The genre is easy to fix. Even WoW could be a sandbox if repairing items cost expensive durability (and gave players way more power via affixes providing mobility and abilities). Characters should get big, speedy, and be the difference amongst mobs, elites, and bosses. Better still would be full loot PvP; you could have it only in the open world, and going to the AH for crafted items or world drops should be easy, making it possible to journey out and PvE for quality sets from intelligently respawning scenarios leading you to important locations. It would take development maybe 1 month.
Territory control is a possibility. You could have zone bonuses for extra resources, better crafting results, more stats, more powerful npcs and loot, etc. Capturing (and maybe earning the bonuses) should require types of things you would be adventuring for usually: gathered goods, crafted items, and money.
Players just need things to do, and this is solved by sandboxing.
Does anybody want to transmog run and PvP on WoW?
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
>be full loot PvP
Smelly Brazilian fingers typed this post
Go to bed Gomez
What else are players supposed to do with their power?
Look at all the existing full loot PVP games and what happened to them. Nobody but a handful of autists actually like the concept of losing everything when they die.
Isn't that what games like tarkov and hunt showdown are.
Don't mind them, people who are anti-full loot PVP are brainlets who don't realize that by being pure PVE boss farm autism the developers are going to make the game shittier and shittier with .1% drop rates on weekly lockouts for items that will be made obsolete in a single patch.
Also full loot is fine if its opt in, warmode in WOW should be full loot for PVP crafting materials that you can only gather in warmode, and warmode should have a bunch of warmode exclusive gear and consumables, such as a full PVP set that can only be crafted and repaired with warmode mats that blows PVE and PVP gear away, while also having consumables such as anti-flying harpoons that one shot Black folk who camp on flying mounts, and various Ashran style uber spells that require a consumable item to prepare.
But lets be real, these are modern WOWgays we're talking about, they just want to coom over their DPS meters and speedrun rankings, and the only PVP they desire is kicking newbros in the teeth in arena for free gladiator and will endlessly whine on the forums that they're not the best spec in the game, out of all 36 of them.
>Brainlets who don't realize that by being pure PVE boss farm autism the developers are going to make the game shittier and shittier with .1% drop rates on weekly lockouts for items that will be made obsolete in a single patch.
Wow you'd have a point if MMO's aren't moving in the complete fricking opposite direction. What fricking MMO locks you out of content these days. Don't reply to me because I don't want to know. I just want to let you know that whatever MMO you're playing sounds like utter shit.
Weekly lockouts are the standard lol
>But not this random korean MMO I play
No one plays that shit but bots.
Either you're so fricking bad at video games that you don't reach end game in these streamlined for (You) games made for litteral morons, or you're playing shit that aren't even real MMOs to begin with.
WoW has it. XIV has it. No one else has it.
So games no one plays?
You can hate them both, legitmitely both. But there is more morons playing them, than any other on the market,. Denialism ain't a healthy mindset.
even fricking runescape has weekly lockouts
just because lockouts aren't in every facet of content of every game doesn't mean they don't exist
>Weekly lockouts
That's not "locking you out of content" despite the words sounding similar.
Lockouts are a means of slowing player progression through content they are already clearing, while locking players out of content means they aren't clearing it in the first place.
You know how moronic you sound for supporting a paid service that mandates that you wait a week before you can play it again?
Clear mythic raids and get glad titles. No, don't pretend like you've ever even seen a mythic boss.
>muh brazillians
>Gomez is not a brazillian portuguese name
first world muslim rapeholes + confident illiteracy about the world, name a more iconic duo
Does it matter? Literally, nobody can tell the difference between hispanics and hues. You were founded by brothers from the same peninsula and speak a language that is nearly identical.
>speak a language that is nearly identical
first world muslim rapeholes + confident illiteracy about the world, name a more iconic duo
That anon has clearly never studied either language and been forced to brush up against the other. I'm bad at Spanish but I spent most of my years in school taking at least one course of it every other semester, and I still have no clue what the frick BRs are saying whenever I get them on my team in Dota.
>We will never ever get old school MMO back because of WoWcancer like this
old school MMO was not full loot.
Who are you quoting?
Cope Black person. Old school MMOs were not all like that.
>all old school mmos were full loot pvp
There were literally 10000 people that claimed to have been elite griefer pvp maniacs for every one that actually was
Literally the fakest poser shit on the internet right next to people that pretend they played Street Fighter 3 or arena shooters
Full loot pvp is pretty cool
>full loot PvP
You mean the thing that very consistently kill or keep mmos small and bleed them of their playerbase? Sure anon, like communism I'm sure YOUR flavor of full loot PvP hasn't been tried yet.
Online games who can get away with it are smaller scale online survivals where the server get reset every few weeks.
>You mean the thing that very consistently kill or keep mmos small and bleed them of their playerbase?
What A+ MMO has had full loot PvP?
none, and that's the fricking point you dumbass, pay attention
New World had it in alpha and they rolled it back because it was fricking stupid
They changed it because of crybabies just in like every other MMO now the game is dead.
All they had to do was implement a few full PvP servers with maybe level restrictions on who you could attack, I actually couldn't believe it when they launched with no PvP servers.
Ultima Online pre-AOS. I play Ultima Online every day, even played Outlands and I have returned to just playing the official servers because full loot nonsense eventually becomes boring and stale after a few years. Oh gonna go out and do shit today -- nope your entire online experience is just getting pkd OR you spend ages in dungeons sifting through shit loot to finally pick something up, stealth thief steals the only important item and then you're stealth killed by his guild. Even running with your own guild just turns into a shitfest.
It's fun for the the first couple of months, sure, but eventually full loot becomes so boring. Without a strong PvM (PvE) focus, with PvP as opt-in it always gets to the same boring conclusion.
Foxhole, Rust and Eve?
>Foxhole
Seems niche (obvious reasons).
>Rust
Really popular; not an MMO.
>EVE
20k-30k online simultaneously; has 6 years or $6.5k of leveling.
You're not making a point.
Not an argument.
Only game I can think of that survives that has loot pvp is eve and albion and both are pretty much just filled with chinese, russians, and other third worlders.
Survival Crafting.
>"Instanced content."
Why? Item level? It's possible doing it for completion and mastery, but there's a juncture where you're sitting there waiting on finding a group or queue, and what else is there?
I've done mythic.
It resets every month, defeating the purpose of what the OP is describing.
In other news, 40s BGs have 10 minute queues. Albion Online it is, for now.
Rust doesn't reset every month. Server owners can wipe their severs at their own behest, which is normally only weekly or bi-weekly.
The game was actually designed to never be wiped but the devs put so much bloat in, people prefer to play that way. Legacy barely had wiping.
Also there are other MMOs with seasonal/server wipes and it's quite a popular thing. I don't see why that conflicts with the OP.
Yeah I agree
>I've done mythic.
You've never ever been in a mythic raid.
>Why?
It's real content. unlike wpvp which is a clown fiesta "who attacked first"-scenario.
The loudest voices against PvP tend to be the people who are the worst at it
Because PVP in MMOs is gankshit outside of structured game modes.
And other games do those game modes better.
Leave that shit out of MMOs. Co-Op is better than PVP.
However, there is one game that did MMO PVP right. And it was a game BUILT for it.
That’s a pretty long winded way of acknowledging that you’re bad at PvP. I enjoy it because it isn’t scripted and you need to understand not just your own class but all the others to do well at it. It’s legitimately skilled, unlike pve content.
I admit to being bad at MMO PVP, and I got Knight rank back in WoW before Burning Crusade.
Planetside is the only MMO that did PVP right.
Frick RPG PVP, wildy variant stats do not make for fun PVP.
>Knight rank back in WoW
Damn, amaze.
What a horrid thread 🙁
Well I mean this is the problem, and it’s partly why games like New World that weren’t advertised to you to begin with die. Nobody is forcing you to play PvP, but when you whine incessantly about it you get stupid shit like needing to flag on PvP servers for games.
Just don’t play PvP games or join PvP servers. If you don’t want to try and learn to be at least somewhat decent at it just leave it and it’s playerbase alone because you ruin it for all of us
Thats why I didn't pick up New World, or really any other MMO thats out on the market right now.
I prefer my PVE game.
If you were to offer me another Planetside 1 game (Please don't suggest Planetside 2, No. Please no) I'd consider it, since the game was built with PVP in mind without extreme stat variances between players.
I'm not trying to ruin it for you people. I just want a balanced PVP experience. You can't get that in MMORPGs.
That doesn’t apply to PVE either, which is even more star dependent to be successful in your role. I’m not sure if there’s any private servers for it anymore, but it there is Warhammer Online was a fantastic game built around PVP at its base.
PVE at least has reason to be stat dependent, and your not competing against other players in that. You are working with your own guild, static, whatever.
Yes, I get World First race is a thing and a competition in its own but its not the goal of the fight. Goal in the fight is to succeed and clear it which has stat requirements.
Does it make any difference, really? Either way you are going to be grinding for gear to be competitive regardless.
Competitive how?
If you’re in a decent guild people will absolutely be checking metres and making sure the tank is being consistently good or they’re out
How is that competing? You are working with your guild to improve yourself.
It absolutely is competitive and that is part of why people constantly grind for the new best gear.
How is it competitive? You build up as a team, not as an individual. You grind to be better for yourself and your team.
Quick update, there is a new private server I found that seems to be making its own content as well that you might be interested in: https://youtu.be/zmanivwgkwA
such a shame New World decided to abruptly change and just push hard on advertising to get the numbers it managed. I like my autistic crafting stuff in MMOs, but after seeing that the 500 swords I made had no market since everyone could make them anyway, and nobody lost gear, it made me actually wish I could get jumped while mining
>ganking
>not the most scripted thing you can do in mmos
Get a few buddies
Camp choke in pvp area
That is literally it.
>learn to play your class and actually talk to people on your faction for help
>organize and play the game
That's crazy.
Games really do need to built around PVP or it's a fricking mess. Trying to mix PVE and PVP always ends up a shitfest mess.
Rust is more of an MMO than the majority of "MMOs"
>Rust is more of an MMO
He’s right. At least Rust doesn’t lock you into instanced single player content for hundreds of hours with the odd dungeon finder quest just to remind you that it’s supposed to be an mmo
Nobody was mentioning XIV, sounds like it's living rent free in your head though.
I’m subscribed already, but it’s exactly the same with GW2, WOW and most other MMOs. The only reason you ever need to see another player is in instances content, and even then you don’t even need to interact with them at any point.
that's not true of GW2 at all. Open world maps are full of players and you tend to hit big bosses with 50+ players all the time. I can't think of a time I haven't seen maps have people in them all running around and slapping stuff together.
GW2 is a great example of a game that thrives on its open world content, because it funnels as many players together as possible to complete the content as quickly as possible, and they're all trying because they all want the reward. It keeps the prior content evergreen by making it a viable upgrade path toward best endgame gear, or by giving you further utility with regards to the entire game's swathe of content (i.e. hero points for filling out more specs, mastery points for quality of life and making all your mounts better and getting better movement options in all zones following the expac they came out in).
Most games considered are "MMOs" now only because they copy WoWs shitty loot treadmill.
They certainly aren't "Massive" and sometimes they are barely even "Multiplayer".
Rust has more player interaction, bigger battles and bigger servers than most so called "MMOs"
Just look at any “most played mmo” lost and you’ll see Destiny and Lost Ark up there with wow. At first it seems pretty ridiculous because they obviously aren’t, but when you think about it they are more or less exactly the same in that respect. They’re all for the most part single player experiences with optional online play
>Online games who can get away with it are smaller scale online survivals where the server get reset every few weeks.
ARK doesn't get reset every few weeks (except in a gamemode), and it's really popular.
EVE has kept popularity, even with 6 years of $6.5k (it used to be $19k) of leveling.
>terrified at the thought of pvp with consequences and defends scripted content
This is your brain on decades of soi and fluoride.
Ah yes, runescape is such a dead mmo
Yeah I'm sure all of these haven't been mentioned at some dev meeting a zillion times, possibly made into real concept, but discarded, because companies need to make money in the first place.
Seriously why do people think these million times regurgitated basic b***h ideas are original and somehow revolutionary in a sense like "duuuuude imagine a game like this yoooo everyone would play it!"
Materials durability and full loot PvP are rarely ever mentioned publicly for the genre.
>That's like advertising that you can have more fun in this game, which plausibly incentivizes cheating.
OK, but I think WoW has decent anti-cheat anyway.
I quit WoW when I couldn't level via PvP; now that I can, I'm playing. I would arena if I were max level, and BGs are consistently fun.
It has some of the deepest gameplay on the market; why you criticize it (with the whole genre)? Trinity is still the best we have.
>Multiple, well-reasoned posts.
It's not obvious what point you're trying to make, but you should just post text material if the content is your intrigue. Nobody wants to think about "reposts".
PS: A few developers is enough for making a couple of characters, items, areas, and activities per day, an MMO of content in 1 month.
Anyway, what this doesn't fix is leveling. Remove it; give a currency from quests that can be redeemed for items. Every player should start on the same, fair playing field.
A+ means budget and quality. List *an* MMO that has had reasonably respectable development and is a PvP sandbox.
>A+ means budget and quality
No it doesn't. However, i got what you were trying to say.
>reasonably respectable development
As the other anon pointed out, there aren't any because full loot pvp keeps games small.
Albion or Conan Exiles are the closest thing to "respectable development" PvP sandboxes. And their popularity is limited because of that.
didn't they add getting xp from pvp back in WotLK? I feel like it's been well over a decade. Durability is fricking annoying shit and should be removed from all games. Frick maintenance based gold sinks that don't actually let you gain anything from your investment other than not breaking your shit. The kind of game you're describing is basically played exclusively by cheaters, third worlders, and a handful of turbo spergs who can afford to play for 90+ hours a week.
>I would arena if I were max level
>deepest gameplay
That's hilarious because the game and classes and abilities are so fricking dumbed down from what they used to be. I quit after MoP
>I quit WoW when I couldn't level via PvP; now that I can, I'm playing. I would arena if I were max level, and BGs are consistently fun.
lemme get this straight. you dont even play the game and are writing multi paragraph ESL vomit on how to fix it? jesus christ
Trinity is garbage, it makes all gameplay revolve around standing still as much as possible, lost ark has better raids despite being a dogshit game
Dedicated healers should not exist, pvp outside of classic is dogshit because people can only die in a stun lock with 3 minute cds being used.
Maybe if all pvp had 60% dampening it would be better
I find this is especially a problem with MMO discussion on Ganker. Apparently, the best way to make MMOs popular again is to make them exclusively for a small >1% group of players.
>bro, only the top 3 best players should be able to experience endgame content
>dude, it should take at least 200 hours to get to level 2, gotta filter out the undedicated
>pvp should have real, HARDCORE consequences, like if you die you have to spend a hundred dollars to resurrect your character
It wouldn't even be a problem if they went and played any of the actual hardcore niche MMOs out there, but no they just sit around complaining that there's no niche MMO that does WoW numbers.
>any of the actual hardcore niche MMOs out there
like what
Wild star. Literally takes 40 hours just to unlock the first raid or some shit. Genuinely was an autistic project made by the most hardcore wow Raiders who wanted an even shittier experience.
Aaaaaand it died within a year because appealing to the ultra autistic hardcore never pays.
Wildstar shut down and wasn't a PvP MMO.
>posting wild star
>on Ganker
how new are you?
>Apparently, the best way to make MMOs popular again is to make them exclusively for a small >1% group of players.
The science backs the OP.
>>bro, only the top 3 best players should be able to experience endgame content
>>dude, it should take at least 200 hours to get to level 2, gotta filter out the undedicated
>>pvp should have real, HARDCORE consequences, like if you die you have to spend a hundred dollars to resurrect your character
>It wouldn't even be a problem if they went and played any of the actual hardcore niche MMOs out there, but no they just sit around complaining that there's no niche MMO that does WoW numbers.
What are you on about? A). no A+ MMO being a PvP sandbox, especially full loot, is already mentioned; B). wanting to play with a lot of people is OK.
>Darkfall online, not darkfall the single player game from 1996 you absolute troglodite.
You said Daggerfall.
That video is anecdote, listing forum posts.
No, anon.
want to PvP for items to trade and be rich
>But this is the problem. Killing someone for stash shouldn't be normal gameplay.
Why? It's something to do.
Bonus points to a game allowing botting and having a real money auction house.
>That's not convincing
You're opining an imaginary scenario.
>Log into Albion for the first time.
>Start gathering; this is really fun.
>Make about 5k silver in under an hour; get a mount.
>40k silver (a few journeys to outside the city and back), a dungeon, and an expedition, and I'm maybe on T2 equipment; the 4-ish abilities are getting repetitive (they're not particularly deep).
All I would want is to eco, try fun equipment (classes), and PvP, but it's dozens if not hundreds of hours of arbitrary point accrual.
>Why? It's something to do.
go play any other competitve game
Lobby games are shallow and repetitive.
PvP is shallow and repetitive. That's the nature of competitive environments. You're the one improving your skills with the same tools. And that is the reason PvP as a main game feature is bullshit for MMOs where character progression is so important.
>You're opining an imaginary scenario.
Listen well homosexual, I have 2h a day to game, if I can lose 2 weeks worth of progress to one death then your job is to convince me that risk is well worth it, so far you did nothing to convince me, why should I play your game and risk losing my progress when I can play FFXIV or ESO and face no such risk?
Answer me this homie, what's so fun about losing 2 weeks of progress?
You should be able to make a lot of money trading for a few minutes a day.
I already have a job, I don't need another one, I'm looking for fun after work not the second shift.
Exactly.
I agree; Well said.
Trading is one of the best ways to make money.
You can play however you want; that's the point.
>PvP is shallow and repetitive.
You get more excitement, strategy, and intensity from a real player and full loot PvP.
>You get more excitement, strategy, and intensity
Why would I risk losing all the time I've spent in my character for a few more items and the joy of "feeling superior" when it's not the skill but the items which granted me the victory?
If I want to feel proud of myself, I go play competitive games, where I certainly feel I've bested someone else and I'm improving thanks to my skill. I play MMOs to see my character get better, not myself.
>Why would I risk losing all the time I've spent in my character
You can get starter gear.
>for a few more items and the joy of "feeling superior" when it's not the skill but the items which granted me the victory?
MOBAs already have a lot of this; they're still played for some 10-20M hours a day each.
>If I want to feel proud of myself, I go play competitive games, where I certainly feel I've bested someone else and I'm improving thanks to my skill.
For example?
>I play MMOs to see my character get better, not myself.
You should want to get better at an MMO because it's skillful.
>You can get starter gear.
That defeats both the purpose of feeling the item loss and sense of progression. Way to go.
>MOBAs already have a lot of this
If I wanted to play a MOBA I would be playing a MOBA instead.
>For example?
Rocket League, CS GO, or whatever that is purely about skill.
>You should want to get better at an MMO because it's skillful.
Lol no. Only a zoomer who never played MMOs would think like that. Go play Fortnite. You want competition in a genre that has no platform for that.
>That defeats the purpose of feeling the item loss
No it doesn't.
>and the sense of progression
That would plausibly be gold.
>Rocket League, CS GO
Are you actually playing those games? Some people play a lot, but they're still lobby games.
>Lol no. Only a zoomer who never played MMOs would think like that.
WoW has some of the most skillful PvP.
Then you play a different kind of game. People whining they can't get everything with barely any playtime but they deserve it because they pay a sub killed most MMOs.
Ok have fun playing your game by yourself
Ultimagays are the fricking worst, there's a reason your game is dead
UO came out in 1997.
And the world has moved on.
>Then you play a different kind of game.
dumbass you're the one who needs to find a different game instead of trying to transform one genre into something completely unbearable except by autist neets.
These shitty open sandbox pvp games only attract buttholes who want to grief even if they don't get anything out of it objectively. It never works as intended.
>These shitty open sandbox pvp games only attract buttholes who want to grief even if they don't get anything out of it objectively.
put in level restriction on you who can attack, or base it off neutral/friendly/hostile zones WOOOOOOW dude so hard
usually the people who complain about pvp are the ones who are shit at it aka the majority
>the people who complain about pvp are the majority
Wow I wonder why nobody wants to play your shitty games
Get it through your thick skull that zero sum games are not fun, period.
Yet the most popular games out there are battle royales which are zero sum games. It's just no one has done it right in an MMO yet, I can see it becoming a trend sometime in the future.
Current MMOs are the same stale shit from 20 years ago.
Oh wow, the thing that dethroned the original most popular games out there. FRICKING SHOOTERS. Is replaced by the same bloody concept but done differently. MMOs no matter their improvements, would never have dethroned the defacto shitfaced king that is the FPS/TPS genre.
thats because spergs wants a power fantasy instead of a balanced pvp game.
Runescape already solved the pvp issue years ago.
Full loot if you got a pker mark, huge chunk of the map is pvp area. Deeper in you go the higher level and lower level player you can attack. Fill it with resources to goad non pvp players to venture in.
You now got people with like 4 alts because their class peaks at different levels and if you got a friend thats only lvl 10 you can create a alt, lvl with him and go pvp vs other lvl 10s.
Equal start and balanced. No sweaty lvl 60 is gonna run and gank your lvl 10 ass. Unlike shooter br and games like rust gear and abilities is so imbalanced in mmos that you cant just do 1 good shot to the dome and still win as a scrub so you gotta break it down like runescape.
that actually sounds good, any other game?
>Runescape already solved the pvp issue years ago
Yeah what a solution; Wilderness is so incredibly unpopular that they had to exclude it frrom OSRS's poll-based development system.
OSRS current playerbase is a bunch of babies like retail WoW players. they removed loot on death in pve because people couldn't understand risk/reward (was meant to be temporary but they fricked up giving streamers back their gear), now you have everyone in full BiS gear farming the same bosses 24/7 with zero risk and the powercreep gear just keeps going up up up since you're just on the gear treadmill with no risk to lose anything.
BRs are not even remotely comparable to an MMO you stupid frick.
so you think we're at endgame and we'll never see MMOs move forward ever? open your eyes expand your horizon. there will be new big trends and genres. I'm old so I see people say the same shit every decade.
MMOs will move forward and there will be new trends.
Those trends will not be full-loot PvP and permanent item damage.
We'll see, people said the same about fps games before dayz mod came along.
Easy: You don't need to spend 2 weeks to progress
Gear should be easy to obtain, the grind should come from your character's advancement, which is set in stone.
The trooner MMO is the standard so I know thats all modern MMOgays know, but back in the day we had 10-30% drop rates on items from bosses and monsters that didn't have a weekly lockout and fricking free trading so you can trade what you had multiples of for what you needed
Yeah everything now is a BOP turbo autism grind so the sentiment that losing everything to a single death is a massive setback, but what if, and hear me out on this, what if gearing up didn't take fricking 6 months of farming timegate gacha tier drop rates?
See here is the problem, if these items are easy to obtain and I can easily grind myself 20 copies to use if I just lose them, then what's the point in losing items here? You might as well give the other player some gold reward for killing players and have effectively exactly the same thing but I won't waste time on pointless grind.
Here is my alternative, use that korean system with +values, the higher the +value on item the lower the chance to success another increase and if you fail you lose the second item but not the first, you can set rates so +10 is reasonable for the average player and it get harder after that with special item that increase that chance slightly, to encourage people to get better items and actually fight each other you get ranking with rewards based on your achieved rank and end of the season rank, your rank grow and drop based on what rank you killed or were killed by, and your items degrade by -1 every season unless you didn't log in during the season. With these two systems make it so gold gained by killing a player is based on their rank and +value so while noob is worth 1-2gold pieces, average gold rank +10 is worth 200gold and top100 +20 is worth 20k gold and everyone from top10 also drop what they would get from ranking rewards.
This way the higher your rank is the more hostile the world around you become. Can you image a raid against player with +30 gear from top of the rank? That would be fun for both sides.
I think this is primarily a generational problem. When MMOs were relatively new a lot of people weren’t interested in end game content and never felt the need to rush levelling a character (some people didn’t even hit 60 during vanilla and played from the beginning to the end”. Everything has to be immediate and the quest to put it one way to reach the best gear, max level etc is the only content worth bothering with apparently but at that point you have already finished it all. Just look at new media like TikTok with the stupidly fast talking and hand gestures, I’m sure zoomers all just have adhd or something and need everything to be fast to keep their attention
>full loot PvP
Thats like begging cheaters to play your game
Make MMO's illegal. Lobotomize anybody who is still currently playing them. Drop the nukes on China a week later. Simple, clear cut fix with no downsides.
PvP is the worst part of any MMO and generally any modern online game.
https://arch.b4k.co/v/search/image/akz2wdcnS9Dat3f1FKpgTw/
you don't know shit
Science has described fun via motivation as far back as 1985.
>didn't they add getting xp from pvp back in WotLK?
Not very much.
>Durability is fricking annoying shit and should be removed from all games.
It's fantasy realistic, and if players aren't spending resources, there's nothing to do. You not liking having to put economic interest into your playstyle is bland.
>Frick maintenance based gold sinks
It should cost more than gold. Playstyles should be unique and powerful enough at the top that it's what you want to play.
>The kind of game you're describing is basically played exclusively by cheaters, third worlders, and a handful of turbo spergs who can afford to play for 90+ hours a week.
Everybody wants to have a game where you can play as much as you want because the what-to-do is diverse and deep. What is roleplaying (amounts of status defining activities) and worldbuilding?
lmao your "mmos are the best & most popular genre" guy
and u want full loot mmos
I can't believe you're this moronic, but what should I expect, you keep making the same threads over and over and everyone keeps telling u that ur moronic, but the new lows you of moronic you manage to reach are just shocking.
They sould add heavy consequences to full-loot PvP. It should be an option everywhere, but killing someone should make you a highly wanted criminal. Not only you shouldn't be able to enter towns or interact with most NPCs, but OP guards should be looking for you and avoiding arrest should be an achievement on itself. Limiting all your gameplay in the forests like a hobo, living off other players, until found by the authorities which should be tiresome and stressful. Unless you decide to go to jail. There you have to spend your time gathering resources that are sold to other players or doing nothing at all. 30 hours on your first charge. 60 on your second, 120 on your third, etc.
Killing players shouldn't be something you take as part of gameplay. It should be a rare event with massive weight.
you post the same garbage every couple days, please just grow beyond mmo's, you senile troglodyte
>turn wow into shitter new world
NuBlizz may be dumb, but even they're not THAT dumb
(Full-loot) PVP MMO only appeal to the Pay-2-Win type. People who take pride in their skill and "gitting gud" play something that doesn't give advantages out of the gate wirh gears. PVE people don't want to waste all their time grinding gears that they would lose in a second.
getting real tired of seeing this fricking thread all day every day
I have 2h of playtime a day, your idea would reset my 20h or more of progress with one death, convince me to play your game because based on what you said so far I'm not touching that shit.
>Better still would be full loot PvP; you could have it only in the open world, and going to the AH for crafted items or world drops
See games like mortal online 2 and daggerfall. Each which failed (because not many people want this)
>Territory control is a possibility
Look at every game that adds this. Seems good in theory, but in practice the same thing happens every single time. The most powerful guild in the game will hold all territory and become the defacto super power. When you join a server and 99% of the territory belongs to one faction / or guild etc, who do you think you're joining? So it's moot.
You've obviously never played a game like this, or you'd understand why it doesn't work.
>See [light-heavy sword gameplay] and [a singleplayer game from 1996].
>Look at every game that adds this. Seems good in theory, but in practice the same thing happens every single time. The most powerful guild in the game will hold all territory and become the defacto super power. When you join a server and 99% of the territory belongs to one faction / or guild
This didn't happen in New World, even with huge amounts of gold income. Most games are skill based.
Albion has leveling.
Darkfall online, not darkfall the single player game from 1996 you absolute troglodite.
I think this video really sums up why these games never succeed. https://youtu.be/34RPwDfLpKg
i dont really understand the relevance 'having levelling' or not has to the systems described by op, but regardless in albion it is possible to kill players in 'endgame' gear (however improbable) in gear you can have an hour into the game if you outplay. it is also possible to buy this endgame gear and the experience required to weild it through experience tomes, so a player can access whatever content they want and progress their personal economy by any means, crafting, gathering, pvp, dungeons, open world griefing, etc. unless i am missing your point
>Does anybody want to transmog run
Yes, but not for WoW. I would love to grind for cosmetic gear. Part of it being a super rare drop and another being collecting monster drops and making them into a cute hat.
i have been saying for years that if albion onlines systems had a popular franchise to take characters from and a little more polish it would be the best mmo ever made. this is the game you are describing
>We're obviously having a discussion. This deserves to be on the board as much as anything else. Nobody wants to think about how often something is posted if they're coming in the thread to talk about video games.
this isn't a discussion. It's just you regurgitating the same schizo nonsense while everyone else complains that you don't make sense and calls you moronic.
>People want to PvP for items to trade and be rich
But this is the problem. Killing someone for stash shouldn't be normal gameplay. There should always be the risk, but the action should have serious consequences. After all, never in the history of mankind people killed other people with nothing happening to them afterwards. The risk should be there, but if you want to be a criminal, you better think about it first.
Let competitive people go play competitive games. MMOs were always about progress.
>Only if you had really rare equipment.
That's not convincing, I'm not playing your shit.
Retirement zones where you get to take long naps in player made furnished houses and spend the rest of your time gardening pretending to drink while looking wistfully off into the sunset EverQuest Next might have been capable of that had it continued but that entire timeline was averted by what is it you do now play online single player games that you pay money for to skip all the level grinding and upgrading and whatever overly complicated tier merging system there is no just pay me $30 for your five star character and you can bypass that altogether how did we get here people.
Full loot pvp is a fricking disgrace to the gaming world that appeals only to chinks and cheaters and you should have a nice day.
Hobby gaming is about a high skill ceiling and varied:deep experiences.
move on anon
just move on
I moved to FFXIV after Legion. Their director actually played MMOs in past.
It needs to be a mix of sandboxing combined with something to look forward to. Fortnite is a good example of how this can be done. Players look forward to major events and end of season that have an impact on the world around them. WoW used to do this, like with the war effort and icecrown's progressive unveiling, sometimes on accident like with the blood plague. Last time was Legion invasions which people still remember fondly. Other than that WoW's worlds have been extremely stagnant.
Ascension draft mode fixes world of Warcraft completely. Randomly getting spells and having Diablo like enchants makes the game completely different and a lot more fun. Plus you can have like ten specs so you can prestige and keep leveling and unlocking cards to make a better build.
It's just fricking good.
But does it have economy?
Until the meta gets figured out and you're garbage if you didn't roll the specific set of spells
Is this actually and unironically a bot? I think it is
Seems that way
Buildable and destructible buildings, cities and terrain like in Minecraft but using modern 3D graphics instead of blocks.
wow had a killer take on medieval fantasy
now its all about aliens and robots
what happened?
>wow had a killer take on medieval fantasy
It had shitty watered down version of Warhammer: Fantasy Battles
Let's be honest here, Warcraft absolutely mogged Warhammer.
Everyone has heard of Warcraft but not Warhammer.
>bideojames is more popular and approachable than a high investment autism hobby
SHOCKED i'm telling you
Bottom line: that was not achieved on the merit of having a better worldbuilding or setting
Warhammer's setting is fricking awful, dude.
The foundation of WoW's success was the number of people that were invested in the setting after playing Warcraft 3.
I bet more people could name characters from fricking Dragonlance than any WH:FB character that isn't also from 40k.
You're wrong because
1: I've never even heard of Dragonlance
And 2:
>SUMMON THE ELECTOR COUNTS!!
>I bet more people could name characters from fricking Dragonlance than any WH:FB character that isn't also from 40k.
FB and 40k have largely the same grimdork appeal anyway and I sure as frick can't name any offishul characters from Dragonlance in spite of playing a campaign in that setting, I had to google if Raistlin was part of it to even confirm he was in DL.
Intern writers and narritive director who was working on other projects to be fricked with keeping them in check.
>let's "fix" the genre so you get farmed by nolifers and everything punishes you!!!!
This is why your boomer mmo's are dead and every kickstartered one fails moron
Skip the roundabout bullshit and just go play Diablo immortal if you want to be food for nolifers and whales so badly, you are the problem.
>This is why your boomer mmo's are dead
No it's not; UO and such are outdated.
>and every kickstartered one fails moron
Examples?
>Skip the roundabout bullshit and just go play Diablo immortal if you want to be food for nolifers and whales so badly, you are the problem.
Does Diablo Immortal actually have anything the OP is suggesting?
Rust and ARK are some of the most popular games.
>Rust and Ark
Nice bait, those games aren't MMO:s, rather just glorified battleroyales with extra steps.
Hell, you lose your stuff in fortnite when you die, and look how popular that game is! It's a clear sign that full loot PVP must be introduced to MMO:s
Diablo immortal is Get farmed by morons who paid 50k real world buckaroos to be 'good' at a videogame simulator
Now replace paying 50grand with spending 18 hours a day 7 days a week so they can be the bestest pvp'er on the server and camp lowbies who can no longer advance because gear is zero sum in a persistent world.
both Mortal Online MMOs fricking bombed, on release 2 hit just under 10k players and now its at under 1k
WoW combat, lore and graphics
Runescape everything else
There's nothing to do in Runescape. There's no point.
Runescape is the MMO with the most to do? You can spend years grinding skills gold PvP bosses whatever and still have stuff to do 24/7.
Other MMOs you hit max level fairly quick then log in for your little dailies or weekly raid and that's it nothing to do.
Elaborate, homosexual
Full loot only appeals to the tiniest fraction of extreme autists.
>Full loot PVP is bad!
>I don't want to lose my full BIS armor set that I spend 12 months farming >1% drop rate personal loot weekly gacha boxes to get even though blizzard is going to do that anyway with the welfare ilvl boost
How is mortal online doing these days? That full loot pvp must really bring in the players, right?
Hackers, Bots, Griefers and more! PvP greatest weakness, is the endless battle the devs have to constantly deal instead of developing anything meaningful. PvP is a cancer to the development of a game.
Lol. moronic.
Not an argument.
People want more than linear progression.
You're appealing to absurdity; nobody mentioned taking away instanced PvE and PvP; and theme parking (which have very little content) being replaced by sandboxing (which theoretically have infinite content) is natural.
>have .. have
has*
>the genre is easy to fix. it must simply be deleted and replaced with a completely different genre that appeals to completely different people.
>MMOs are easy to fix, here are some absolutely moronic opinions and easy ways to completely and irredeemably frick up your game
bravo
Full loot PvP is dogshit that only Slavs like
MMOs are a dead genre, people already fixed them by stop making MMOs and instead making full loot survival games instead.
Only trooners who invested over 9000 hours into their gay elf transmog cares about their dying games, everyone else just plays Tarkov, Rust, Ark, Minecraft, ect. You have to be mentally ill to keep playing dogshit that charges you $15 a month to wait around for days for a boss to reset so you could kill it for its 1% drop that will be vendor trash next patch
I can't be a smoking hot wolfgirl in any of those games though
This is, like, the 10th time you've made this exact thread with these moronic ideas.
Nobody likes full-loot PvP and players avoid it like the plague. See Ascension WoW and Runescape.
Permanent item damage doesn't change literally anything about how people play MMOs. See Dungeons and Dragons Online.
>Most popular private server
>One of the most popular non-WOW clones
>Avoided like the plague
lol
>One of the most popular non-WOW clones
>D&DO
>popular
shit was nearly dead a year after release
>Ascension can't get even 1% of its playerbase to do HC PVP even when they make it multiple times more lucrative than the next best thing
>Jagex has to literally force players to traverse the wilderness by gating endgame content behind it, which is so virulently unpopular that the playerbase blackballs every PvP poll out of spite
Yeah, full-loot PvP is so popular in these games lmao.
Ascension is popular for reasons that have nothing to do with high risk or PvP at all. Same with Runescape.
playing highrisk 24/7 is NOT why ascension is popular and you know that full well homosexual
Albion online is one of the most played mmorpg's on the maket. There are more people playing it than troonyfantasy. People love full loot pvp when done correctly, you're just bad at pvp so your opinion is skewed.
>source: trust me bro
Albion online posts their numbers, look it up mouth breather.
The onus is on the one presenting information as facts without backing it up with evidence, not the guy calling you out on your bullshit.
>a record of 270k active players based on their own report on their site less than a year ago
>being anywhere near top 5 even
What?
>Albion online is one of the most played mmorpg's on the maket.
>Posted their numbers once a year ago
>270k
Pretty much every other MMO on the market is bigger than that. If we only count the steam numbers for Lost Ark, it's bigger than that, hell a lot of non-mmo games are bigger than them
Most of the players don't even enter the red/black zone (The full loot areas) unless they are literally handed out gear by the guild for a ZvZ or just running through it naked/minimally geared to get somewhere quickly.
They had to do so many changes to the black zone just to encourage people to go there.
Literally had to look up the game you were talking about just to see it's some f2p Runescape looking shit. 270k Brazilians playing at their local library can't be wrong.
>you're just bad at pvp so your opinion is skewed
If you knew frick-all about MMO PvP you'd be pining for competitive, standardized PvP like Guild Wars and not funsies open-world shit.
But then again, you'd probably go 10-0 in organized PvP, which is why you're whinging about ganking people in Runescape.
These are all some of the worst ideas possible.
You don't even understand what is wrong, how on earth can you solve it?
You have to build the game from the ground up to make a decent sandbox mmo. Even games like EVE Online fricked up by making gathering process non skill based and uninteractive.
>Be ESO
>Have millions of monthly players
>Introduce a PvPvE area where you lose *some* of your stuff if you die
>It's a fricking ghost-town compared to the PvPvE area where you *don't* lose your shit because no one wants to use lose the shit they've farmed by some shityear old ganker
OP you're moronic
>Again, how easy is it to get equipment?
Easy as shit. You only lose half. So say you spent an hour grinding; half an hour and you're back to where you were at.
what you proposed is a unbalanced jack of shit that none will play outside of the sweaty players.
The fact that its a open world pvp makes the game 10x worse for casuals. You're gonna have a niche audience just like the milisim genre. All at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars at that point gaming companies should just make a focused smaller multiplayer game instead of a mmo.
>make economy player based by having items break permanently after too many repairs
>turn up drop rates for everything
>???
>profit
this concept worked well enough for SWG to net them 100-300k subscribers during a time when normies wouldn't even touch MMOs, and the game only died when they started to roll out the "WoW" patch that eliminated all classes and most of the player-based economy
games like New World only got so much hype because they first planned to allow players to create their own cities. then they restructured it to be a WoW theme park, and look how well that game is doing now.
there is a big market for sandbox MMOs, but for some reason, all major devs want the WoW audience.
>"Our MMO will be as successful as Star Wars Galaxy"
What an amazing pitch.
new world was basically doing exactly that, and people were going crazy about it. then they turned it into a theme park during development.
now, the game has 15k players on average.
I think i agree on the premise:
Why would I play a WoW clone instead of WoW? Sure we are getting to the point where WoW is getting stale, so you would instead play Square Enix offer because Blizzard is bad at their job... But the kernel of truth is the same.
>Why would I play a WoW clone instead of WoW?
You plausibly wouldn't, but SW:G was different.
ARK/
>Ascension is a case study on gear being thrown at people
How?
>battle royale
Is nowhere near the variety and depth of a sandbox MMO.
Subs were declining for about a decade.
??? how is that even a relevant or even logical response? subs declining have nothing to do with the fact that the game devs outlined a framework for the design of the game. it's simply how it's intended to be. the game you're imagining it could be is just not WoW, so the problem is completely incongruent and unconnected.
>the concept worked well enough for this 30 year old game that had no competitors in a world where social media and phones didn't exist which then instantly died the second more casual friendly games came out
Ok moron
>no competitors
everquest
final fantasy 11
dark age of camelot
and a whole lot other failed MMOs
meanwhile, dogshit survival games like rust and ark have iron man player numbers.
All of which ALSO died the second more casual mmo's like WoW came out, which then died when even more casual online messengers like Facebook came out
You don't get it, there's a reason the highest grossing games of all time are shit like candy crush.
>wow is more casual than DAoC
nah, WoW was highly successful because it was very pretty at the time and was probably the first MMO ever that didn't had floaty animations for players and NPCs. also a serious lack of bug.
just look at DAoC's soulless GUI design for example. normies are appalled by that shit. WoW was not successful because it was a theme park MMO, but because everything looked good and refined, from the world to the models to the buttons and font.
Nobody in their right mind cared for joining a TS server with 40 other guys and discussing tactics in front of a oversized mob. People went raiding because they wanted better gear, and if they could have aquired that gear through different means (like buying it for gold from a crafter), the majority of people would have done just that.
The most fun that people had in this game was creating large player battles in low level areas. Not because they got any rewards, just because it was so fun to eternally battle other players.
There are a million reasons why WoW was successful, but the theme park design was not one of them.
one of the things I loved about vanilla was the huge world and being able to be leveling in different areas while having random encounters with the enemy faction, I don't know why they didn't pushed that instead of bgs, city afking and group finder shit
They did push it in classic and the second the pvp patch came out everyone said frick this and quit because it turns out being camped by rogues isn't actually fun at all
they pushed shit, they ctrl+c/ctrl+v the vanilla thing with the same issues adding new more issues like layer gayness
DAoC was fun. It's GUI slowly wanted to suck your soul out, and really felt jarring at all times. Still the bizarre balancing of classes and janky pvp gave it memorable charm.
almost 20 years later and no mmos combat is as smooth as wows, how did they do it
The original developers played their own game
There is literally no gain besides asymmetric zero sum griefing, just knowing that you ruined another person's week of farming is enough for certain people.
The only reason it works in battle Royale is because nothing but your skins are persistent (which cant be stolen) and you find a new match every few minutes until you git gud.
The shorthand of a battle Royale is that you have an RNG loadout at the start of each match with an extra step of scavenging it in the 10 seconds before you see other players (who are also on relatively the same footing unless insanely lucky)
Ok playing devils avocado here, if you had a bigass, semi long term BG like AV, where you start with set gear, and could scavenge the mobs and opposing team for shit to make gear that lasted for the duration of that battle, or until you're killed and scavenged in turn, that might have some value. But I don't see it working if brought out to the whole world.
Being long = death
Game has to be 30 second bursts or less otherwise people don't get their dopamine and quit
If you're trash at battle Royale you can keep queuing over and over with minimal time wasted
How long does a chicken royale with cheese last? Cant be that short
Just watch any Battle Royale gameplay, your first few minutes are frantic survival (especially the first 30 second window) then it's a slow burn from then on as the top people slowly move to the centre
Something something investment, if you have no respawns you really don't want to die, but the only penalty for actually dieing is you're waiting in a new lobby till it fills up.
Battle royale s don't have respawn though, so getting back up to kill the guy who took your hat of big dick +5 would keep zoomie playing a bit longer (I hope, I ain't a psychologist)
>Full loot pvp
Just play PUBG or fortnight
just copy this game into 2022 for frick sake
The core of an MMO should be the social experience. Even if you don't talk to anyone, the fact that you see a lot of players in a capital city can motivate you to keep playing the game, since it makes you feel like you're not wasting your time.
There's 100 different types of players and those who would rather not engage in pvp is probably over 75% especially if it's full loot pvp and not limited to a single zone like in Runescape. It is the dumbest thing you're trying to push
what about a wow private server with this kind of shit? frick that classless gimmicks
>spawn
>join swarm of hues looking to pull down someone geared
>doesn't matter how many times you die, just respawn and rejoin the swarm
>no point in getting anything yourself because you'll just lose it to the swarm the moment they see you wearing it
>get something from a corpse
>it's broken and requires 45 bear asses to repair, which isn't worth trying to get
>get killed before you can type delete, another hue takes it
>hue swarm vs geared players
ngl this was at least an interesting idea for that Warhammer 40k MMO that got butchered, F2P players are restricted to ork boys while subscribers can play Eldar, SM, CSM and elite Ork units
That legitimately would have been the funniest shit ever and I'm so sad it never managed to escape development hell
But that wouldn't last either, it would just be the crab in a bucket scenario where noone has anything because the moment you collect one thing there's a target on your head and you aren't OP enough to fight off the hue swarm
In a game like that you would just make it about capturing and holding a few nodes on each server that mine resources for you instead of pvp full loot autism
Think like Planetside or something along those lines
That way you have lore accurate battles of a green tide of orks vs like 10 space marines and all the ork guns suck and bolters chew through but there's just so many of them
It would be absolutely beautiful
good in theory, practice is everyone wants to be guy with better gun and you'll get like 4 dudes who are desperately trying their hardest but everyone is essentially just waiting their turn to be the OP gunman
If they want to be the guy with the better gun they better pay2win or suck it up being the green tide
Thats basically what that F2P model incentivizes, you either play for free as some grot chaff that gets fricked in 1v1 against a paying player, who you can overwhelm with a paying Ork player or with 9 other hue orks (reminds me of pre-BWL vanilla WoW where a handful of sub 60s could murder a player in dungeon tier gear), or you pay up and level the playing field
This also would have made way to different playstyles and thus experience between p2p and f2p players, something free players might have even take pride in when they frick up a battlefield by being a coordinated mass of chaff
it would be cool, for sure
ArcheAge is the upper limit on how harsh you can make dying in PvP.
>Lose your pack, a modest loss on investment but large loss of potential payout
>Get put in jail if you're a criminal for 1500 hours
>Get your boat sunk and have to repair it
and probably some other minor shit I'm forgetting.
This was enough to make PvP exciting and widespread, without making people try to avoid it out of loss aversion.
The entire point is to get MORE people to PvP. Full-loot gets LESS people to PvP. Period.
The reason MMO's are dead and not coming back is that we have the internet for decades now.
I still remember when i first got internet in my house in 2000 and could chat with other people the other side of the planet instantly. Me and my family were fricking dumbfounded it was literal magic. Now imagine a few years later that you could enter a fricking virtual gaming world and cooperate and play with other, real people across the world in real time.
Now it's 2022. Zoomers were BORN with the above, it doesn't excite them one bit, kind of like how i'm not excited about the existence of TVs and phones. Them being constatnly connected to the global hivemind 24/7 is so ingrained to them they get withdrawal syndrome if you take their phones away.
That is why MMO's aren't coming back. The only thing they had going for them is the online aspect.
I hope one day you find the funding to make the disaster of a game you want, so it crashes and burns and you finally see once and for all what you won't be convinced of in all these autistic shit threads you've made; you are among the tiny, tiny autistic minority who actually wants to play this kind of shit MMO.
You will NEVER maintain a large population of people willing to risk their semi-permanent progression items (which universally define an MMO) just to play the god damn game. Ascension is a case study on gear being thrown at people and people still refusing to play high risk PVP that you are just trying to ignore.
What you want already exists and it's called a fricking battle royale, go play fricking fortnite for your fix of easily obtained items that you lose on death and quit trying to push yourself as some kind of expert on what people want, you annoying god dam autist. I mean holy shit all those words in that post and all of them are either uninformed (which you at least implicitly admit to), unproven hypotheticals, or just plain completely out of touch
that's just not what the game is right now and will never be at any point. WoW is a pve treadmill and that won't be changing any time soon because there's an established economy of advertisers and sponsors invested in it. throughout the years you may have also noticed a polishing towards a particular design direction. that's obviously not a mistake, this is the fully realized vision of WoW for the foreseeable future.
>and this is solved by sandboxing.
People DON'T want sandboxes. Why do you think they changed New World? Because people b***hed that the game was shit. Casuals DON'T want sweaty tryhard full loot PVP.
You have to be able to tell QA testers what fun actually is, or they're going to try to translate feelings.
What is there to do in a leveling world with obsolete content and zero ways of making your character better?
Horizontal progression like gw2 without the janky movement
Isn't GW2 a collectathon?
suggests that players don't know what they want but that it's advertisable.
That is correct. Players absolutely don't know what they want, but they do get fed up and leave really fast if they don't find a long-lasting element that pleases them in particular.
For example, ArcheAge, a PvP-friendly MMO is kept afloat by housing autists (and a few VIP-like systems). Those never leave. PvP players are fickle.
One bad class balancing pass and they're gone. A bad loss, a destabilized community (e.g. enough players band together to render the attempts of anyone else pointless via area control/sniping others/metagaming shit) fractures the place almost permanently, any half-decent hacking system/bad lag response system will have the chinese exploiting the shit out of the game rendering it extremely unpleasant for everyone else involved.
Bugs, badly received content drops, revamps to keep the game fresh and up to date can also kneecap the entire place instantly.
Patch cadence is important too, at least for the first few years to get enough people hooked to the point playing the game for them is a habit.
I'm not sure how you'd go around solving all of these and preserving an active core that'd happily load up for something every month to keep the game's development running.
WoW is a collectathon
The difference is collectathons don't invalidate your previous months of hard work killing a boss when next boss appears
>suggests that players don't know what they want
That is completely true, they thought they wanted dungeons at a click of a button along with many other QoL changed but it actually destroyed the community and thus made many fall out of love with the game.
You can never put control of the game in the hands of the people, they are fricking idiots who will make the experience worse for themselves.
One d that should be an s and it instantly reads like some ESL shit, I really need to stop phoneposting.
For whoever was suggesting Ark and Rust as examples of good PvP games, I hope you get cancer and die, you insufferable homosexual.
>ctrl+f
>futa
>draenei
>webm
>0 results
I will now leave your thread, for it is cringe.
Futa draenei is a fricking terrible fetish when you could be fapping to the infinitely superior draenei using her tail as a dick
I've worked on a few MMOs, anon.
The main problem of your thread is that you know what you want.
But not what the average players want.
Your only real hope is niche MMOs with long-established playerbases, but a new one will not bloom in the next few years minimum.
Sounds genuinely terrible
Games like that have been popular for a decade.
One of the worst concepts ever posted on Ganker from OP. Wow.
all the effort you put into making these threads (and the ones trying to make botting/RMT a core part of gaming) you could've spent into actually making the game you seem to have in your mind
They couldn't make one because whoever would be willing to fund it would force some kind of p2w monetization.
PvP MMOs can't work because the main potential playerbase interested in them are psychos who can't behave like civilized humans as soon as they're given the tiniest little bit of laxity regarding consequences. They can largely be divided into two groups: third worlders who have grown up in a world without morals where they just cut people into pieces while they're still alive and burn them in tires and sell babies and such, and rich first world psychopaths from "good" families who have grown up in a world without morals where they just flaunt their ill-gotten gains and ruin people in a "sophisticated" manner.
Until those two groups of people are removed from the face of the Earth, there will be no PvP MMO worth playing for anyone who's a normal person.
I'm going to tell you why op is a gay and why my fever dream of an mmo is better.
>real-time srpg combat
I have no idea what this might be. Maybe somthing like an isometric twin stick shooter with a drop down menu.
>large zones instead of a totaly interconnected world
>cheese "don't let it be you" mechanics
>can level forever
>can reincarnate to keep some stats and start again from level 1
>can level up weapons, items, equipment
>can create own zones with multiple end results (base defense, store front, challenge map, comfy, etc.)
And it would be the best mmo ever.
Belive in the you that believes in the me that believes in the One Peice, Nippon Ichi Software.
I like one peice.
>like spiral knights
Sounds kino I'm in, and OP is a huge gay
>Thread #54 from the guy who can't even hit max level in an MMO jerking himself off over all the answers he thinks he has for the genre
Planetside except you play a wizard.
>ARK is the best game available.
People only play it because it has been handed out for free several times and there are options for PvE servers.
Official servers are populated; they just came out with a new map.
>[Ad hominem].
>skills
>naked
>cheesing
>god tier set that you'll never use
Did you even read the OP?
>Did you even read the OP?
no, I just read full loot pvp and knew you had no idea what the frick you were talking about so didn't waste any time.
>"Why are those games popular?"
which games, moron-sama
Even WoW had world PvP before flying mounts.
A 3D fighting, server game would be fun if it had equipment.
Survival Crafting, for example (Rust; Minecraft; ARK).
>People play mmos to make there numbers gonna and show off said number to a captive audience.
The prerogative is power.
It's not obvious what the remainder of that post is on about.
I *know* that players are usually PvPing in a PvP game, even when it's mediocre efficiency.
>[Appealing to extremes again].
>I *know* that players are usually PvPing in a PvP game, even when it's mediocre efficiency.
You ok man? You're not even pretending you're replying to the quoted post anymore lmfao.
A lot of people don't know and expect others to be friendly (which was possible in DayZ), especially when you don't usually gain that much, and taming a mount can take an hour. I'm wondering how making items prevalent would affect behavior.
PvPing shouldn't be criticized as a relevant aspect of future implementations because telling players what's efficient is as simple as a loading screen image and notating when a player instigates often.
only autists want full loot
>[Appealing to extremes again].
he's right you retar
>[Ad hominem].
>he's right you retar
What makes you think that a studio would design such arbitrary time requirements for gearing? All you have to do is play the auction house for a little while to be as rich as you are knowledgeable of value, getting whatever you want.
>Yeh bro just sit in front of the auction house for your entire playtime flipping goods and not actually playing the game.
That's not how supply and demand works, anon.
There's next to no way for you to progress in any meaningful way in that direction provided you have more than like 3 players trying to flip literally whatever.
>A 3D fighting, server game would be fun if it had equipment.
It wouldn't be much of an MMO and the content droughts would be years between slow balance patches to fix various exploits. This idea is terrible even on paper.
I was talking about 70ish players.
Trolling is against the rules, anon.
If they're going to $.01 undercut all day, let them have it.
New World had a different problem; people would 1 item with huge undercuts waiting for people to post more at that so they can buy it and repost it higher. That was worse than .01ing because it would sometimes stay there as if they forgot.
>it is power
No shit Sherlock, but the people who play mmos for validation are handicapped individuals who will never find success in a more physically/mentally intensive game. No one respects you for being good at mmos, not even most of the people playing it.
>but I want to be a sociopath and glitch up a wall by using the games shit object collision to stab someone while they are sleeping at take all there stuff!
Once again, play whatever fotm survival game is out right now.
>I don't understand basic gameplay systems
And you want to make a game?
Shiggity diggity
>being this mad nobody likes your moronic ideas and someone posted something I actually liked
OP is not just a gay but also eats a huge bag of dicks
As much as I appreciate the idea of full loot pvp it just doesn't work the way you think it does
I haven't played actual Ultima Online (the real tour de force in full loot pvp), just private shards, but the way the game would work there was
>get a house
>get a few of your boys
>spar until you max out your skills
>get a spear
>run into places naked using only your spear
>kill high level shit with a spear by cheesing them
>loot
>ID your loot
>assemble your god tier set that you'll never use outside of pvp events that happen under GM supervision and therefore have no looting
Maybe take some pictures of it too idk
>That would be content.
Content is easy to say.
What'd have long-lasting power to keep the majority of the playerbase involved often enough to keep the game going?
The vast majority of the players will never set foot into high-end stuff. You need something permanent, accessible to everyone, with enough staying power and updated frequently. For example, players on leave won't get excited and return if, say, an endgame area is updated. Most of them don't even have access to it or can't get there, so what's the point?
>What do they get for playing?
The majority of similar games I've played personally will hand out much better rewards/gear/resources in PvP-enabled world areas and/or provide superior PvP gear which is above the stuff you could get otherwise without putting in a lot of time in grinding shit.
That's still not sufficient to keep interest in PvP also because usually what you'll have is a singular group of older(or higher paying, depending on monetization) players that will take control of the area(s), denying the resources/rewards to everyone else or allowing bare minimum of scraps. This often kneecaps games extremely fast.
You don't want an mmo, you want a sweaty fighting game with single button supers and laughably stupid net code to recreate anime cheater superpowers.
>numbers going up is bad
Minecraft zoomer alert, just go play the fotm survival crafting game. People play mmos to make there numbers gonna and show off said number to a captive audience.
I'll even go a step further beyond to show just how bad you are at designing mechanics.
>pvp
>you lose nothing but mana
>what is mana?
>it is a number that goes up when you kill anything, npcs and mobs included
>it dosnt directly incress stats, but can be spent to affect the game like giving yourself 3x xp for the next 12 hours, being able to access certain dungeons and maps, etc.
Btfo my friend. You don't go backwards from pvp but it can have some seriously powerful benefits.
>>[Projections of the designs' player mentality].
>That has happened so much in this thread, I'm sure it's like 1 guy doing it.
Spend some time playing one of these games instead of multiquoting the entire thread with meaningless replies and you'll see for yourself.
>MMO
>Full Loot PvP
Will never work. Just imagine grinding for hundreds of hours only to lose it all in mere seconds because a group decided to be buttholes.
This is a troll thread, do not talk with these people, they are moronic.
>PVP in an MMO
why
other than DAoC, it's always awful.
the entire genre isn't designed for PVP in mind, yet they keep forcing it in becuase a small number of morons won't shut the frick up about it.
Go play an actual pvp game like a competitive FPS or moba or RTS or FIFA/2k.
Play scum
>Why?
Because unlike having the whole game be based around this, you go in knowing everyone is on the same level as you to start, and you aren't risking anything outside of the BG itself.
>Only use what you can afford to replace
This leads to a painfully slow gameplay since you are forced to play suboptimally and discourages build experimentation.
All MMOs that tried this are dead. Please stop being a moron
I love how everyone has forgotten that Blizzard is making their own sandbox survival game.
The future of MMOs is sandbox survival
The future of MMORPG's is gacha
Prove me wrong.
>100 people is a server is an mmo to you
WOW IS THAT WHAT I THINK IT IS?????
A LOT OF PEOPLE PLAYING A VIDEO GAME????
*this made boomers cream their pants in 2004*
TEEN FAIL
speak english
Survival crafting will literally never be an mmo because of the nature of the game. To many intractable objects to keep track of for too many player connections slows the game to a crawl or breaks the game into much, much smaller zones.
>*this made boomers cream their pants in 2004*
yes, because in 2004 it was a fairly novel thing to have a bunch of people online in a gameworld like that in the same area. You had older MMOs before WoW that did the same thing, but none of them were even remotely as popular as WoW was nor did they have anywhere near the same size sever caps (2500-4000 ccus when the next biggest games EQ/DAOC 1400-2000/1600-2200 respectively).
You wouldn't understand because you're a zoomer that has grown up with a smartphone in his hands his entire life, but the idea of thousands of players connected to the same world and playing at the same time was somewhat revolutionary in the early 00s.
We didn't forget, we just don't give a frick. Also nothing about their game says that it's going to be PVP or full loot PVP. Just that they want to do their own spin on the Survival genre.
>Future of MMOs is sandbox survival
Yeah no shit, anyone with half an interest in the MMO sphere knows this. Traditional MMOs have fallen off greatly in favor of games like Minecraft, ARK, H1Z1, Rust, etc. This isn't some kind of revelation, it's common knowledge that's almost a decade old at this point.
>The future of MMORPGs is gacha
Again, this isn't some kind of new or revelatory statement. gachas have funded MMOs for years now, almost every major F2P mmo has some kind of gacha/loot box system implemented in it, and has for the last 5+ years.
You're like some dipshit 8th grader coming into school one day saying "guys, you'll never believe this, but 2+2=4. Prove me wrong, bet you cant!".
reminds me of playing ESO last night, some guy was going on about how bad pvp balance was
and it's like, come on dude, it's a fricking mmo of all things, it's always gonna have a meta even if they patch and balance
maybe he meant that it has a worse balance than other mmo's
Oakenring or w/e it's called have turned PvP meta on its head.
what a great item, i'm sure this won't absolutely go wrong
People either love it or hate it. I honestly don't mind a more casual PvP in battlegrounds.
According to your logic, Genshin Impact is this generation's World of Warcraft. Got it.
Didn't say that, nor did I imply that at all. Good to know you don't actually give a shit about this topic and are just arguing for the sake of arguing and "winning" an argument on Ganker of all places, though.
There are multiple problems for the MMO genre and it is not that simple.
>tl;dr
Old games need major upgrades befitting contemporary market demands.
1. Graphics
Most of them are old, and aesthetically displeasing. This drives away newer generations of players which leads to declining player retention.
The solution to this problem is to either completely revamping the engine like World of Tanks did, or make a second game. First one is costly and needs experienced coders amongst the devs. Second option is a dangerous option as it might alienate the entrenched veterans (Maple Story 2).
2. Progression and time
People are busy these days. The reason why quick paced MOBAs and battle royales are faring better is beacuse they require lesser time commitment. MMO on the other hand, requires months and perhaps years of grinding.
But instead of decompressing progression to make more intermediate grind goals, most devs choose to sell "boosters" to shorten the progression. This not only alienate the veterans who have sunk many hours of effory into the game, but also gives newer players the impression that it's pay2win/play garbage.(Wows, eve) This practice has to be stopped. Better progression design can completely fix this problem.
3. Pay to play
Back then, the internet was a novelty. Few people owned computers and they were relatively rich.
Now, basically everyone has access to the internet. From potato computers to maxed out machine, the audience is wider but at the same time poorer.
Because of this, games that require payment to play (subscription, package, expansions, etc) tend to be less successful these days, whereas games like League where it's free to play but only cosmetics that cost like 10-20 bucks which are completely optional tend to be much much more popular and successful.
Mmos must seek new profit schemes more befitting contemporary consumer demands should they want longevity.
>Mmos must seek new profit schemes more befitting contemporary consumer demands should they want longevity.
You're spouting off like you can't buy gold directly through Blizzard means in WoW, or that FF14 doesn't have an insanely overpriced and overexpansive cosmetic shop where 90% of the items in it are 1 time use, or that practically every modern AAA F2P MMO ala ESO or SWTOR are full to the brim with MTX nickel and diming you every chance they get as well as having extensive cash shops for cosmetics and even gear upgrades.
>Back then, the internet was a novelty
The internet wasn't a novelty the year before the fricking Xbox 360 was released.
You zoomers need to stop saying this moronic shit.
The only people in first-world countries without the internet in 2004 were people on food stamps.
>Old games
"Upgrading graphics to relevant standards" or "making 2D games 3D" are beyond what was meant.
>People are busy these days. The reason why quick paced MOBAs and battle royales are faring better is beacuse they require lesser time commitment. MMO on the other hand, requires months and perhaps years of grinding.
You're correct, but the critique on MMOs is appealing to tradition at best.
>But instead of decompressing progression to make more intermediate grind goals, most devs choose to sell "boosters" to shorten the progression. This not only alienate the veterans who have sunk many hours of effory into the game, but also gives newer players the impression that it's pay2win/play garbage.(Wows, eve)
WoW and EVE can be P2W garbage though. What the OP is suggesting *is* making more intermediate grind goals by always providing something to do.
>Back then, the internet was a novelty. Few people owned computers and they were relatively rich.
Now, basically everyone has access to the internet. From potato computers to maxed out machine, the audience is wider but at the same time poorer.
Because of this, games that require payment to play (subscription, package, expansions, etc) tend to be less successful these days, whereas games like League where it's free to play but only cosmetics that cost like 10-20 bucks which are completely optional tend to be much much more popular and successful.
A game that's supposed to be the best available could have a buy and subscription fee; if it's designed and advertised exactly how it's better than other games, it should be OK, and everybody would want to play the game that's being played by everyone; a real money economy would be a lot of incentive.
Maybe he means something novel: ads; user projects; tournaments.
It mentions WoW as an option; the fundamentals are the same for every game; every game should be made for everybody.
>every game should be made for everybody.
lol
lamo
No thing is for everybody. Trying to please everyone is why many things suck.
>The genre is easy to fix.
Yes, but since you're using WoW as your baseline you clearly have no idea how to do it.
He also suggest turning themepark handholding MMOs into hardcore full loot PVP survival sandbox games to fix them, so even if he didn't use WoW as his baseline he clearly has no idea how to do it.
Expensive-materials durability is a difference for having roles and an economy. So is full loot (items would eventually disappear if not taken).
>only griefers and trolls have fun with it
If the game is fun, you can have fun in a sandbox.
>There's a reason why every successful pvp based game of ANY genre are basically lobby based matchmaking with a short game cycle.
They're not; but a short cycle is possible in persistent games too.
>PvP is incompatible with the type of game MMOs typically are.
You're not actually evidencing anything.
A persistent world and simultaneous characters, leading to strategy, intensity, and thus fun.
Why the frick are you even posting, you're just describing Albion Online.
>
>Apparently, the best way to make MMOs popular again is to make them exclusively for a small >1% group of players.
The science backs the OP.
>>bro, only the top 3 best players should be able to experience endgame content
>>dude, it should take at least 200 hours to get to level 2, gotta filter out the undedicated
>>pvp should have real, HARDCORE consequences, like if you die you have to spend a hundred dollars to resurrect your character
>It wouldn't even be a problem if they went and played any of the actual hardcore niche MMOs out there, but no they just sit around complaining that there's no niche MMO that does WoW numbers.
What are you on about? A). no A+ MMO being a PvP sandbox, especially full loot, is already mentioned; B). wanting to play with a lot of people is OK.
[...]
>Darkfall online, not darkfall the single player game from 1996 you absolute troglodite.
You said Daggerfall.
That video is anecdote, listing forum posts.
[...]
No, anon.
[...]
want to PvP for items to trade and be rich
>But this is the problem. Killing someone for stash shouldn't be normal gameplay.
Why? It's something to do.
Bonus points to a game allowing botting and having a real money auction house.
[...]
>That's not convincing
You're opining an imaginary scenario.
[...]
>Log into Albion for the first time.
>Start gathering; this is really fun.
>Make about 5k silver in under an hour; get a mount.
>40k silver (a few journeys to outside the city and back), a dungeon, and an expedition, and I'm maybe on T2 equipment; the 4-ish abilities are getting repetitive (they're not particularly deep).
All I would want is to eco, try fun equipment (classes), and PvP, but it's dozens if not hundreds of hours of arbitrary point accrual.
>A persistent world and simultaneous characters, leading to strategy, intensity, and thus fun.
fun is subjective
>"Let me spout arbitrary opinionation."
not an argument
Physiology is the same (starter cells; mathematical propagation; systems).
You can't have fun in a sandbox if every five minutes your sandcastle gets kicked over and your wallet stolen.
You could have a penalty debuff on damage and health if you instigate (if they're not flagged).
Then the PvP players are unhappy and you wind up with fallout 76.
76 also has the legacy weapons issue, where they decided to remove the ability to obtain certain broken weapon combinations, they didn't remove said weapons from the players so you've got all these people with unobtainable gear that you'll never be able to compete with
PvP based mmos fail for obvious reason of only griefers and trolls have fun with it, then normal people leave, then the griefers have no one to grief and they loose to.
There's a reason why every successful pvp based game of ANY genre are basically lobby based matchmaking with a short game cycle.
PvP is incompatible with the type of game MMOs typically are. Even the people who "like" PvP in MMOs are only thinking about in terms of "wow I spend 100s of hours grinding gear, time to stomp noobs with only 50 hours in the game"
Some of my best WoW memories were curbstomping people in bg's while I was in maxed out raid gear
It was probably like how Diablo immortal whales feel
>Because MMO is the best genre.
why?
It always annoys me how people can't see how the real strength of MMOs is in RP. All you need is to have cool cosmetics, a somewhat interesting world (which wow has), good character customization (still no sliders in the year of our lord 2022), and a few parallel progressions to hide your items behind. You don't even need to innovate that much, the art team can literally carry an MMO.
>inb4 MUH RP gayS
I thought it was a meme too, but RP and ERP are the most fun I've had with games like these by far. Once I tried it I was never able to play the game "normally" again.
>What are you on about
You keep trying to make mmos survival crafting because you think the jank that is survival crafting pvp is good. It is not, and is in fact, objective garbage.
>wow dosnt have more than 40vs40
And if ten people start cutting down trees in the same zone the game just crashes in a modern survival crafting game.
>cloud computing
You really have no idea how this works. So you want mmos, which already have networking issues out the wazoo on a regular basis, to use cloud servers?
What could possibly go wrong with hundreds of thousands of people trying to play a resource incisive game at the same time will be? Its almost like cloud gaming is a meme and if it was even half as successful as they wanted it to be they would see the system is unsuitable for everyone trying to play the game at once; shit only works BECAUSE no more than 10 people use it at a time.
>You keep trying to make mmos survival crafting because you think the jank that is survival crafting pvp is good. It is not, and is in fact, objective garbage.
You can't post nonsense and expect to be taken seriously.
>And if ten people start cutting down trees in the same zone the game just crashes in a modern survival crafting game.
No.
>You really have no idea how this works. So you want mmos, which already have networking issues out the wazoo on a regular basis, to use cloud servers?
>[Ad hominem].
>What could possibly go wrong with hundreds of thousands of people trying to play a resource incisive game at the same time will be? Its almost like cloud gaming is a meme and if it was even half as successful as they wanted it to be they would see the system is unsuitable for everyone trying to play the game at once; shit only works BECAUSE no more than 10 people use it at a time.
ARK has 70-player servers, and making servers area specific is an option.
Not an argument.
Seems unlikely.
>implying that multiplayer survival crafting games are stable
Name one where I can't go the the steam reviews and half the complaints are the game runs like shit and crashes constantly.
I'll wait
>he dosnt know the difference between cloud computing and server hosting
Ouch, I think it may be moronic
ARK is OK on a 1060 and doesn't usually crash.
>>he dosnt know the difference between cloud computing and server hosting
Why do you think?
Define roleplaying and worldbuilding.
>the game doesn't usually crash with a 600$ card
With a 2k pc, I expect zero crashes. Games are unstable dog vomit.
>brings up ark servers like more than 1% of the playerbase is using cloud services
Huh I wonder fricking why?
>>the game doesn't usually crash with a 600$ card
I got my 1060 6GB for $150 used.
up ark servers like more than 1% of the playerbase is using cloud services
ARK uses AWS.
>act out or perform the part of a person or character
What defines the relevance of a character?
>the act of creating a fictional setting
What can a character do to define it?
Technically (available implementations), survival crafting is closer to the OP.
WoW as a topic is still relevant because the trinity is still the best PvE and PvP available.
You can't ignore popularity just because they're different genres. If ARK simply had more players per server (or if you count free server switching as an MMO, the usual not having more than 70 players to a location), what would you say? Survival crafting is popular because of content.
Doesn't FO76 completely disallow PvP unless flagged?
Innovation is what the thread is about.
>What defines the relevance of a character?
>What can a character do to define it?
are you going to answer my original question, or continue to avoid it?
I'm trying to have a definition of engagement. Answer those two questions.
>No, you are trying to fix existing shit.
It's the same design whether it's an existent or new game.
>sandbox, another failed method
That's not what player numbers say.
>Quit trying to search a pre-existing formula to fix it. You need something totally new.
No MMO has the OP.
I'm not talking about a new game.
I'm talking about a new concept.
Sandbox have been tried and just don't sucess enough.
See Albion Online, EVE, etc.
>I'm trying to have a definition of engagement. Answer those two questions.
neither question has anything to do with the bartle categories, nor does it have anything to do with the definition of engagement.
the relevance of a character and what you can do to define a character are core parts of any game's mechanics. It can be defined by making a game, which you should actually try to do instead of having these roundabout threads over and over again.
I'm being 100% serious here, this concept you've had in your mind for so long seems to be all there, but we're only able to see parts of it at a time when you throw something into the discussion. Take the time to make a full design document, and then implement it. See what works, get feedback from people about the concepts shown in your game, and then reiterate until you make that perfected 'fun' game you seem to envision.
>Innovation is what the thread is about.
No, you are trying to fix existing shit. And your sugestion is sandbox, another failed method.
MMO's need a complete overhaul.
Quit trying to search a pre-existing formula to fix it. You need something totally new.
>I had nothing better to do than shop around for graphics cards
If I wanted one in my pc now I would need to pay at least 500, or get lucky betting on somthing that may be a scam or know someone who just upgraded. Also the board you would need for the 1060 is at least 100, and the only cpus for those boards run over 350 easy used, so about another 500 there if not more because ark is a CPU INTISVIVE GAME. the fact you listed the gpu is funny to me. Also gonna need an ssd otherwise prepare for 20 min load times into the server, and it has to be a big one because ark is bloated in filesize as well, so another 200.
I don't know many people own 2k pcs, people play mmos because it runs on there shitboxes giving the game a wide audience.
>still has no idea what cloud gaming is
The fact you keep bring up hardware is the nail in the coffin for this hair brained argument. What do you think cloud gaming is?
>If I wanted one in my pc now I would need to pay at least 500
You can get a 3060 for $380.
>[All those other nonsense prices].
A Ryzen 5 2600x is $95.
You're being stupid.
https://steamcharts.com/app/346110
>Ryzen 5 2600x
Have fun with that buttery smooth 20 fps
200k isn't sucessfull, considering how many fragmented MMO players are around and how many populated MMOs exist.
A really well done MMO cout hit the population that WotLK hit once and keep it. This is what you search for, not another game to fragment even more.
Link me one sandbox that has over 1mi players.
Hell I'll go a step further and tell you how 90% of the ark playerbase plays the game.
They are a bunch of 10 year olds who are watching a sideshow of a game while their mother's pc cpu melts in the background, rebooting every 15 minutes from either the game or the pc itself crashing.
Do you think this is the way a game should be played?
Why are you trolling? It's against the rules.
>implying I am wrong
So its your word vs 20 zillion steam reviews
I wonder who's experience I am going to believe?
>roleplaying
act out or perform the part of a person or character
>worldbuilding
the act of creating a fictional setting
don't see how any of is this relevant to what I asked
You really have nothing to say, do you, moron? It's clear wow was your first and main mmo.
Man I wish cloud gaming wasn’t so shit
Guild Wars 1 was significantly better than WoW ever was, and will forever be better than survival craft shit can ever hope to be.
please elaborate on what your concepts bring to each of the general types of players, with examples
That's too wrong. Every player should be intrigued with every playstyle.
then it shouldn't be hard to take the bartle categories and prove that your concept would be engaging with every single one of them at once?
>Using powerpoint presentations used by scam artists to get funding for their dogshit gacha games to prove a point
it had merit back in the day, before explorers were removed from the game and became dataminers and guide makers, social players moved off to social media and left only the coomer roleplayers, and achievers were not just gacha gambling addicts chasing bigger numbers on their screens
Killers get to kill. Achievers get sick of their progress being reset and stop playing, socialisers get sick of all interactions being at gunpoint and stop playing, explorers get sick of everywhere outside safe zones being the Korean DMZ and quit. The killers realise there's noone to kill but each other and move on.
DayZ.
Isn't an MMO, doesn't appeal to MMO crowds. Explorers get sniped from camped optimal locations, socialisers get shot in the face for daring to approach another living being, achievers find out that once you get a gun and a car that's about it. Thanks for giving me an example.
>MMO
troony genre, let it die for once so, maybe one autistic can reinvent it in a new way rather the same shit and generic clones we got so far.
WoW went to shit once itemization just became bigger ilvl = better
Full loot monoserver PVP is a fricking meme. Look at Mortal Online II. Stop trying to make MMOs into Rust clones. Call me when we get some good RvR PVP like in DAoC or some GW1 PVP with build variety.
>Look at Mortal Online II.
That's been addressed twice already.
World gameplay is where the roles and immersion are.
WoW counted Eastern time-card players as subs.
Simultaneous wasn't ever listed.
Not an argument.
ARK has 82% positive reviews.
>Literally every other one sentence meme review says they like the game but it is buggy and runs like shit
>every in depth review bring up constantly crashing and bugs out the Ying yang
Not proving your point.
Also never answered my question, wtf do you think cloud gaming is?
No.
https://steamcommunity.com/app/346110/reviews/?browsefilter=mostrecent&snr=1_5_100010_&p=1
What are you asking?
>neither question has anything to do with the bartle categories, nor does it have anything to do with the definition of engagement.
Not an argument.
Science was posted.
>Literally 2 of the first 6 one sentence meme reviews say the game is too big filled
Don't know who you are trying to fool here
Also, still waiting on what you think cloud gaming is.
There's 1 in a lot, and it doesn't even specify.
>the relevance of a character and what you can do to define a character are core parts of any game's mechanics.
There's an obvious difference between a lobby game and a persistent world.
>If you're trying to imply that pop numers weren't that big as it was displayed, is not helping you advocating sandbox as solution for MMOs.
How so?
Because ARK (your example) barelly reach 200k players, yet here you are saying to me that because 200k players like, if you make an MMO out of it it will be sucesfull.
Let's say WotLK lied about it's numbers. Let's say 20% only is real. That's still 2,4mi players at peak.
No existing formulae will fix MMO, snap out of it. Many people told you it on this thread. Slap yourself and wake up.
WoW's numbers were not simultaneous players.
Amounts of activities that lead to status.
>There's an obvious difference between a lobby game and a persistent world.
and that difference is? all games require you to define a character through their mechanics, if you want to interact with the game itself. The only real exception to this are roleplayers that don't interact with the game, and only use it for a background setting and some vague generalization of what their character looks like.
>Not an argument.
try reading more than the first line
I don't know what you meant by
>WoW counted Eastern time-card players as subs.
>Simultaneous wasn't ever listed.
If you're trying to imply that pop numers weren't that big as it was displayed, is not helping you advocating sandbox as solution for MMOs.
Everyone in this thread either disagree with you or shoved new ideias for you, but you keep refusing to read.
Either way, this is going nowehere ebcause you already have a mindset in what you want. You're not here to "fix" MMO's, you're here to shovel your ideia rather than discuss new ones.
>WoW counted Eastern time-card players as subs.
>Simultaneous wasn't ever listed.
??
>multi reply nonsense spamming nerd who doesn't know basic gameplay shit
>people are still talking to it
oh no
Not an argument.
How is Tree of Savior? I heard it's suppose to be the spiritual successor to Ragnarok Online.
Its garbage
[Spoiler]I have no idea but isn't it free[spoiler/]
I'm just asking because I need to a new mmo to play since I'm getting tied of FFXIV.
It’s dying, but it’s something free so may aswell give it a try. Damn shame too because it has a lot of charm and I love how many classes the game has.
>tfw people legitimately propose good ideas to fix a dead game
>neckbeards go throw great length to support it
>even go far beyond a paid writer to make a nice lore
>but the industry still wins with their greens
I've lost hopes in these games, it was great while it lasted, but just as your high school sweetheart, she changed, she is not the kind welcoming warmth you once knew, she dyed her hair, got tattoos, pierced her clitoris, and is getting banged by a nignog in a valley outside a nightclub for 3 pieces of chicken nuggets.
It's time to move on, look for new gems, if anything make one on your own.
>hey let's take a genre and make it a big budget version of a completely different genre that is far more nitch, that ill sell!
Or
>hey let's do the thing that has been tried before and failed a million times, that too is a good plan!
>giving this actual third worlder the time of day when he can't actually articulate anything beyond "well ARK does it why not MMOs?"
A more sandbox WoW would be fricking cool. I always imagined WoW was like a more open DAOC before I played it back in 2005.
Like, you had questing areas and stuff but Horde and Alliance could fight to capture towns and cities in the Eastern Kingdoms and Kalimdor. At the time I didn't know the Horde and Alliance weren't technically at war.
An actual sandbox with things the players can affect would be a truly amazing game. Imagine if killing a faction leader wasn't just part of an achievement for a mount but actually had an emerging story come out of it with new content.
You can't fix MMOs because even if you created the best MMO ever made no one would play it if it didn't have ten times the marketing budget as everything else. Even if it did no one would play it for longer than two years because it wouldn't be designed to brutally punish players for not playing constantly. Gaymers get the games they fricking deserve.
Do you post nonsense a lot, or is this a sandbox MMO thread notion for you?
Nobody has been advertising perfection.
with the advent of twitch streamers and their cult followings it's even cheaper to advertise now, morons will want to play whatever crap their streamer buddy is currently doing and will spend whatever the frick you charge while donating the rest of their life savings to the streamer
The only way you fix anything is you castrate all wow players and find the deepest pit on earth and dump them in it
>Territory control
>Full loot pvp
>Player town ownership
>Etc
All of these things do not work in the modern age. They will never work again.
There’s tons of MMOs like this and you never heard about them for a reason.
The major problem with “MMOs” of today is that they are primarily single player experiences with online components, which is fine if you want to play that kind of game but that isn’t what an MMO is supposed to be and is partially why the genre as a whole is dying a slow death.
Why do zoomoid morons who have only ever played one (1) (I) game get the hottest takes when it comes to fixing entire genres?
He didn't even play one game. It's really obvious this is some guy that has not really played MMO besides maybe trying them at best. It's like 12 years old hearing people talking about how epic runscape was or something.
>pvp is only good if it's good
gee thanks for the input moron
Yeah make a MMORPG instead of a MORPG.
Full loot and item level progression are completely incompatible. The amount of changes to gearing required would give you a different game.
>completely incompatible.
proof?
Albion Online is the best mmorpg on the market
troonyWoW will never be able to compete
>make the most normie friendly MMO of its day
>rewarded with mass adoption for this
>continue to make the game more normie friendly over time
>almost 20 years of engineering later and the game is literally a theme park
Its pretty predictable really. You could say they stuck to their design philosophy. They just lived long enough to go insanely overboard.
>full loot
Mmos are timesinkers, imagine losing the gear that you wasted 10+ hours for it, sounds awful, even rs2/osrs had item protection
You make this thread every single day, multiple times a day, and I don't know why you think at this point that you're still on the right track. The average person does not want to play a full loot, PvP MMO. If your game doesn't have a substantial population, your full loot, PvP MMO becomes a barren wasteland where getting into player interactions is restricted to very specific parts of the world. Self-selection leading to the inevitable complete depopulation of your game is bad for a multiplayer game meant to endure for a long amount of time.
The reason this shit doesn't work is because other games do the whole accruing resources that you turn into gear for potentially risky endeavors involving PvP and full loot have been done better by the extremely shitty survival crafting genre, because for some reason those people think that's even more fun when it involves their house and home instead of just a character.
The sort of game you're proposing is only directly beneficial or even fun to the kinds of people who have more time than every other player to actually play it. When you're the last person who cares to invest more time than the next most invested player, you become the reigning champion, because your "costly repairs" and "territory control" can't be contested by someone spending less time accruing backup resources for an inevitable failure.
For the record, I'm a sweaty neet and even I think you're a fricking lunatic. Nobody wants to be implicitly mandated by the format of the game to be playing it 24/7 other than people with far worse autism than me or people who desperately need a win in something in their sad, pathetic lives.
>The average person does not want to play a full loot, PvP MMO.
PvE servers vs. PvP.
>potentially risky endeavors involving PvP and full loot have been done better by the extremely shitty survival crafting genre
Technically, but only because MMOs haven't had a quality iteration.
>The sort of game you're proposing is only directly beneficial or even fun to the kinds of people who have more time than every other player to actually play it. When you're the last person who cares to invest more time than the next most invested player, you become the reigning champion, because your "costly repairs" and "territory control" can't be contested by someone spending less time accruing backup resources for an inevitable failure.
Automation could be had (development including botting), which would redirect player interests to what they want; it should be easy enough taking territory though.
You don't have to play a lot to afford gear. Arma had players with sniper rifles, tanks, and helicopters as soon as the PvE scenario came up and they cleared it.
People play BR all day; it's obvious that players want persistent, competitive gameplay.
Try it; it's free.
Not an argument.
>PvE servers vs. PvP.
So splitting the playerbase. Again.
That option is usually already prevalent.
People play battle royale because the matches are short in length if you lose and when you start a match, everyone is on equal footing with nothing. Further, trying to insist that the continuing problem of self-selection be exacerbated by dividing your ideal MMO's playerbase into PvE and PvP servers is actually laughable in current year. It might be a strategy that works for the very beginning of a game's life cycle, or with something as ridiculously popular as WoW Classic, but three to six months pass and suddenly you have dead server on top of dead server, all because you gave your players the choice in the first place.
I understand that you're trying to propose a better blending of genres, that you think the MMO genre needs more of the sorts of staples of these other full loot, PvP type experiences, but you are trying to conflate two entirely separate ideologies under one umbrella and hope for it to work.
You don't want to play an MMO, you want to play a survival crafting game with more numbers.
I'm not going to bother addressing your points about automation (lol mobile garbage).
The sort of systems and gameplay you're proposing is inherently antithetical to the sorts of players who aren't able to play for the absolute longest stretches of time. Normal players are not going to want to play your game, and anyone who is disenfranchised by a loss in PvP is a player who will potentially quit on the spot, particularly in regards to your insistence on full loot.
Go play a game that has a healthy ecosystem, frequent seasonal resets, and a fun gameplay loop. MMOs aren't fun gameplay loops in the first place, they're addiction simulators for those whose pleasure centers have been utterly ravaged by the way video games teach you to enjoy video games.
t. mmo player
>People play battle royale because the matches are short in length if you lose and when you start a match, everyone is on equal footing with nothing.
They aren't worth being played all day; neither are MOBAs.
>Further, trying to insist that the continuing problem of self-selection be exacerbated by dividing your ideal MMO's playerbase into PvE and PvP servers is actually laughable in current year.
No it's not.
>I understand that you're trying to propose a better blending of genres, that you think the MMO genre needs more of the sorts of staples of these other full loot, PvP type experiences, but you are trying to conflate two entirely separate ideologies under one umbrella and hope for it to work.
Most theme parks have failed to hold a huge playerbase. It's basically FFXIV and WoW, and those are plausibly having much lower numbers than wanted, even if 350k-500k concurrent.
>You don't want to play an MMO, you want to play a survival crafting game with more numbers.
Those are the same.
>I'm not going to bother addressing your points about automation (lol mobile garbage).
Not an argument.
>The sort of systems and gameplay you're proposing is inherently antithetical to the sorts of players who aren't able to play for the absolute longest stretches of time.
No it's not, and every single similar claim in this thread is appealing to extremes garbage.
>your insistence on full loot
Again, that would be the PvP server.
>healthy ecosystem
Survival Crafting games don't usually have player markets.
>frequent seasonal resets
No.
>and a fun gameplay loop
There are other possibilities than shooting.
>MMOs aren't fun gameplay loops in the first place
Then why are you in this thread?
>Mortal Online MMOs fricking bombed
This is the 4th post about MO. Ctrl+f "light-heavy sword gameplay".
Two reasons that leveling is obsoleted by equipment.
Putting your hands over your ears and shouting, "no, no, no," at the top of your lungs isn't any more an argument than those I've proposed. Shooting isn't the fun gameplay loop I was referring to in games that are worth your time, no more than repeated dungeon clearing at breakneck speed is.
Furthermore, a healthy ecosystem doesn't mean "player markets." That's an economy. An ecosystem is something fostered between the developers and the players with the understanding between the two of what the game actually is. MMOs are often not a healthy ecosystem because there are too many different types of players each seeking a number of different things with almost no overlap, and it's why they bleed players at an alarming rate when they're not the big three.
To address the biggest of your points, the one that you keep circling around without stating outright: games should not be played all day. Not MMOs, not MOBAs, not BR. The kind of game you want might fulfill a need to constantly be playing because you have room for an upward growth whose only limits are the integer max value and your own free time.
I'm glad you're a layperson and not a developer. You have absolutely no idea what goes into making a video game, let alone what makes a video game fun for the most people. I'm sorry your niche sucks so much as this.
I think you are on to something anon.
There have been 3 proven options:
-Different server types(really really bad option)
-PVP zones with better loot to draw players, leading to only 5-10% of playerbase even going there at mid to low level, reducing play area of the land as well
-Periodic server wipes, essentially resulting in massive player loss in each wipe and limiting progression to maybe a week at most due needing to be rebuilt
All 3 of these are bad, and don´t solve the fundamental problem: PVP operates on the same logic as the food chain in terms of required population base.
A lion requires a metric swat of land to even have grassing animals to eat, and still have to contend with a pack of dedicated PVP griefing hyenas. Food chain solves this problem with using MORE land, and specializing in niches where the griefers might not be able to suit that ecological niche. But if there even is a downtick in playerbase, there isn´t enough playerbase to feed the PVP lion and the griefing hyena.
For a online game, its currently a unsolved problem.
i think there is value in the assumption.
Single player MMOs try to give you exploration, quests, adventure, gear autism and endgame content where level cap is usually 30-40 levels over the final boss.
But most singe player MMOs play like JRPGs with very large levels.
And that isn´t for everyone.
I'd Albion any good? I need a comfy mmo.
What force drives a man to be such an unbearable idiot homosexual?
Nobody plays on the official rust servers
>If you’re playing on a private server, the host has wipe authority and might wipe the private server more frequently depending on the requirements.
>Because the OP is about persistence, status, and strategy.
That's why people like Rust. Even if the most common cycles are weekly.
>So you agree with the OP?
Yes you schizo
>Real players are where the most excitement, strategy, and thus fun are.
real players are fricking morons and shitheads. that's the opposite of fun
Is the Ganker ragnarok server still running?
There needs to be a good 2d mmorpg that somehow rewards making and being a good friend. Like the more time you spend partied with the same people the better drop rate bonus you get or something.
Try LaTale, that’s 2-D and has a nice ost.
You can't fix the game or improve on it without nuking the 25 year old community filled with the most vile soul sucking morons to ever grace gaming in general. You can't launch WoW servers when there are homosexuals who run bot farms to supplement their incomes or just be c**ts in general or the homosexuals who speedrun lvling in less than a day. The cancer needs to be cut out not catered too.
This is true. Classic was definitely mired by the fact that the entire playerbase decided that no fun was allowed, pvp was just ganking liwbies trying to level and rather than actually playing the game people just boosted stockades/SM to raid as quickly as possible
So what's a realistic approach to remove the cancer in modern day MMO's?
Nothing will ever change until WoW gets shut down
After that the healing can start
Nah WoW is outdated. Only people still playing it are sunken cost homosexuals. When was the last time they released how many active players they had? Unless the devs release some numbers you can assume they're shit.
Or a way for shitters like you and I to easily form parties together and rewards for doing so.
WoW sucks strictly for the fact it has a fricking god awful format.
>new expansion comes out
>gated rep grind that is mandatory for whatever "faction" you pick
>new patch comes out that makes your previous grind a waste of time
>new gated rep grind that is mandatory for your "faction"
It's the same fricking thing over and over.It's fricking boring.
This wouldn't feel as bad if it didn't feel as though every new tier of content came with a difficulty spike about midway through the raid that meant that if you didn't do the rep grind, you lost out on a not insubstantial amount of player power. It's been getting lesser and lesser, but now parsing and extreme in-guild competitiveness means that if you're missing that edge, you might be benched for a tier if you're pushing hard for an early clear, or that you struggle longer because getting optimal performance via drops is utter RNG filth.
Don't get me started on PvP. The amount of hoops you have to jump through to get good gear for PvP.
I think it's only developers who don't know that players want sandbox MMORPGs. It's quite simple, just make the world feel inhabited and make systems the players interact with. Caravans, setting up camps and shops, rogue factions, criminal systems, sailing etc. Developers seem to want to guide every player to do certain things in the game like and treat and develop the game like a singleplayer game with many people in it, even if they market it as a "sandbox"
Players don't particularly want sandboxes, it's just a very vocal minority. Players don't particularly want MMOs either is the main thing. And maintaining a long-term, profitable venture for the developers as well as something that's fun for players frequently involves it being a themepark instead of a sandbox. The level of complexity of development is also magnified substantially by the proposal of a sandbox over a themepark. How is it that you get far enough as to clearly dictate what your desires are without thinking even a little bit about how people have to achieve those desires? Stop talking about your consumer needs and start thinking about them, idiot.
Sure it's more work in the beginning, but as you know creating themepark content at the rate it's consumed is impossible. When you have good enough systems to for players to engage in, they create their own stories and content, for the most part.
One of the issues in creating an MMORPG is that devs is that they all want the game to be the cashcow that keeps money flowing in, so they try to appeal to as many players as possible, thus failing in their venture.
In fact, not a single good MMORPG was made by a big dev with hundred million dollar budgets
>Players don't particularly want sandboxes, it's just a very vocal minority. Players don't particularly want MMOs either is the main thing.
>[Anon Projects, vol. 56].
>And maintaining a long-term, profitable venture for the developers as well as something that's fun for players frequently involves it being a themepark instead of a sandbox.
If you weighed games failing vs. succeeding for investment and expectations, sandbox would win.
>The level of complexity of development is also magnified substantially by the proposal of a sandbox over a themepark.
Not really; it's making more content vs. repeatable.
Players don't want sandboxes
Source: all the successful mmos are themeparks.
Appealing to popularity; what A+ MMO has been like the OP at all?
>Shooting isn't the fun gameplay loop I was referring to in games that are worth your time, no more than repeated dungeon clearing at breakneck speed is.
Well designed shooting can be some of the most fun; it relies on mobility (dodges), AI or players, and how much the gameplay varies.
If you don't like dungeon clearing, you have no reason to argue against MMOs or the OP.
>Furthermore, a healthy ecosystem doesn't mean "player markets." That's an economy. An ecosystem is something fostered between the developers and the players with the understanding between the two of what the game actually is. MMOs are often not a healthy ecosystem because there are too many different types of players each seeking a number of different things with almost no overlap, and it's why they bleed players at an alarming rate when they're not the big three.
Available MMOs aren't enough to fulfill player diversity and fantasy.
>games should not be played all day
These would have players happily playing all day.
>You have absolutely no idea what goes into making a video game, let alone what makes a video game fun for the most people.
I do.
>Appealing to popularity
Well yes, that's how mmo development tends to be funded
You can't define what's quality simply by what's played.
Easy, chief.
Anything successful on the free market is, by definition, of sufficient passing quality.
>All successful MMOs
AKA WOW? The only successful themepark?
Every other major themepark MMO has shut down or became abandonware.
Fricking runescape died after they removed free trade and full loot PVP and modernized its combat and quest system to be more like WOW, and only revived itself after OSRS came out.
Once the hype for FFXIV dies down and the next big MMO comes out to replace it as the next "WOW killer" it too will be abandoned my square when they try to make another MMO and fail because there won't be a wave of WOW refugees to ride again.
MMOs can't be fixed as a genre because they depended so heavily on the novelty of the internet.
MMO design was perfected 20 years ago
All it needs is a new engine, budget for art, and combat that isn't gamebryo sludge
I used to be a hardcore MMO addict up until a while ago, during a long vacation I realized I didn't miss the constant gear treadmills, the cookie-cutter limited choice builds and gearing "sets" with no real strategy or thought. Every MMO feels like a pre-planned progression path with no alternative way of playing. Everything is gated by power requirements or item levels. It's all so tiring at this point and I have ended up enjoying other games that aren't MMOs so much more because it feels like each one, while similar to one another in a genre, is actually offering something different.
I don't think MMOs are for me any more because chat systems are hyper moderated and neutered to not just allow any conversation that happens to pop up. Game communities are all actually just min-maxers who burn themselves and everyone around them out by using the internet to find the perfect solutions to everything, ASAP. Obsessing over things like parser performance to the point where they don't see a game but a series of numbers they must eternally push higher. Not to mention every game seems to have it's communities be a bunch of discords where 90% of it is homosexuals who don't play the game after they latch onto a group, but simply claim they do while spewing their pronouns or what bad dragon they recently ordered.
If you want a genuine role-playing experience, play a single player RPG. MMORPGs are antiquated jack of all trades; mastering nothing.
False dichotomy.
What's your counter argument?
Them being the same is doable. Instancing is already prevalent (for whatever reason: lots of power; etc.).
I don't think the usual light-heavy gameplay is going to be enough.
The only way mmos can be fun again is if we can bully pve players and permanently break their raid gear while ganking them endlessly.
social media killed MMOs. the games were never good, it was just the novelty of being able to interact with other people from across the world. you will never make atunements or rep grinds or quests to fetch 6 bear asses fun
2 things killed the modern MMOs
>Better games that do co-op dragonslaying better
>Social media is a better chat box
The issue with the MMO subgenre as a whole is that no MMO comes out actually makes an MMO, they make WOW clones, PVE theme parks that are always 2-3 generations behind in terms of graphics and gameplay, with always online limitations, lag, bugs galore.
So tell me, why would I want to spend $60 for the base game +$40 per expansion on top of a fricking $15 subscription fee to do fricking fetch quests so I can watch cutscenes that belong in a single player JRPG with NPCs roleplaying for way too fricking long in my own narritive chosen one bubble, only for the "MMO" gameplay to be a fricking sub par 15 minute long boss fight with 5-20 other players who I don't give zero fricks about unless I am playing on some arbitrary hard mode that you only do for a pair of ERP hot pants.
I could play fricking Monster Hunter and get a better gameplay experience, or minecraft if I want a social online game, and those games are a fricking fraction of the price.
No modern MMO tries to be an MMO, they do everything they can to remove the open world immersion of sharing a world with other people in order to facilitate jank as frick fetch quest storylines for fricking trooners who have the social grace of a brick covered in shit stained used condoms.
>WoW got classic
>Runescape got OSRS
>Square Enix is too inept to ever give us a Zilart-ToAU era FFXI
The problem with MMOs is that they are too expensive to build, in an environment that isn't demanding them (outside of some burned out WOW players).
There's also few IPs that have lore and fan love to support a game of this scale.