Originally posted by bahamut1

Neanderthal: The game you envision has already been envisioned, created, and failed. Why? Because the majority of people don't want to play this game. Because in a game where players have control and power, only a few will have that power, and everyone else will give up, quit, and play 0-50 in a week game. Everything in the genre, at this time (not saying that it will not someday swing back, known as the pendulum effect), is swinging to the instant gratification, reach "endgame" as fast as possible and then try to keep 9 million customers busy while paying the bills. Your envisioned game is a fantastic idea and I hope they try it again, and maybe have the groundwork to pull it off, but that game, at this time, doesn't pay the bills. Everyone wants to be uber. Everyone wants to be a hero. That game does not allow that.

Sandbox games have been made, of course, but I don't believe that the specific ideas I have in mind (which I cannot easily explain in a few short paragraphs) have ever all come together in one game.  What exists in my mind is perhaps not pure sandbox but rather a sandbox with certain limitations and it's own set of rules and game mechanics to keep things enjoyable and sane.  As with the standard level based, linear games it's not just the general idea that makes it a good game it's the details.

I'm strongly tempted to do a point-counterpoint with you to see if I could offer solutions to any failing points you might bring up because I have spent an inordinate amount of time thinking about this crap.  But that's not the topic of this thread and you probably wouldn't want to do it anyway.

I will answer the statement that, "...in a game where players have control and power, only a few will have that power..."

If you are talking about PvP mega guild domination of the world there is a way to address that.  First, if the world is really big, and I mean huge, and there is no instant or rapid transportation, it would be logistically difficult to conquer the world.  The difficulty increasing with distance from your home base.

Second, and this may seem odd in addressing this particular question, you set up the game so that everyone has a home.  A house, mansion, shack, or whatever.  There are no banks to store items in.  Your home is the only place to store things.  It's also the spot at which your new characters appear when your old ones die (which is important in a world with no easy travel options).  The point here is that your home is important and it isn't a trivial thing to move, you can but it's a pain.  This would tend to tie people's intersts to their home, which would tend to tie their interests to the village/city it's in.

In addition to this you set it up so that the bigger a city gets the more problems it has.  Law enforcement, sanitation-disease, etc.  Thus players would have a reason to not want to grow their cities too ungodly huge. 

Ok, the point of this is to keep people living in separate settlements rather than everyone running off to live in the biggest most successfull one. 

Now, when a big city/kingdom (I imagine city states rather than actual kingdoms) conquers a small city the small city is still a seperate entity.  So now what?  Either the big city destroys the small one in which case the people in the small city disperse to other places or the big guys make it a subject city.  If they make it a subject city they HAVE to levee a tax on all of the inhabitants.  And this tax would be in addition to the normal taxes the small city already levees on it's own people.

The point here is that the two groups would still be separate groups but the conquered group could never be happy with the situation.  They would have a permanent grievance and a reason to scheme against the bigger group.  Thus, the more cities the big group conquers the more likely it is that they will band together to rebel.  And logistical difficulties would make it unlikely for any empire of this sort to engulf the world (if that would even be possible) before the subject peoples rebelled against them. 

And I better shut up now because I could go on and on for hours about this stuff.

Originally posted by Jenuviel

I like the way Asheron's Call handled it. There were 126 levels, but nobody was ever supposed to get to 126. The diminishing returns were such that it just wasn't expected to happen. Then it did. They added another 124 levels to the game and softened the curve a bit. I really enjoy "dings" of various types: skill-ups, levels, advanced achievements, et cetera that are achieved just by playing the "core" game. That normal game experience is what I like, not the capped-out pvp/raiding scenario that seems to be the norm these days. 

I loved that Turbine just kept extending the game so that fun part could continue, and they did it in a big way. I enjoyed the base game in World of Warcraft, too, but after reaching level 60, that game disappeared entirely and was replaced by something else. It felt a bit like a bait-and-switch, and I just wasn't interested in that. Unfortunately, WoW's questing model didn't really leave them much room for anything else. Given that the game is mostly quest-oriented, they couldn't really double the number of levels, add new land, and just throw in a bunch of monsters with scaled up stats like Turbine did for AC; they would've had to come up with 60 more levels of quests as well, which would've been significantly more work. All in all, 10 levels every two years just isn't enough for me, though.

After reading this thread I thought of AC1. I think that was the game that had the best level based PvE. In hindsight I realize how great the monthly storyline and content updates were. Current titles seem so static - you get very little until they release the big Xpac once every year that you have to pay additional for.

Also agree about the 'bait and switch' with WoW. Perfect way to call it. 0-59 Was this laid back fun game and then at level 60 it was like chinese water torture...

Originally posted by x_rast_x

The whole concept of 'end game' is an anomaly that started with WoW and should end with WoW.

MMOs should not consist of:

Step 1) Get to max level
Step 2) Play the game

You know this is exaclty whi i dont paly such games anymore. I paly games to have fun. NOT to spend the next month or so grinding my way to a level where i can have fun.

---

Originally posted by Neanderthal

---

Originally posted by Tatum

 
In my ideal MMO, the end game would actually be the entire game.  I always thought it was a dumb idea to have a level grind..........then the end game, which is infinitely more fun and interesting than the level grind.  Why not just trim the fat and give us the meat?  If it's a PvP game, then you should PvP right from the start.  If you're buidling the game around a player driven economy, then you should be able to participate in that right from the start.  If it's a PvE game, the players should be able to group up an interract with everyone right from the start.

---

I agree with this thinking.  What sense does it make to start a game out as one thing and then have it change into something else later on? 
If a game is about soloing or small grouping to gain levels and the occasional random drop of loot then why not simply let it continue that way indefenitely?  If it's about PvP then why not forget about making people grind up to the top so they can start enjoying PvP?  If it's about PvE raiding then why not throw people into raiding right from the begining, either forget about levels and have progression only through raiding gear progression and/or have raiding be the way to level up.
Personally I'm more in the "sandbox" camp myself but there isn't much effort (or financial backing) going into developing good sandbox games so I'm not too optomistic about that.  My dream mmorpg wouldn't have levels and the main focus would not be on character progression at all.  It would be a cross between a pure sandbox and a virtual world designed for adventure.  It would be dynamic by giving the players themselves the option to earn an opportunity to add things to the world (like new dungeons, new Gods, new Cities, etc.) and of course the chance to destroy things as well.
It would have a sort of soft perma-death.  I say soft because with little focus on character progression it wouldn't hurt that much to die and would have a family line inheritance system for items and property.  Items could be destroyed, but again it wouldn't hurt that much because there wouldn't be any over-the-top uber crap that you have to grind months to get.
There would be lot's of unlockables to help fill the gap left by moving the focus off of character progression.  So you could unlock different races, playable monsters (subject to permadeath), unusual professions and so forth.
Anyway I imagine a great big world that is dynamic and consistant.  No level 1 areas and level 50 areas.  The whole world is set up for the basic power/toughness range that all characters would be in.  I imagine a world in which it could be possible for a player village to be tucked away in the mountains somewhere and most of the playerbase might not even know of it's existance.
Or a city might grow from humble beginings to be a huge sprawling place and a center of trade.
Or a player might, through effort and time, unlock a playable dragon and ravage and rampage.  But then other players might manage to kill the dragon...and guess what?  He stays dead.  At least that specific dragon stays dead.
Oh..anyway.  I can dream.

---

interesting a Permadeath proponent. You are a rare breed my friend. I would like to try your game. I tried out HAZE (NWN2 roleplay PD server) but the roleplayers on that server are major socializers. I found myself wanting to pull out my sword and start PKing. so never stuck around to see how it would all playout. also, it was timed XP which was brutal too me cause it meant I was doomed to be a lowbie for a long time

yeah in the presence of PD its great to see how everyone teams up. The player run guards and cities and even the conversations could be interesting.

DOFUS will be putting up a Heroic server I hope it will be decent and death can be incurred from at leas tPVE

I would just like to add something to Neanderthals idea.

How to solve sandbox = lack of content problem? Compleete freedom and starting from scratch sounds great but it's very tricky and could easyly become very boring, very fast. What I have in mind is to have a wide range of skills and abilitys, from farming to spellweaving, even city managment (something like SimCity minigames) and when the game starts everything is set up and working with NPCs at key positions. Over time and with the right skills, players can start taking over those positions and eventualy the whole game world would be player run. There wouls also need to be some perks with certain postions...

There would ofcourse need to be all sorts of rules about that, but the most important would be some kind of voting options so that players who don't want to PVP can PVP too. If teh player in a position doesen't do his job and other players don't vote him out, NPC would do it and an NPC would retirn to position, keepind status quo!

I prefer a sandbox approach. It's not fair to say people don't want it, look at Ultima Online in it's day. I don't think anyone has brought out a sandbox fantasy game since. Maybe it's about time?

I don't really see the point in grinding away, game after game, to collect better items then beat some big guy at the end for the uber item. *yawn*

End games.....pfffft.

Well EvE is a snadbox and it Works very well [partly thanks to 4-5 years of almost continuouse additions to content].

Originally posted by Jhughesy

I prefer a sandbox approach. It's not fair to say people don't want it, look at Ultima Online in it's day. I don't think anyone has brought out a sandbox fantasy game since. Maybe it's about time?

I don't really see the point in grinding away, game after game, to collect better items then beat some big guy at the end for the uber item. *yawn*

End games.....pfffft.

Whether the mechanism is called experience points, levels, skill points, skills, or whatever, the purpose is to quantify an avatars battle prowess or some other activity.  The name is meaningless.  If progressing the avatar is unfun, it is going to be a grind.  Instead of concentrating on a particular structure, I would prefer the developer spend time on making combat and progression enjoyable, immersive, and engaging.

Originally posted by Kyntor

 

Sandbox is really not a cure for "grind."  The sandbox games can be just as big a grind as level/class based.  Grind like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  One of the reasons I quit EVE was because after a while it felt like a grind.  Every day that I logged on, I was defending the same bit of space (over and over and over and over again).  After a while, I just didn't log in anymore.

 

 

Duh! EvE is a PvP game of course you will get a lot of this.

Originally posted by Boshi 

...

 If you could actually take over the world in WoW that would be an end game. If contested zones we actually contestable that would be an end game.  As it is now you can go to some zones for the purpose of pointless PvP in Wow. Oh yeah sure you can get points to get more loot but that is just a variation on the evercamp tread mill really.

That is along the lines I was going to post. If you could actually take over cities and such it would be better, along the lines of what Warhammer is doing.

Originally posted by MR-Bubbles

Originally posted by Kyntor

 

Sandbox is really not a cure for "grind."  The sandbox games can be just as big a grind as level/class based.  Grind like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  One of the reasons I quit EVE was because after a while it felt like a grind.  Every day that I logged on, I was defending the same bit of space (over and over and over and over again).  After a while, I just didn't log in anymore.

 

 

Duh! EvE is a PvP game of course you will get a lot of this.

The purpose of the paragraph that you quoted was to show that even sandbox, skill-based, non-progression oriented (progression is time based and independent of the player's actions), FFA PVP games can be considered a grind by someone.

I enjoy PVP in MMORPGs, but it should be more than just territory control.

I think for any game to keep players happy and active, a game needs to continually implement new game content and something for players to set a goal towards. So many games set the effort on the players by leveling up, getting loot, getting experience, etc. I like one attribute in SWG which was finding quality ores for crafting. It was refreshing to have the quality of the environment make a difference in the quality of the products I crafted. So many games currently equate time = success and not in other terms at all. I do enjoy games which implement dependability from other players support like crafting and fighting, to diplomacy.

I don’t’ necessarily believe that Eve-Online is a sandbox game after playing it for 4 years. After the 2nd year into playing it, I felt it lost it’s ‘be anything, do anything, dream anything’ and just became a global PvP based war from the noob zones to 0.0 space.

Originally posted by bahamut1

 Everyone wants to be uber. Everyone wants to be a hero. That game does not allow that.

I actually have to disagree. Imo sandbox games have more opportunities for players to become heroes in their virtual worlds than they would in class-based, item-centric, linear questing worlds. And that only because sandbox games tend to go deeper in a community feel and versatility of skills and abilities opposed to being carbon copies of every other 'lvl 70 paladin'. Accomplishements get noted more often due to tight(er))knitness and your actions might actually affect the gameworld. (Although it goes without saying that a big deciding factor in this may be the average lower population of said sandbox games) When your virtual world's economy and evolution of the game world and storyline completely depends on players, recognition ain't far away.

If you want to be uber, a hero, recognition ... then work for it, do something no one else can or could do; something current players will remember you for, something future players will be curious after. Be it slaying an army, craft a superior item or building or woe your enemies with diplomacy. Hell, I've known players in sandbox games that amply got into fighting, magics or crafting but were real narative and orative talents and got known, stature, respected for their gameworld politics. These things are (again imo) way easier to accomplish in sandbox games or dynamic worlds than the static variety. Stature and fame doesn't get gained by simply accomplishing something but by making a difference or impact and making people remember you for it.

Everyone thinking they can become uber and a hero by just reaching the top tier levels needs to get their head out of their bumholes. They mean nothing more to the other Don Quichotte's out there chasing the same windmills who populate the gameworld. The False Uberness and Heroism those people wish to attain by simply progressing through the game is a nasty side effect of their dillussion they're still playing single player rpg's or fps games.

p.s. Neanderthal, thumbs up for your posts. I enjoyed reading them!

p.p.s. bahamut1; not entirely disagreeing with you since you've made good points, but that one line stood out for me.

Originally posted by Kyntor

 

Sandbox is really not a cure for "grind."  The sandbox games can be just as big a grind as level/class based.  Grind like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  One of the reasons I quit EVE was because after a while it felt like a grind.  Every day that I logged on, I was defending the same bit of space (over and over and over and over again).  After a while, I just didn't log in anymore. 

To my mind any endgame has to be PvP-oriented.

Getting better equipment to get better equipment to get better equipment is not an endgame.

Taking over the universe is an endgame.

Lording over the other players and creating vassal states is an endgame.

Having enough money and power to manifest your will upon the gameworld is an endgame.

Even Arenas are not good enough.

It has to be more than just being the #1 killer.

Being the #1 killer has to MEAN something beyond stats on a killboard.

Unfortunately for this to happen there has to be a "bottom" or an underclass, people that have to follow your orders or suffer the consequences.

In short there has to be winners and losers, haves and have-nots.

At the same time the people on the bottom have to have a path up the ladder, a means of becoming more powerful to have a chance at someday knocking the King off his throne and becoming the new Despot.

Eve-Online is my ideal as to what an endgame should be.

END GAME is not a concept invented by any game, especially not any MMO. It is a referance to the objective. The reason you are doing what you do.

 Bahamut1,  I loved your post it managed to spell out most of the major issues in providing a mass apppeal game. The whole problem with end game in a MMO, is the players. The bulk of them want to play a game that is basicly an interactive movie. They don't really want a challenge & they certainly don't want to come up with objectives or character goals that require more thought than " I need to Level".  I would love a wide open game where end game was a concept PLAYERS used in referance to thier characters goals & methods to achieve them. "Sort of like real life"