A
B
bult
Guest
- Thread starter
- #2
pretty good 
D
duact
Guest
- Thread starter
- #3
nice to read somthing like that
A
Arnor
Guest
- Thread starter
- #4
just wish mythic would read and adhere to it
R
rure_
Guest
- Thread starter
- #5
very interesting points are brought up. points that 99% of the players doesnt think/care about.
however, I think the author article dreams of a utopia mmorpg. he dream of a perfect mmorpg where he thinks everyone is happy. But what if this new mmorpg attracts 70.000 subscribers and 90% is happy and the rest is annoyed but still continue to play because of addiction. Why does that make that game less good mmorpg? imho, a good game (no matter genre) is a game that can keep the players interested over a really long period of time, no matter what the in-game rules/settings are. if the players are happy at lvling and dreaming of the end-game, whats the point in changing it?
I am very tired atm so I might have missed the point with the article though.
however, I think the author article dreams of a utopia mmorpg. he dream of a perfect mmorpg where he thinks everyone is happy. But what if this new mmorpg attracts 70.000 subscribers and 90% is happy and the rest is annoyed but still continue to play because of addiction. Why does that make that game less good mmorpg? imho, a good game (no matter genre) is a game that can keep the players interested over a really long period of time, no matter what the in-game rules/settings are. if the players are happy at lvling and dreaming of the end-game, whats the point in changing it?
I am very tired atm so I might have missed the point with the article though.
G
Gordonax
Guest
- Thread starter
- #6
Very interesting read (thanks Arnor), but some of the points, erm, miss the point a little.
The guy they're interviewing seems to conflate not wanting PvP with wanting a single player game. That's very much not true: when I played UO, the reason that it got me hooked was player interaction, going on hunts with my guild and on so. PvP was irrelevant. I was (and am still) more interested in co-operation than competition. I don't care about being the Number 1 player killer, I want to have fun with online mates. In other words, there's a middle ground between the kind of pre-UO:R world that this guy loves and the completely sanitised experience of Trammel. And, despite everyone's whining about it, I think DAoC actually treads that middle ground pretty well.
But that doesn't mean there isn't a problem or two with the way it integrates PvP and PvE. DAoC is two games in one, with PvE and PvP not having enough influence on each other. They could be two seperate worlds, because there isn't enough encouragement for people who like PvE to risk their asses in PvP. To do this, I'd signficantly boost XP bonuses in frontier zones, so much so that if you want to level fast, the best way to do it is in the frontiers - and the closer you are to enemy portal keeps, the more bonus you get. This would also have the advantage for PvP'ers of giving them more places to find enemies - if there's a lot of people xping, roaming further than from one milegate to another makes more sense.
Secondly, the biggest strength of the way DAoC handles PvP is also it's biggest weakness. Most beginning players in PvP have a terrible experience, because they have no team, no friends to rely on and help them learn the way to play. DAoC solves that by giving you a built-in team: your realm. It's realm vs realm, not player vs player, which means you have back up. It means that RvR is much more newbie-friendly, which for most players is a very good thing indeed.
However, this also means that inevitably, you often end up with a game where sheer weight of numbers matters most of all, because realms are big and you're bound to get big battles. That means that skilled individual players have less opportunity to make a decisive impact, which in turn gives less skilled players a lower incentive to learn and improve. Why bother learning to play your class well if you can always rely on the incoming zerg to beat your opponents?
Solving this conundrum is the big question for Mythic. As more and more players get more experienced, the lack of individual influence over large-scale combat outcomes will begin to mean more bored experienced players, and more bored experienced players means you will lose your most committed customers. What Mythic has to create is a system where you can have large battles, but allow experienced players - "heroes", in RPG terms - abilities that will turn the tide of a battle. Producing a system where you can have powerful characters capable having a real influence on a large battle, without allowing them to win it solo would be a real trick, and I hope Mythic can pull it off.
The guy they're interviewing seems to conflate not wanting PvP with wanting a single player game. That's very much not true: when I played UO, the reason that it got me hooked was player interaction, going on hunts with my guild and on so. PvP was irrelevant. I was (and am still) more interested in co-operation than competition. I don't care about being the Number 1 player killer, I want to have fun with online mates. In other words, there's a middle ground between the kind of pre-UO:R world that this guy loves and the completely sanitised experience of Trammel. And, despite everyone's whining about it, I think DAoC actually treads that middle ground pretty well.
But that doesn't mean there isn't a problem or two with the way it integrates PvP and PvE. DAoC is two games in one, with PvE and PvP not having enough influence on each other. They could be two seperate worlds, because there isn't enough encouragement for people who like PvE to risk their asses in PvP. To do this, I'd signficantly boost XP bonuses in frontier zones, so much so that if you want to level fast, the best way to do it is in the frontiers - and the closer you are to enemy portal keeps, the more bonus you get. This would also have the advantage for PvP'ers of giving them more places to find enemies - if there's a lot of people xping, roaming further than from one milegate to another makes more sense.
Secondly, the biggest strength of the way DAoC handles PvP is also it's biggest weakness. Most beginning players in PvP have a terrible experience, because they have no team, no friends to rely on and help them learn the way to play. DAoC solves that by giving you a built-in team: your realm. It's realm vs realm, not player vs player, which means you have back up. It means that RvR is much more newbie-friendly, which for most players is a very good thing indeed.
However, this also means that inevitably, you often end up with a game where sheer weight of numbers matters most of all, because realms are big and you're bound to get big battles. That means that skilled individual players have less opportunity to make a decisive impact, which in turn gives less skilled players a lower incentive to learn and improve. Why bother learning to play your class well if you can always rely on the incoming zerg to beat your opponents?
Solving this conundrum is the big question for Mythic. As more and more players get more experienced, the lack of individual influence over large-scale combat outcomes will begin to mean more bored experienced players, and more bored experienced players means you will lose your most committed customers. What Mythic has to create is a system where you can have large battles, but allow experienced players - "heroes", in RPG terms - abilities that will turn the tide of a battle. Producing a system where you can have powerful characters capable having a real influence on a large battle, without allowing them to win it solo would be a real trick, and I hope Mythic can pull it off.
R
rure_
Guest
- Thread starter
- #7
I find this a bit contradictory, you are saying that people can just rely on the zerg to win and dont have to develop specific skills to play their classes. So, mythic should make "heroes" which the new players can rely on. Wouldnt that give the same problems? They rely on these more experienced players to win a battle and thus dont have to develop their skills or play their char to the fully extent?
This is also common in the world of sports, take hockey for example. (im from Sweden so I use Swedish names) when its time for the Winter Olympics most of the NHL-players comes back to play in the national team. This usually render in that the less experience players doesnt play the best they can, they are on the ice expecting the best players will do all the goals. "If I pass the puck to Peter Forsberg he will score", they think and pass the puck and then expects that he will do miracles. I am a bit naive, but its usually how these things works.
This also makes the gap bigger between experienced players and new players. If the new players feel they cant change the out-come of the battle they wont be encouraged to play anymore, and the more experienced players will feel its great to be an important person.
(sucky grammar osv)
G
Gordonax
Guest
- Thread starter
- #8
Yes, you're right - and that's why it's really difficult to do. You have to allow experienced characters to be powerful enough to influence the outcome of a big battle, without being so powerful that they can win it on their own. What's more, whatever powers that an experienced player can bring to a big battle have to be something that's a challenge for them to actually do - it can't be a one-button "nearly-win" skill, or it'll be boring for them.
R
rure_
Guest
- Thread starter
- #9
I agree, but thing is that the population imbalance creates too much problems. Supposedly a realm with a higher population will have a higher amount of experienced players and that will give the realm with the higher population even bigger chance to win "epic battles".
S
Snake.ster
Guest
- Thread starter
- #10
i used too play the game mentioned , Meridian59 ... was 10 servers each only able too hold 150 ppl online, was good for 1996 when it 1st came out, + when u died, u lost everything u was carrying and if any others were near they could steal it ... in some ways its better then games today only prob is gfz is a bit poop compared too today's.
http://meridian59.neardeathstudios.com/
cut and paste too see the 1st MMORPG .. u can even d-load it and play again
http://meridian59.neardeathstudios.com/
cut and paste too see the 1st MMORPG .. u can even d-load it and play again
E
envenom
Guest
- Thread starter
- #11
Well heres the problem most people who play DAOC/EQ and most of the other new games that have came out these are there first experiances with MMORPG.
I myself started on UO back in 1997 along with ppl who saw the potential in UO and i can tell you now that guy in the interview is right about most of the things he has said.
Do you log into DAOC with fear that you might die? i think not you dont loose anything theres no consequence nothing.
Now when UO first came out players logged in with a sense of fear they will die and loose there items etc BUT wait!!! most of the players actually enjoyed that sense of fear.
It was 6months/12 months down the line when the first wave of carebares (people who didnt like the fact that they was dieing and loosing all there glorious stuff) came onto the game and cried and cried until the devs made trammel.
then the money grabbing sony bastards saw this as a way to make lots of money and so then came EQ the carebears paradise since then most other companies have followed this same design when making games.
Shadowbane was a fantastic idea but it failed due to the crap designers/programers.
So that guy is right if a company with balls came along and tried to recreate what UO had but fill in the spaces where UO went wrong they would make a ton of money because this is what most players are crying out for atm.
I myself started on UO back in 1997 along with ppl who saw the potential in UO and i can tell you now that guy in the interview is right about most of the things he has said.
Do you log into DAOC with fear that you might die? i think not you dont loose anything theres no consequence nothing.
Now when UO first came out players logged in with a sense of fear they will die and loose there items etc BUT wait!!! most of the players actually enjoyed that sense of fear.
It was 6months/12 months down the line when the first wave of carebares (people who didnt like the fact that they was dieing and loosing all there glorious stuff) came onto the game and cried and cried until the devs made trammel.
then the money grabbing sony bastards saw this as a way to make lots of money and so then came EQ the carebears paradise since then most other companies have followed this same design when making games.
Shadowbane was a fantastic idea but it failed due to the crap designers/programers.
So that guy is right if a company with balls came along and tried to recreate what UO had but fill in the spaces where UO went wrong they would make a ton of money because this is what most players are crying out for atm.
G
Gordonax
Guest
- Thread starter
- #12
But the problem is that the market says you're wrong. EQ, which is the ultimate carebear paradise, is massivly more popular than any other MMORPG, with nearly as many subscribers as the next two games (FFXI and SWG) put together, according to this page. And, of course, both of them are more carebear than pre-UO:R.
"Pure" PvP looks like it's a niche market, and with the costs of developing MMORPGs getting higher and higher I'd guess that we'll never seen a mainstream pure-PvP game developed again, unless it's a spin-off from an established game.
G
Gordonax
Guest
- Thread starter
- #13
Very true. The only way round that would be population control: and I doubt that will ever happen as it would be a nightmare ("but all my friends play that realm!!!") to implement.
Another option would be to stratify the RvR zones, which was something Mythic sort-of started doing with the battlegrounds. You'd continue to keep the main frontiers as open to all, but also have zones that were limited to certain realm ranks - so that, for example, there would be a zone open only to RR8 and above, where groups of higher realm ranks could compete against more evenly-matched opponents. That would have the benefit of giving more experience players a closer challenge, while leaving less experienced ones to learn how to RvR in a more forgiving environment.
S
Sichama
Guest
- Thread starter
- #14
UO and EQ influenced the online gaming industry tremendusly and it is only normal as they were the first really succesfull mmorpgs out.
The bigest mistake companys did and still do is that they fully consentrate on what people don't like about their competition and try to avoid the same things, in a way it is a right thing to do but as everything else in life overdoing it is wrong prime example of this is UO.
Although it's good to try and avoid "bad" things that exist in other games i believe it would also be very good to try and figure out what exactly it is that makes them so popular, maybe the fact that the displeased people are very much more vocal about what they don't like gives the impression that bad thing are more important than the good things but it's not true.
After the huge outcry about PKers from UO, EQ was created as a carebear game with no risk of getting killed, muged, scamed from other players and obviously alot of people jumped game, people from Origin, EA games decided that the reason that EQ was keeping up and getting even more popular was because they had no PvP so they pulled some rediculus solutions out of their ass to try and make UO anti PvP with no success, why? because although it was the fact that EQ was safe that invited people it was not what kept them there, they got hooked up in EQ because of the huge content the game was developing.
In the end what do they have today?
EQ as the absolutely best game for those that don't want any form of negative player interaction, actually keeping them interested because of so much content that you can be sure that no matter how long you play you probably wont do most of the things a second time even if you make 10 characters. But on the other hand a game that has absolutely nothing to offer to people that like PvP competition.
UO as a game that has just enough content to keep some players that can't bother to jump game, a system that offers a basic PvP oportunity that only players that can't bother or are afraid to go to other games because they will be n00bs again still play, and admitedly the best crafting system out there but useless in the big picture of the game.
Somwhere in the time EQ and UO where trying to "steal" customers from eachother, other games appeared mainly following EQ's example, but others too that tried to emulate the hibrid system of UO, none really stuck but some became a bit popular, was it because they "copied" features from the other games? I think not.
AC definately didn't become popular because it was a second EQ in style and anti PvP gaming, it became popular because it had a much more Fantasy feeling in it attracting the players that enjoyed Role Playing as it is much more nicer than EQ in that aspect, and it had enough content to keep people pleased, what in earth inspired their team to envision ACII which lack's AC's content and feeling instead of putting all those resources into AC and making it a better game i will never understand.
Did AO become popular because it featured a hibrid system of PvP? I think not, i think the fact that it went into another setting than the fantasy one plus the fact that it is the game with the best system with which the players can modify their Avatar was what made it popular, the recent expansion though is such a mistake that i think will probably lead to a major downfall of the game.
In the mess that online gaming was at some point DAoC appeared, did it have the PvE content other games had? definately not, content in DAoC can be described basic and that is a bit generous, obviously with so litle content something else must be what made it popular and we all know what that is, full PvP or RvR support, nothing like that ever appeared before DAoC, even the RvR terminology is practically unique in DAoC, full player interaction with just the basic content to support character developing was the answer at some point.
Did Mythic do it flawlessly? definately not, but they did it good enough, what does the future hold for DAoC is difficult to say, ToA is a great risk in my mind as in a game like this the most important factor for it is for classes/characters to be as much balanced as possible and for it to be as bug free as possible from bugs that give some classes/characters unfair advantges over the others, and although it has been achieved at a good point there is still much work to be done, and ToA risks that things may get out of hand this is probably the reason immediately after ToA a complete RvR expansion is coming if things are done right DAoC has the potential to become the best game ever if not it will freeze like the others.
All in all i think the future of online gaming is good for the customers as more and more games will start coming out and the number of people getting inerested in online gaming rises year after year but it is becoming very dificult for companies to creat that game that will place it's self in the best, and the only way for them to achieve it is to create games that target more specific groups than trying to please as many as possible, create a full pvp game with only the absolutely nessesary anti greifing, killing, stealing, scaming features do it well and although it will not get the huge amounts of players the previous games had it will attract all of the players interested in that kind of game, create an RvR based game but with as few as possible anti grouping, zerging features and invite all the players that enjoy large combat games, create a PvE game fill it up with content beyond imagination, yes i believe that only games that specialize in a certain game style will have any future in the online world of games.
The bigest mistake companys did and still do is that they fully consentrate on what people don't like about their competition and try to avoid the same things, in a way it is a right thing to do but as everything else in life overdoing it is wrong prime example of this is UO.
Although it's good to try and avoid "bad" things that exist in other games i believe it would also be very good to try and figure out what exactly it is that makes them so popular, maybe the fact that the displeased people are very much more vocal about what they don't like gives the impression that bad thing are more important than the good things but it's not true.
After the huge outcry about PKers from UO, EQ was created as a carebear game with no risk of getting killed, muged, scamed from other players and obviously alot of people jumped game, people from Origin, EA games decided that the reason that EQ was keeping up and getting even more popular was because they had no PvP so they pulled some rediculus solutions out of their ass to try and make UO anti PvP with no success, why? because although it was the fact that EQ was safe that invited people it was not what kept them there, they got hooked up in EQ because of the huge content the game was developing.
In the end what do they have today?
EQ as the absolutely best game for those that don't want any form of negative player interaction, actually keeping them interested because of so much content that you can be sure that no matter how long you play you probably wont do most of the things a second time even if you make 10 characters. But on the other hand a game that has absolutely nothing to offer to people that like PvP competition.
UO as a game that has just enough content to keep some players that can't bother to jump game, a system that offers a basic PvP oportunity that only players that can't bother or are afraid to go to other games because they will be n00bs again still play, and admitedly the best crafting system out there but useless in the big picture of the game.
Somwhere in the time EQ and UO where trying to "steal" customers from eachother, other games appeared mainly following EQ's example, but others too that tried to emulate the hibrid system of UO, none really stuck but some became a bit popular, was it because they "copied" features from the other games? I think not.
AC definately didn't become popular because it was a second EQ in style and anti PvP gaming, it became popular because it had a much more Fantasy feeling in it attracting the players that enjoyed Role Playing as it is much more nicer than EQ in that aspect, and it had enough content to keep people pleased, what in earth inspired their team to envision ACII which lack's AC's content and feeling instead of putting all those resources into AC and making it a better game i will never understand.
Did AO become popular because it featured a hibrid system of PvP? I think not, i think the fact that it went into another setting than the fantasy one plus the fact that it is the game with the best system with which the players can modify their Avatar was what made it popular, the recent expansion though is such a mistake that i think will probably lead to a major downfall of the game.
In the mess that online gaming was at some point DAoC appeared, did it have the PvE content other games had? definately not, content in DAoC can be described basic and that is a bit generous, obviously with so litle content something else must be what made it popular and we all know what that is, full PvP or RvR support, nothing like that ever appeared before DAoC, even the RvR terminology is practically unique in DAoC, full player interaction with just the basic content to support character developing was the answer at some point.
Did Mythic do it flawlessly? definately not, but they did it good enough, what does the future hold for DAoC is difficult to say, ToA is a great risk in my mind as in a game like this the most important factor for it is for classes/characters to be as much balanced as possible and for it to be as bug free as possible from bugs that give some classes/characters unfair advantges over the others, and although it has been achieved at a good point there is still much work to be done, and ToA risks that things may get out of hand this is probably the reason immediately after ToA a complete RvR expansion is coming if things are done right DAoC has the potential to become the best game ever if not it will freeze like the others.
All in all i think the future of online gaming is good for the customers as more and more games will start coming out and the number of people getting inerested in online gaming rises year after year but it is becoming very dificult for companies to creat that game that will place it's self in the best, and the only way for them to achieve it is to create games that target more specific groups than trying to please as many as possible, create a full pvp game with only the absolutely nessesary anti greifing, killing, stealing, scaming features do it well and although it will not get the huge amounts of players the previous games had it will attract all of the players interested in that kind of game, create an RvR based game but with as few as possible anti grouping, zerging features and invite all the players that enjoy large combat games, create a PvE game fill it up with content beyond imagination, yes i believe that only games that specialize in a certain game style will have any future in the online world of games.
E
envenom
Guest
- Thread starter
- #15
Well fact is that the EQ clone games are the only games out at the moment there all the same as EQ but with different skins etc etc but there is a game called Darkfall which looks very promising in the aspect of PVP and PVM you can loot other ppl which is always funny as hell.
there is still a huge fanbase for pvp mmorpg i mean look at SWG ppl were going nutz when they said it was consensual pvp.
Q
qyrf
Guest
- Thread starter
- #16
he is right, and soooo wrong in that article. It's clear that all he has tried is uo and games that came after that, or he wouldnt compare it to mud. The very thing of muds are the threadmill gaming, hunting mobs for items, not hunting other players.
I only know 1 mud which is pvp, and thats genesis, and i have played alot of muds.
I only know 1 mud which is pvp, and thats genesis, and i have played alot of muds.
G
Gordonax
Guest
- Thread starter
- #17
Yeah, but people on forums don't actually make up a very big market. At the moment, there are about 2500 people logged into Goa's two English servers. There are about 40 people logged in to this forum. You see what I mean? Forum dwellers shout long and hard about things that the majority of users rarely give a damn about.
E
envenom
Guest
- Thread starter
- #18
I aint talking about barryswhine im talking about the offical SWG boards the devs there get a ton of shit every day for the crap game they made.
when they said that swg was gonna be consensual pvp ppl went nutz on the offical boards.
when they said that swg was gonna be consensual pvp ppl went nutz on the offical boards.
R
rure_
Guest
- Thread starter
- #19
Couldnt agree more. Its like speccing in DAoC, you cant be good at everything - you have to specialize in something. And this is just what the author off the article is wrong about. He thinks there will be a game that is a "perfect" world, with pretty much the same mechanics as of the real world we live in, which is a naive thought. I bet there will be genres within the mmorpg-genre in a few years.
G
Gordonax
Guest
- Thread starter
- #20
Yeah, but the point is that Barryswhine isn't unique: every forum I've ever seen (both about games and other things) is dominated by a hardcore of users, who complain bitterly about stuff. Rarely do they actually represent what people really think. I mean, to look at the EQ boards you'd think it was the worst game in the world, yet 450,000 people keep paying a sizable per-month fee to play.
G
Gordonax
Guest
- Thread starter
- #21
LOL and how boring would it be? "You play a daring medaevil peasant, who grows turnips for 30 years then dies of the plague."
S
Soromaar2
Guest
- Thread starter
- #22
true gordon
like the story
like the story
A
Arnor
Guest
- Thread starter
- #23
R
rure_
Guest
- Thread starter
- #24
Ugh, annoying.
K
katt!
Guest
- Thread starter
- #25
the people that are playing the sims online :////
P
Powahhh
Guest
- Thread starter
- #26
omfg
they measure players in $$$$$$$$$ .....
PvP or any form is that keep the players "happy"
cause even if you have 23409432973298325875327853098 mobs to kill soon you will get bored ....cause the AI is not even close to the 1/4 of the human brain
(sometimes brain is missing anyway..i say that for the normal players)..so killing no-iq sprites does not last forever
W
Whisperess
Guest
- Thread starter
- #27
It's in and working (somewhat) great in FFXI.
Basically it randomly picks a server depending on how many are currently playing on the servers and that nation - to try and make things even. Which is all fine and dandy if you're new to the game and know nobody.
If you start the game with friends or have friends already playing you can join them if they purchase a World Pass for in-game money ( not much, but it's still quite a bit for completely new players )
N
nalistah
Guest
- Thread starter
- #28
summarIiiIZZze plz.. ive worked all day/evening, cba to read
B
bracken_woodman
Guest
- Thread starter
- #29
Agree with this up to a point. However, things went too far with UO...a sense of fear became a sense of resignation when you got ganked over and over again. This spoiled the game for the casual gamers. People who enjoyed the challenge, like the rush, but eventually got fed up with getting ganked by hard core players - and the penalty was too high.
G
Gordonax
Guest
- Thread starter
- #30
LOL
