe 2 total
>How do we fix the MMO genre?
Make a game that caters to roleplayers and not minmaxers, easy as that.
>Make a game that caters to roleplayers and not minmaxers
this. no matter how much open map design you shove in, if there's an optimal path to the objectively best build/gear/etc your game is a monkey game in disguise.
Shroud of the Avatar (Lord British's last game before he got targeted by cryptoshitter NFTrannies to make a blockchain game. ) is a good example of this. Its a 3D title but a spiritual successor to Ultima games and is heavily about RP. You can actually talk/type to NPCs with keywords, highlighted and hidden. NPC will have generic names like A City Guard until you hail them and ask them their name and then they'll be Guard Therston etc. There's a frickload of RP stuff and a VERY comprehensive non-instanced housing system. Same thing with trades. There's a lot to like about it if you're not a graphics prostitute (its Unity so it can be played on most anything and has a lot of custom shit). There's a llot of in game RP communities too.
Also if you want EverQuest-like, Pantheon: Rise of the Fallen is in the works. We're yet to see what happens and how well they'll be able to take the awesome worldbuilding without the tedium, but we'll see. Its in closed testing currently.
>Shroud of the Avatar
I actually came across it a few days ago because it was mentioned in some youtube comments, it kinda looked interesting but going by steam reviews it seems dead right now.
I think we should look forward instead of looking back, old concepts like Everquest and Ultima won't sell today.
Imagine a game where you have servers with thousands of people playing and every single one has their own instance of the world, unaffected by other people. But you're still able to see and talk to everyone else playing the game, only that they appear as translucent ghosts unless you group up and share a branching instance of the world together.
You could play it singleplayer and you would still have a sense of community as the world around you would be sprawling with people. Dungeons and raid areas that normally would be instanced and disconnected from the world would now be full of people. You could have invasion-like PvP mechanics where you enter other players and groups worlds to slay them.
This concept would allow developers to create a brand new type of MMOs where they don't have to design around large amounts of people competing for spawns or resources, or clans roaming around ganking, but instead something more akin to a singleplayer experience; amplified by multiplayer on a massive scale.
The best of both worlds.
It's not the best of both because persistence is rewarding.
I thought about persistence, say you have two players each in their own instance and they both have a bunch of different monsters they've killed behind them. Then they group up and enter a fresh instance where all the monsters are alive through some in-game lorefriendly way. They kill some monsters and part ways.
When they return to their own instances they'll realize that the monsters they've killed together carries over to their instance, on top of the monsters they killed before grouping up. Anything that happens in any instance you're a part of will carry over to your individual instance.
Why not just ignore wiki's and play single player games not designed for morons
Because beating braindead AIs gets boring eventually.
because mmo players don't want gameplay, they want a never-ending stream of repetitive low-effort content, they don't even want to actually play with other people
Everybody wants gameplay.
>nobody mentions Wow
Wow really lives in your ffxivigger head.
>falling for the obvious barry false-flag
ah you're right, I guess all the shitflinging between the xivgays and the wowgays for the last two years was all just barry pretending
a significant amount of it has been, just like when he did it with devil may cry and kingdom hearts.
I'll never understand how xivgays have convinced themselves to feel superior to wowgays when it's the same fricking game
>same fricking game
No! It's more anime!
simple like kenshi
world is not revolving around player character
remove leveled areas, make a world, not a theme park, lotta things devs refuse to do
That image is pretty dumb. WoW Classic shows what happens when you take a modern audience and have them play the old version, the current audience will just optomise it. So you can have a huge sprawling map, but after a few times, the players will run it a certain way, which is deemed the quickest and its ran that way forever. Might as well do the hallway shit.
Also you cannot fix the mmo genre. It had its time in the sun, similar to RTS, and its just time to move on. The genre is fundamentally flawed and cannot be fixed. For example, for an MMO to be good, it needs to be a time sink in some form or another to keep the playerbase constantly online as much as possible, but its not smart to demand your playerbase to spend 8+ or even 2+ hours per day. PVP is also a requirement, but there is no good way to implement PVP in the game because 99% of the playerbase will avoid any encounter, if they can, unless its stacked in their favor which causes one party to not have an enjoyable time, while this is a requirement for pvp to be good, eventually the more casual players will just stop playing because they dont want to put up with bullshit.
Theres just too many games to play now that have a social component to them that dont require as much time investment as a good MMO requires. Move on.
Nobody has really tried making an MMO that isn't a time-sink before which is why I think it will work. Look at Elden Ring as an example, it had way over a million concurrent players when it launched and after 6 months it was down to 20k, which is about the same numbers as New World. No matter how much time-sink shit they put in the game it won't matter because most people have a finite amount of time to play games every day anyway.
When ER releases their DLC I guarantee those numbers will be back up to well over a million. Now Imagine that they could keep pumping out content for the game, people would play the frick out of it. So why won't this work for an MMO?
WoW Classic had layering, so people didn't want to play because characters would disappear.
Most games are MMOs but they're considered gen 3 MMOs. The single player except you can see eachother genre, or hub/menu matchmaking games. Think Destiny 2, Fo76, Warframe, GW1, and Phantasy Star online. And to a lesser extent monster hunter, rust/ARK, or even fortnite.
I really wouldn't be surprised if we got another Final Fantasy MMO. Which was a always online single player game where you can see other players in the hub areas, and can queue into missions with either NPCs or real players. With the "endgame" being the same dungeons and boss fights with larger damage numbers and AI disabled.
Basically take what people want and expect from modern MMOs and reduce the server cost, or near outright removes them if you go peer to peer. Always online fricks over pirates. And your main audience can still use it as a afk simulator to show off their cosmetic DLC.
>The single player except you can see eachother genre, or hub/menu matchmaking games. Think Destiny 2, Fo76, Warframe, GW1, and Phantasy Star online. And to a lesser extent monster hunter, rust/ARK, or even fortnite.
They're called MMO-lites, and like you said they're the true successors to MMOs nowadays.
ittook a while but xbc3 had full arts cancelling which was nice i missed it
The first pic is pretty much literally a pic of the BDO map
moron copy-paste spammer is here. pack it up everyone, unless you want to listen to their dissertation.
>How do we fix the MMO genre?
kill trannies
klll ruskies
kill spanitards
MMOs have to actually be good standalone games now on top of having good infrastructure to host thousands of players at once. As it stands right now MMOs are just a niche genre with watered down combat/systems and a chore fest. MMOs were a product of their time and only thrived because the internet was still novel and people were social in games. Now people just go on discord with their friends and play whatever game they want. The demand for MMOs are romanticized and it would take something revolutionary like SAO-tier VR to revitalize the genre.
This. Why bother making a good mmo when you can just make a good game with maybe some multiplayer. There's no incentive to making MMOs unless it's with a big IP, and if you have a big IP you know people will eat it up anyway so you don't need to make it any good. It's the death cycle of MMOs.
MMOs used to be social hubs with chill people you could exchange stories with. The moment people stopped interacting with others online is the day MMOs' fate was sealed.
Setting the above aside, my main gripe with MMOs was the copious amounts of padding. Stuff like enchanting bullshit that could burn your gear. Nothing worse than losing an entire week's worth of progress because a diceroll said frick you. This was all aggravated by the fact that dominant guilds would camp and time the spawn spots of mobs and bosses that yielded the materials you needed.
the question with MMOs are "why?".
Why should I commit a bunch of time playing a mediocre game when I could play other games that specialize in things I'm interested in, and also do it better?
Their only answer to this question for the past 2 decades is, "because you can play with a lot of people at once", and it's no longer an acceptable answer.
>when I could play other games that specialize in things I'm interested in, and also do it better?
Name some good games
your favorite games
>MMOs then
1000$ for full xXxPussy_SlayerxXx set with frickton attack and def stats which makes you literally invincible.
>MMO's now
1000$ for another useless pet's reskin.
>defending P2W shit
>naked man (gay)
vs
>monkey (cool)
I know which one I'm picking.
MMOs fricking suck
They all are bad, and inclusion of their practices make a game dramatically worse. WoW sterilized the medium and it will never recover
Perfectly encapsulates FFXI vs. FFXIV.
FFXI is a thinking man's game.
FFXIV is a theme park for teenagers and troons.
Spam savage blade
the debate on mmos is funny, it's like arguing over how to make a turd less shitty
Why are the people that hate and don't play MMO's the most obessesed over it?
in case you've missed the last 25 years of the internet, people love to be angry about things they dont really give a shit about.
>have to have four arms and legs to be targeted by MMOs
no wonder all the oldschool revitalizations are filled with weirdos
Just play VRchat.
>vrchat
>need to spend 500$+ otherwise people don't talk to you
great """social""" game
Do you talk to random people in an MMO?
Do you really feel an attachment to those people if they're just in a screen?
VR isn't like that. In VR aren't just screen people, and yet it's hard to relate with those that still see everyone else as screen people.
>target audience
You were never human to begin with MMO scum.
Next time try evolving a frontal lobe first.
Archeage was peak but killed off by the israeli publishers. In terms of actual design and gameplay loop, holy frick it was fun.
most of this map is empty and lifeless
even with the update of picking which expac you want to do for leveling 99% of the time you'll pick the fastest one and ignore the rest
which means even more of the world will be untouched
dont let non whites play
Unironically, the thing that makes MMOs possible is also the thing thats killing it. For an MMO to be able to live and prosper, connectivity needs to be dialed down as much as possible. Every time a new game comes out, 50 million gays already made guides on whats the best way to earn gold, whats the best pvp build, and how to frick your mom in 3 seconds or less. Unfortunately, the only way this would be possible is through fantasy bullshit technology.
actually playing the games and accept having a small community
Runscape is how MMOs should be
WoW is garbage and sadly they all copied the formula. Thats why the genre is dead
You stupid homosexuals literally don't play anything, that's why you think the MMO genre is broken. Rust, Life is Feudal: MMO, Atlas. All great games, and work exactly how people who started playing Ultima Online when it first released had imagined the genre to go.
>Atlas
>Life is feudal
>good games
holy shit frick off moron. you cant be serious.
Atlas was a fricking flop, piece of shit that barely functioned on release and has been summarily abandoned by its developers. the game was such a scam you could literally open the ARK menu inside of it.
Yes they are good games.
>game barely functions on release
Okay. And? Is that all you have to say about it? Casual tasteless homosexuals who don't play anything and only watch shit on Twitch should have that shit branded to their skull, so that we know that's where they get their opinions from.
I bought the game and refunded it because of how much of a lazy fricking cash grab it was you projecting autistic triple Black person. You're a studio wildcard wienersucker. The game was broken on release, still is broken to this day, and was fricking abandoned because it's only purpose was to be a slightly reskinned ark to double dip and fund all their gay animation and dlc/sequel projects.
So you play nothing. Gotcha. Enjoy your WoW or Final homosexualry or whatever dogshit you play.
Congrats wildcard wienersucker you ignored my entire post to fellate for your shitty broken abandoned pirate game that has less than 1000 concurrent players because it was SHIT and ABANDONED.
I'm not even reading your posts at this point lol. All I'm hearing is REEEEEE
I'm sure ignoring dissenting opinions has gone real well for you and the less than 700 people currently playing your supposedly fantastic game.
Glad you understand.
He still has a point. ARK is one of the best games available.
>Life is Feudal: MMO
It's just a Wurm ripoff you Black person.
>ripoff
If you keep calling games that improve on a previous formula a ripoff, you'd be stuck on Spacewar! forever and videogames wouldn't advance at all.
I would play Lost Ark to be quite honest, I felt like doing it the other day, but then I remembered how braindead it is. There's barely any combat, you just run from one npc to another occasionally stopping to kill trash mobs with no tactics or thought required. Really weird shit.
So you want a sandbox?
Wat? No I want satisfying character progression and combat, items dropping with different modifiers to choose between to customize my character...like a normal Diablo clone.
What activities exist when a character has his items? Equipment should be losable so that character status comes from skillfulness and ingenuity.
Full loot pvp
you go back
He looks like he'd give good blowjobs
>mogs any of your """""open world""""" MMORPG
>huge and diverse world
>can literally walk to any place on the map with 0(zero) loading screens
>WoW has an expansion announcement that's completely overshadowed by a little rabbit shaking its ass
>overshadowed
I literally have no idea what this is, or what you’re talking about.
Captcha: 4GGGG
Every mmorpg derived from wow will be absolute shit.
>worst quests in any video game ever
>gameplay pseudo crpg sometimes good but encounter design is fricking trash except for some raid bosses
>no rewards for exploring
>no rewards for anything except go quest or dungeon gringd
>endless progression where if you login one year after you played everyone does 10x more dmg and have more hp even though you grinded the best set ever made
>exploring
>in the age of online guides and datamining
jej
There do exist games where people won't write guides because knowledge is a thing best kept secret for your own clans success. You wouldn't know about any of them of course, but I'm just saying.
GW2 perfected the mmo formula. All content is relevant, no power increases making your earned loot turn into skins as a new patch comes out. Looking deep into the endgame makes you hate all other MMOs garbage systems. I regret not pushing through the rough part of getting used to the combat and systems. It really can't be accurately judged until you have geared yourself correctly and understood how all the mechanics interact. The game genuinely has a lively playerbase and there are people everywhere since relevant content is everwhere. Theres some homosexualry sprinkled in a few places but definately not as much as modern disgusting garbage.
I love exploring shit on GW2. Its actually a pretty good game.
How is GW2 anywhere near a game such as EVE? People want a variety of activities and a dynamic economy so that gameplay is spontaneous and lucrative.
I tried classic wow but i never played any mmo before.
Had a blast until level 12, everything fricking stopped there.
It required mind numbing quests and grinds.
I just wanted to fish and gets lots of money to buy op gear and kill monsters not to be level gated…
You need to kill about 15,000 monsters before you can start killing dragons kid, and another 15,000 before you can even think of going into the Blackwing Lair. Get to it.
Yea, kinda true. It's really only worth it with multiple friends.
Not true
You can make friends in there
The social interactions i had were fun
But so much of the game and players were at the end game that i felt left out…
they were never good
Wrong.
Isn't left just a FFXIV map? It just shows that no one really cared too much about trekking the areas. I think people forget that actually walking or riding around was actually a pain/hassle. I remember in Mabinogi I always hated going to Bangor.
Solutions already exist, but mmoautists don't want to use them. So the answer is no, you can't fix the MMO genre because MMO autists won't accept the necessary changes.