Trending Games | WildStar | World of Warcraft | Elder Scrolls Online | Guild Wars 2

  Network:  FPSguru RTSguru
Login:  Password:   Remember?  
Show Quick Gamelist Jump to Random Game
Members:2,638,864 Users Online:0
Games:678  Posts:6,073,577
Recent forum postsRSS
Active threads
Cloud view
List all forums
General Forums
Developers Corner General Discussion
Popular Game Forums
Click a status to find game forum
Game Forums
Click a letter to find game forum
A-C
2029 Online 2112: Revolution 2Moons 4Story 8BitMMO 9 Dragons A Mystical Land A Tale in the Desert III A3 ACE Online ARGO Online Aberoth Absolute Force Online Absolute Terror Achaea Adellion Aerrevan Aetolia, the Midnight Age Age of Armor Age of Conan Age of Empires Online Age of Mourning Age of Wulin Age of Wushu Aida Arenas Aika Aion Albion Online Alganon All Points Bulletin (APB) Allods Online Altis Gates Amazing World Anarchy Online Ancients of Fasaria Andromeda 5 Angels Online Anime Trumps Anmynor Anno Online Applo Arcane Hearts Arcane Legends ArchLord ArcheAge Archeblade Archlord X Asda 2 Asda Story Ashen Empires Asheron's Call Asheron's Call 2 Astera Online Astonia III Astro Empires Astro Lords: Oort CLoud Asura Force Atlantica Online Atriarch Aura Kingdom Aurora Blade Auto Assault Avatar Star Battle Dawn Battle Dawn Galaxies Battle for Graxia Battle of 3 Kingdoms Battle of the Immortals Battlecruiser Online Battlestar Galactica Online Battlestar Reloaded Beyond Protocol Black Aftermath Black Desert Black Gold Black Prophecy Black Prophecy Tactics: Nexus Conflict Blacklight Retribution Blade & Soul Blade Hunter Blade Wars Blazing Throne Bless Blitz 1941 Blood and Jade Bloodlines Champions Bounty Bay Online Brain Storm Brawl Busters. Brick-Force Bright Shadow Bullet Run Business Tycoon Online CTRacer Cabal Online Caesary Call of Camelot Call of Gods Call of Thrones Camelot Unchained Canaan Online Cardmon Hero Cartoon Universe CasinoRPG Castle Empire Castlot Celtic Heroes Champions Online Champions of Regnum Chaos Online Chrono Tales Citadel of Sorcery CitiesXL Citizen Zero City of Decay City of Heroes City of Steam City of Transformers City of Villains Civilization Online Clan Lord Clash of Clans Cloud Nine Club Penguin Colony of War Command & Conquer: Tiberium Alliances Company of Heroes Online Conquer Online Conquer Online 3 Continent of the Ninth (C9) Core Blaze Core Exiles Corum Online Craft of Gods Crimecraft Crimelife 2 Cronous Crota II Cultures Online Cyber Monster 2 Céiron Wars
D-F
D&D Online DC Universe DK Online DOTA DOTA 2 DUST 514 DV8: Exile Dalethaan Dance Groove Online Dark Age of Camelot Dark Ages Dark Legends Dark Orbit Dark Relic: Prelude Dark Solstice Dark and Light DarkEden Online DarkSpace Darkblood Online Darkfall Darkfall: Unholy Wars Darkwind: War on Wheels Das Tal Dawn of Fantasy Dawntide DayZ Dead Earth Dead Frontier Deco Online Deepworld Defiance Deicide Online Dekaron Demons at the Horizon Desert Operations Destiny Diablo 3 Diamonin Digimon Battle Dino Storm Disciple Divergence Divina Divine Souls Dofus Dominus Online Dragon Ball Online Dragon Born Online Dragon Crusade Dragon Empires Dragon Eternity Dragon Nest Dragon Oath Dragon Pals Dragon Raja Dragon's Call Dragon's Call II Dragon's Prophet DragonSky DragonSoul Dragona Dragonica Dragons and Titans Dream of Mirror Online Dreamland Online Dreamlords: The Reawakening Drift City Duels Dungeon Blitz Dungeon Fighter Online Dungeon Overlord Dungeon Party Dungeon Rampage Dungeon Runners Dynastica Dynasty Warriors Online Dynasty of the Magi EIN (Epicus Incognitus) EVE Online Earth Eternal Earth and Beyond Earthrise Eclipse War Ecol Tactics Online Eden Eternal Einherjar - The Viking's Blood Elder Scrolls Online Eldevin Elf Online Elite: Dangerous Embers of Caerus Emil Chronicle Online Empire Empire & State Empire Craft Empire Universe 3 EmpireQuest Empires of Galldon End of Nations Endless Ages Endless Blue Moon Online Endless Online Entropia Universe EpicDuel Erebus: Travia Reborn Eredan Eternal Blade Eternal Lands Eternal Saga Ether Fields Ether Saga Online Eudemons Online EuroGangster EverEmber Online EverQuest Next EverQuest Online Adventures Evernight Everquest Everquest II Everquest Next: Landmark Evony Exarch Exorace F.E.A.R. Online Face of Mankind Fairyland Online Fall of Rome Fallen Earth Fallen Sword Fallout Online Family Guy Online Fantage Fantasy Earth Zero Fantasy Realm Online Fantasy Tales Online Fantasy Worlds: Rhynn Faunasphere Faxion Online Ferentus Ferion Fiesta Online Final Fantasy XI Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn Firefall Fists of Fu Florensia Flyff Football Manager Live Football Superstars Force of Arms Forge Forsaken World Fortnite Fortuna Forum for Discussion of Everlight Freaky Creatures Free Realms Freesky Online Freeworld Fung Wan Online Furcadia Fury Fusion Fall
G-L
GalaXseeds Galactic Command Online Game of Thrones: Seven Kingdoms Gameglobe Gate To Heavens Gates of Andaron Gatheryn Gauntlet Gekkeiju Online Ghost Online Ghost Recon Online Gladiatus Glitch Global Agenda Global Soccer Gloria Victis Glory of Gods GoGoRacer Goal Line Blitz Gods and Heroes GodsWar Online Golemizer Golf Star GoonZu Online Graal Kingdoms Granado Espada Online Grand Chase Grand Fantasia Grepolis Grimlands Guild Wars Guild Wars 2 Guild Wars Factions Guild Wars Nightfall Habbo Hotel Hailan Rising HaloSphere2 Haven & Hearth Hawken Hearthstone: Heroes of Warcraft Helbreath Hellgate Hellgate: London Hello Kitty Online Hero Online Hero Zero Hero's Journey Hero: 108 Online HeroSmash Heroes & Generals Heroes in the Sky Heroes of Bestia Heroes of Gaia Heroes of Might and Magic Online Heroes of Thessalonica Heroes of Three Kingdoms Heroes of the Storm Hex Holic Online Hostile Space Hunter Blade Huxley Illutia Illyriad Immortals USA Imperator Imperian Inferno Legend Infestation: Survivor Stories Infinite Crisis Infinity Infinity Iris Online Iron Grip: Marauders Irth Worlds Island Forge Islands of War Istaria: Chronicles of the Gifted Jade Dynasty Jagged Alliance Online Juggernaut Jumpgate Jumpgate Evolution KAL Online Kakele Online Kaos War Karos Online Kartuga Kicks Online King of Kings 3 Kingdom Heroes Kingdom Under Fire II Kingdom of Drakkar Kingory Kings and Legends KingsRoad Kitsu Saga Kiwarriors Knight Age Knight Online Knights of Dream City Kothuria Kung Foo! Kunlun Online L.A.W. LEGO Universe La Tale Land of Chaos Online Lands of Hope: Phoenix Edition LastChaos League of Angels League of Legends - Clash of Fates Legend of Edda: Vengeance Legend of Golden Plume Legend of Katha Legend of Mir 2 Legend of Mir 3 Legendary Champions Lego Minifigures Online Life is Feudal Light of Nova Lime Odyssey Line of Defense Lineage Lineage Eternal: Twilight Resistance Lineage II Linkrealms Loong Online Lord of the Rings Online Lords Online Lost Saga Lucent Heart Lunia Lusternia: Age of Ascension Luvinia World
M-Q
MU Online Mabinogi Maestia: Rise of Keledus MagiKnights Magic Barrage Magic World Online Manga Fighter MapleStory Martial Heroes Marvel Heroes Marvel Super Hero Squad Online Marvel: Avengers Alliance MechWarrior Online Megaten Meridian 59 : Evolution Merlin MetalMercs Metaplace Metin 2 MicroVolts Midkemia Online Might & Magic Heroes: Kingdoms MilMo Minecraft Mini Fighter Minions of Mirth Ministry of War Monato Esprit Monkey King Online Monkey Quest Monster & Me Monster Madness Online MonsterMMORPG Moonlight Online: Tales of Eternal Blood Mordavia Mortal Online Mourning My Lands Myst Online: URU Live Myth Angels Online Myth War Myth War 2 Mytheon Mythic Saga Mythos N.E.O Online NIDA Online Nadirim Naviage: The Power of Capital Navy Field Need for Speed World Nemexia Neo's Land NeoSteam Neocron Nether Neverwinter Nexus: The Kingdom Of The Winds NinjaTrick NosTale Novus Aeterno Oberin Odin Quest Odyssey RPG Ogre Island Omerta 3 Online Boxing Manager Onverse Order & Chaos Online Order of Magic Original Blood Origins Return Origins of Malu Orion's Belt Otherland Forums OverSoul Overkings Oz Online Oz World Pandora Saga Pantheon: Rise of the Fallen Panzar Parabellum Parallel Kingdom Parfait Station Path of Exile Pathfinder Online Perfect World Perpetuum Online Phantasy Star Online 2 Phantasy Star Universe Phoenix Dynasty Online Phylon Pi Story Picaroon Pirate Galaxy Pirate Storm Pirate101 PirateKing Online Pirates of the Burning Sea Pirates of the Caribbean Online Pixie Hollow Planeshift Planet Arkadia Planet Calypso PlanetSide 2 Planetside Planets³ Playboy Manager Pocket Legends Pockie Ninja Pockie Pirates Pockie Saints PoxNora Prime World Prime: Battle for Dominus Priston Tale Priston Tale II Prius Online Project Blackout Project Powder Project Titan Forums Project Wiki Puzzle Pirates Quickhit Football
R-S
R2 Online RAN Online RF Online ROSE Online Rage of 3 Kingdoms Ragnarok Online Ragnarok Online II RaiderZ Rakion Rappelz RappelzSEA Realm Fighter Realm of the Mad God Realm of the Titans Realms Online Reclamation Red Stone Red War: Edem's Curse Regnum Online Remnant Knights Renaissance Repulse Requiem: Memento Mori Rift RiotZone Rise Rise of Dragonian Era Rise of Empire Rise of the Tycoon Rising of King Risk Your Life Rivality Rockfree Rohan: Blood Feud Role Play Worlds Roll n Rock Roma Victor Romadoria Rosh Online Roto X Rubies of Eventide Ruin Online Rumble Fighter Runes of Magic Runescape Rust Rusty Hearts Ryzom S4 League SAGA SD Gundam Capsule Fighter Online SMITE SUN Sagramore Salem SaySayGirls Scarlet Blade Scions of Fate Seal Online: Evolution Second Life Secret of the Solstice Seed Serenia Fantasy Seven Seas Saga Seven Souls Online Sevencore Shadow of Legend Shadowbane Shadowrun Online Shaiya Shattered Galaxy Sho Online Shot Online Shroud of the Avatar SideQuest Siege on Stars Sigonyth: Desert Eternity Silkroad Online Skyblade Skyforge SmashMuck Champions Smoo Online Soldier Front Soul Master Soul Order Online Soul of Guardian Space Heroes Universe Spellcasters Sphere Spiral Knights Spirit Tales Splash Fighters Squad Wars Star Citizen Star Sonata 2 Star Stable Star Supremacy Star Trek Online Star Trek: Infinite Space Star Wars Galaxies Star Wars: Clone Wars Adventures Star Wars: The Old Republic StarQuest Online Stargate Worlds Starlight Story Starpires State of Decay SteelWar Online Stone Age 2 Storybricks Stronghold Kingdoms Sudden Attack Supremacy 1914 Supreme Destiny Sword Girls Sword of Destiny: Rise of Aions SwordX Swords of Heavens Swordsman
T-Z
TERA TS Online Tabula Rasa Tactica Online Tales Runner Tales of Fantasy Tales of Pirates Tales of Pirates II Tales of Solaris Talisman Online Tamer Saga Tank Ace Tantra Online Tatsumaki: Land at War Terra Militaris TerraWorld Online Thang Online The 4th Coming The Agency The Aurora World The Black Watchmen The Chronicle The Chronicles of Spellborn The Crew The Division The Hammers End The Legend of Ares The Lost Titans The Matrix Online The Mighty Quest for Epic Loot The Missing Ink The Mummy Online The Myth of Soma The Pride of Taern The Realm Online The Repopulation The Secret World The Sims Online The Strategems The West Theralon There Therian Saga Thrones of Chaos Tibia Tibia Micro Edition Tiger Knight Titan Siege Titans of Time Toontown Online Top Speed Topia Online Torchlight Total Domination Transformers Universe Traveller AR Travia Online Travian Trials of Ascension Tribal Hero Tribal Wars Tribes Universe Trickster Online Trove Troy Online True Fantasy Live Online Turf Battles Twelve Sky Twelve Sky 2 Twilight War Tynon U.B. Funkeys UFO Online URDEAD Online Ultima Forever: Quest for the Avatar Ultima Online Ultima X: Odyssey Ultimate Naruto Ultimate Soccer Boss Uncharted Waters Online Undercover 2: Merc Wars Underlight Unification Wars Universe Online Utopia Valkyrie Sky Vampire Lord Online Vanguard: Saga of Heroes Vanquish Space Vector City Racers Vendetta Online Victory - Age of Racing Vindictus Virtonomics Vis Gladius Visions of Zosimos VoidExpanse Voyage Century Online W.E.L.L. Online WAR (Warhammer Online) WAR2 Glory WYD Global Wakfu War Thunder War of 2012 War of Angels War of Legends War of Mercenaries War of Thrones War of the Immortals WarFlow Waren Story Wargame1942 Warhammer 40,000: Eternal Crusade Warhammer 40K: Dark Millennium Online Warhammer Online: Wrath of Heroes Warkeepers Warrior Epic Wartune WebLords Wild West Online WildStar Wind of Luck WindSlayer 2 Wings of Destiny Wish Wizard101 Wizardry Online Wizards and Champions Wonder King Wonderland Online World Golf Tour World of Battles World of Darkness World of Heroes World of Kung Fu World of Pirates World of Speed World of Tanks World of Tanks Generals World of Warcraft World of Warplanes World of Warships World of the Living Dead WorldAlpha Wurm Online Xenocell Xiah Xsyon Xulu YS Online Yitien ZU Online Zentia Zero Online Zero Online: The Andromeda Crisis Zodiac Online Zombies Ate My Pizza eRepublik

MMORPG.com Discussion Forums

General Discussion

General Discussion 

The Pub at MMORPG.COM  » Game vs World

3 Pages 1 2 3 » Search
42 posts found
  najob75

Apprentice Member

Joined: 11/22/09
Posts: 37

 
OP  1/01/12 5:00:22 AM#1

I have been playing MMO-s for a decade now, reading forums, blogs and web sites dedicated to that part of gaming.
I played almost every MMO out there, including bunch of f2p asian grinders.
In that time, I followed many debates about sandbox against themepark, casual against hard core etc..

In last few weeks I tried one new game, very hot at the moment (I wont name it, you know which one) and I come to realization…

Do we actually try to find gaming worlds opposite to games?
Is that sorce of frustration for many of us, than failure to “live” in our games, opposite just to “play” them?

After few hours in that new game, I come to conclusion – it’s a nice game, its not a world.
 

 

 

  UtukuMoon

Novice Member

Joined: 12/03/11
Posts: 1103

1/01/12 5:10:10 AM#2
Nope the last two mmo releases are not world especially the latest effort.Vanguard and darkfall are worlds and it seems with AA and GW2 we might actually get our worlds back.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8ymgFyzbDo

  Classicstar

Advanced Member

Joined: 12/02/04
Posts: 2490

1/01/12 5:18:13 AM#3


Originally posted by najob75
I have been playing MMO-s for a decade now, reading forums, blogs and web sites dedicated to that part of gaming.
I played almost every MMO out there, including bunch of f2p asian grinders.
In that time, I followed many debates about sandbox against themepark, casual against hard core etc..

In last few weeks I tried one new game, very hot at the moment (I wont name it, you know which one) and I come to realization…

Do we actually try to find gaming worlds opposite to games?
Is that sorce of frustration for many of us, than failure to “live” in our games, opposite just to “play” them?

After few hours in that new game, I come to conclusion – it’s a nice game, its not a world.
 
 
 


I started in AC back in 99 but i would not for million years play a game you dare not mention but most here know witch one you mean.

Ive also try alot of these asian FtwoP MMOs and there almost all crap to me i realy can't believe so many play them also the game you dare not mention is beyond me hehe.

Ive lost hope as ive seen how they also ruined L2 to a dumbed down themepark version so all themeparkers love it now its FtwoP.

AC1-AC2 both Darktide server. Lineage2-Darkfall 1. Many ive tried in between. Stopped playing mmorpgs for now fed up with... Played many solo games mainly rpg's.
Fav series Elder scrolls.

  Cuathon

Advanced Member

Joined: 10/24/04
Posts: 2254

Draw Something is now an MMO. God has forsaken us.

1/01/12 9:35:50 AM#4

I think the fact that all themepark mmos are the same is actually part of their value.

With a sandbox or virtual world mmo, what if you don't like the world? There is a lot of variation among sandboxes and that makes an even smaller demographic break down to smaller groups because half of sandboxers don't like space mmos and half of them don't like fantasy mmos. Then a bunch of them like steampunk which isn't really fantasy or space and so on and so on. If you could find a genre of world that the majority of sandboxers could agree on you might get a viable game. If more people had been willing to play EvE we might have gotten companies to attempt another high quality sandbox game.

  Purutzil

Elite Member

Joined: 10/02/11
Posts: 2645

The Critical Hit Pretzel!

1/01/12 10:02:42 AM#5
Originally posted by Cuathon

I think the fact that all themepark mmos are the same is actually part of their value.

With a sandbox or virtual world mmo, what if you don't like the world? There is a lot of variation among sandboxes and that makes an even smaller demographic break down to smaller groups because half of sandboxers don't like space mmos and half of them don't like fantasy mmos. Then a bunch of them like steampunk which isn't really fantasy or space and so on and so on. If you could find a genre of world that the majority of sandboxers could agree on you might get a viable game. If more people had been willing to play EvE we might have gotten companies to attempt another high quality sandbox game.

Biggest problem is the sandbox mechanic lets the few become strong and once that happens, they pretty much stay there. Everyone else has very little chance of ever overthrowing a strong power. Having everyone the same would make most sandbox players shy away from the game since they want something to progress and get better with, but at the same time it creates an imbalance that goes beyond what a normal themepark would. Its a whole capitalism deal. A few top players take control of everything while the rest are little peons. The top dine on the finest foods, surf and turf all they like, while the lower end have bread and scraps every night.

  Cuathon

Advanced Member

Joined: 10/24/04
Posts: 2254

Draw Something is now an MMO. God has forsaken us.

1/01/12 10:59:29 AM#6
Originally posted by Purutzil
Originally posted by Cuathon

I think the fact that all themepark mmos are the same is actually part of their value.

With a sandbox or virtual world mmo, what if you don't like the world? There is a lot of variation among sandboxes and that makes an even smaller demographic break down to smaller groups because half of sandboxers don't like space mmos and half of them don't like fantasy mmos. Then a bunch of them like steampunk which isn't really fantasy or space and so on and so on. If you could find a genre of world that the majority of sandboxers could agree on you might get a viable game. If more people had been willing to play EvE we might have gotten companies to attempt another high quality sandbox game.

Biggest problem is the sandbox mechanic lets the few become strong and once that happens, they pretty much stay there. Everyone else has very little chance of ever overthrowing a strong power. Having everyone the same would make most sandbox players shy away from the game since they want something to progress and get better with, but at the same time it creates an imbalance that goes beyond what a normal themepark would. Its a whole capitalism deal. A few top players take control of everything while the rest are little peons. The top dine on the finest foods, surf and turf all they like, while the lower end have bread and scraps every night.

In any competitive system with progression and no cap, real or in game, some persons always take the lead. Why is it a problem in mmorpgs when mmorts games have millions of players who don't seem to give a shit? Some people have giant fleets and space empires and some don't and it takes up to 5 years for the game to end up just the top players. And that is in games where a single player can have unlimited armies, as opposed to rpgs with diminishing returns or something. It shouldn't be that difficult to design a system where in 90% of cases its more beneficial to cooperate than compete at least at micro scales. At macro scales it might be better to set the game to competition, though its not necessary.

  Loktofeit

Hard Core Member

Joined: 1/13/10
Posts: 11356

Currently playing EVE, SMITE, ESO, and Combat Arms

1/01/12 11:12:24 AM#7

 

Game is one of the components that can exist within a Virtual World. What people who see it as 'game vs world' are looking for is a greater sim component or more meaningful social component. This thread will prove that to be emphatically true.

  toddze

Novice Member

Joined: 8/02/08
Posts: 2191

I am not a hater, I call it like I see it.

1/01/12 11:18:57 AM#8

to me the biggest thing that makes an MMO is a world. without a world you dont have an mmo. A collection of zones is not a world. You can have a thempark or a sandbox in a world. Thats just my opinion, im sure others agree while others dont.

Waiting for:EQ-Next, ArcheAge (not so much anymore)
Now Playing: N/A
Worst MMO: FFXIV
Favorite MMO: FFXI

  BCuse

Advanced Member

Joined: 11/12/05
Posts: 140

1/01/12 11:20:17 AM#9
Originally posted by Purutzil
Originally posted by Cuathon

I think the fact that all themepark mmos are the same is actually part of their value.

With a sandbox or virtual world mmo, what if you don't like the world? There is a lot of variation among sandboxes and that makes an even smaller demographic break down to smaller groups because half of sandboxers don't like space mmos and half of them don't like fantasy mmos. Then a bunch of them like steampunk which isn't really fantasy or space and so on and so on. If you could find a genre of world that the majority of sandboxers could agree on you might get a viable game. If more people had been willing to play EvE we might have gotten companies to attempt another high quality sandbox game.

Biggest problem is the sandbox mechanic lets the few become strong and once that happens, they pretty much stay there. Everyone else has very little chance of ever overthrowing a strong power. Having everyone the same would make most sandbox players shy away from the game since they want something to progress and get better with, but at the same time it creates an imbalance that goes beyond what a normal themepark would. Its a whole capitalism deal. A few top players take control of everything while the rest are little peons. The top dine on the finest foods, surf and turf all they like, while the lower end have bread and scraps every night.

if someone puts in more hours works hard they should be able to have more than the guy who plays much less.  i dont care if the person who plays a ton has more than me.  in my opinion the idea that everyone has to be balanced or have the same as everyone else is the problem in mmorpgs today.  for me i want my mmorpg to be virtual worlds, if i want to play thempark type games i play my console.

  toddze

Novice Member

Joined: 8/02/08
Posts: 2191

I am not a hater, I call it like I see it.

1/01/12 11:24:10 AM#10
Originally posted by BCuse
 

if someone puts in more hours works hard they should be able to have more than the guy who plays much less.  i dont care if the person who plays a ton has more than me.  in my opinion the idea that everyone has to be balanced or have the same as everyone else is the problem in mmorpgs today.  for me i want my mmorpg to be virtual worlds, if i want to play thempark type games i play my console.

yes your right it should be that way, and your also right its not like that.  That one of the top 5 issues with MMORPG's.

If something is easy to get....its not worth getting.

Waiting for:EQ-Next, ArcheAge (not so much anymore)
Now Playing: N/A
Worst MMO: FFXIV
Favorite MMO: FFXI

  Amaranthar

Advanced Member

Joined: 1/18/06
Posts: 2146

1/01/12 11:28:11 AM#11
Originally posted by Cuathon
Originally posted by Purutzil
Originally posted by Cuathon

I think the fact that all themepark mmos are the same is actually part of their value.

With a sandbox or virtual world mmo, what if you don't like the world? There is a lot of variation among sandboxes and that makes an even smaller demographic break down to smaller groups because half of sandboxers don't like space mmos and half of them don't like fantasy mmos. Then a bunch of them like steampunk which isn't really fantasy or space and so on and so on. If you could find a genre of world that the majority of sandboxers could agree on you might get a viable game. If more people had been willing to play EvE we might have gotten companies to attempt another high quality sandbox game.

Biggest problem is the sandbox mechanic lets the few become strong and once that happens, they pretty much stay there. Everyone else has very little chance of ever overthrowing a strong power. Having everyone the same would make most sandbox players shy away from the game since they want something to progress and get better with, but at the same time it creates an imbalance that goes beyond what a normal themepark would. Its a whole capitalism deal. A few top players take control of everything while the rest are little peons. The top dine on the finest foods, surf and turf all they like, while the lower end have bread and scraps every night.

In any competitive system with progression and no cap, real or in game, some persons always take the lead. Why is it a problem in mmorpgs when mmorts games have millions of players who don't seem to give a shit? Some people have giant fleets and space empires and some don't and it takes up to 5 years for the game to end up just the top players. And that is in games where a single player can have unlimited armies, as opposed to rpgs with diminishing returns or something. It shouldn't be that difficult to design a system where in 90% of cases its more beneficial to cooperate than compete at least at micro scales. At macro scales it might be better to set the game to competition, though its not necessary.

Man, I can go on and on just on these comments. But I have to limit myself to something readable.

Cuathon, on your first comment. Be carefull how you read things. Most gamers post things without any real, in depth study of the subject, much less their own real feelings and reactions to what they experience. As an example, players are tired of Themeparks, and they post that they want "something different", and then someone thinks that maybe a Sci-Fi game would be "different", and then some more posters just like them chime in with the same thing for months, and it grows like a festering wound. So they get all excited about SWTOR, and then find out that the game play is the same thing and start talking about how GW2 will be different. In the end, I think it's far more important to consider the game play experience that players want than any one or few of these overall sorts of details. But I also believe that fantasy is the king, followed somewhat closely by Sci-Fi, and all the others (Zombies, mafia, modern day, furries, etc.) are way behind in what gamers want for their setting. One of the big basics that Eve misses on is actually having a humanoid avatar, and their complete mishandling of that is telling. They make up for that with what they do offer in an industry completely lacking of any quality compitition.

Purutzil, you have a point but that's only because the game (whichever one) is designed that way. Cuathon has a good point as a reply. "Diminishing returns" and a cooperative structure with social ties are huge here. Games can be built so that there's an increasingly difficult tree to that ladder of success, and leave it to players to decide individually where they want to stop along that tree and play the rest of the game. Sort of like in RL, if you want to be the head of a corporation, you need to do all the things required to get there and to run said corporation. Most people simply don't want to do that much, and would rather live their lives doing the things they want to do. I think big "success" (financially) in MMOs should also bring big organizational skills and constant attention to maintaining the "well oiled machine". I'm not sure, but I think Eve has a lot more right here than not.

Once upon a time....

  AdamTM

Novice Member

Joined: 5/05/05
Posts: 1395

I'M PUNCHING YOUR SALAD!!!!

1/01/12 11:32:08 AM#12
Originally posted by BCuse
Originally posted by Purutzil
Originally posted by Cuathon

I think the fact that all themepark mmos are the same is actually part of their value.

With a sandbox or virtual world mmo, what if you don't like the world? There is a lot of variation among sandboxes and that makes an even smaller demographic break down to smaller groups because half of sandboxers don't like space mmos and half of them don't like fantasy mmos. Then a bunch of them like steampunk which isn't really fantasy or space and so on and so on. If you could find a genre of world that the majority of sandboxers could agree on you might get a viable game. If more people had been willing to play EvE we might have gotten companies to attempt another high quality sandbox game.

Biggest problem is the sandbox mechanic lets the few become strong and once that happens, they pretty much stay there. Everyone else has very little chance of ever overthrowing a strong power. Having everyone the same would make most sandbox players shy away from the game since they want something to progress and get better with, but at the same time it creates an imbalance that goes beyond what a normal themepark would. Its a whole capitalism deal. A few top players take control of everything while the rest are little peons. The top dine on the finest foods, surf and turf all they like, while the lower end have bread and scraps every night.

if someone puts in more hours works hard they should be able to have more than the guy who plays much less.  i dont care if the person who plays a ton has more than me.  in my opinion the idea that everyone has to be balanced or have the same as everyone else is the problem in mmorpgs today.  for me i want my mmorpg to be virtual worlds, if i want to play thempark type games i play my console.

At the same time, there needs to be at least the chance that you can get as good as people who play more and are more powerful.

Most sandboxes make this virtually impossible, making the game only for the top 10% of its established user-base.

Whats the point in playing a game in which, like in the real world, you will never be able to succeed at anything because someone else that was there before you will just roflstomp you.

Whats the motivation to play a game that is basically an excercise in futility. Working for something is fine, working towards something unobtainable is not.

  Cuathon

Advanced Member

Joined: 10/24/04
Posts: 2254

Draw Something is now an MMO. God has forsaken us.

1/01/12 11:54:35 AM#13
Originally posted by Amaranthar
Originally posted by Cuathon
Originally posted by Purutzil
Originally posted by Cuathon

I think the fact that all themepark mmos are the same is actually part of their value.

With a sandbox or virtual world mmo, what if you don't like the world? There is a lot of variation among sandboxes and that makes an even smaller demographic break down to smaller groups because half of sandboxers don't like space mmos and half of them don't like fantasy mmos. Then a bunch of them like steampunk which isn't really fantasy or space and so on and so on. If you could find a genre of world that the majority of sandboxers could agree on you might get a viable game. If more people had been willing to play EvE we might have gotten companies to attempt another high quality sandbox game.

Biggest problem is the sandbox mechanic lets the few become strong and once that happens, they pretty much stay there. Everyone else has very little chance of ever overthrowing a strong power. Having everyone the same would make most sandbox players shy away from the game since they want something to progress and get better with, but at the same time it creates an imbalance that goes beyond what a normal themepark would. Its a whole capitalism deal. A few top players take control of everything while the rest are little peons. The top dine on the finest foods, surf and turf all they like, while the lower end have bread and scraps every night.

In any competitive system with progression and no cap, real or in game, some persons always take the lead. Why is it a problem in mmorpgs when mmorts games have millions of players who don't seem to give a shit? Some people have giant fleets and space empires and some don't and it takes up to 5 years for the game to end up just the top players. And that is in games where a single player can have unlimited armies, as opposed to rpgs with diminishing returns or something. It shouldn't be that difficult to design a system where in 90% of cases its more beneficial to cooperate than compete at least at micro scales. At macro scales it might be better to set the game to competition, though its not necessary.

Man, I can go on and on just on these comments. But I have to limit myself to something readable.

Cuathon, on your first comment. Be carefull how you read things. Most gamers post things without any real, in depth study of the subject, much less their own real feelings and reactions to what they experience. As an example, players are tired of Themeparks, and they post that they want "something different", and then someone thinks that maybe a Sci-Fi game would be "different", and then some more posters just like them chime in with the same thing for months, and it grows like a festering wound. So they get all excited about SWTOR, and then find out that the game play is the same thing and start talking about how GW2 will be different. In the end, I think it's far more important to consider the game play experience that players want than any one or few of these overall sorts of details. But I also believe that fantasy is the king, followed somewhat closely by Sci-Fi, and all the others (Zombies, mafia, modern day, furries, etc.) are way behind in what gamers want for their setting. One of the big basics that Eve misses on is actually having a humanoid avatar, and their complete mishandling of that is telling. They make up for that with what they do offer in an industry completely lacking of any quality compitition.

Purutzil, you have a point but that's only because the game (whichever one) is designed that way. Cuathon has a good point as a reply. "Diminishing returns" and a cooperative structure with social ties are huge here. Games can be built so that there's an increasingly difficult tree to that ladder of success, and leave it to players to decide individually where they want to stop along that tree and play the rest of the game. Sort of like in RL, if you want to be the head of a corporation, you need to do all the things required to get there and to run said corporation. Most people simply don't want to do that much, and would rather live their lives doing the things they want to do. I think big "success" (financially) in MMOs should also bring big organizational skills and constant attention to maintaining the "well oiled machine". I'm not sure, but I think Eve has a lot more right here than not.


SWTOR isn't really a sci fi game in the same sense as EvE though. SWTOR is just a fantasy game reskinned. You have to actually change the mechanics to get a different game. For instance the idea that magic is something all players should be able to access. If magic is a scarce resource compared to bows or melee weapons you get an entirely new combat paradigm. If you ever read a book like we nerds of old have done, as opposed to someone too cool to like reading, which includes 90% of the population, even academically involved kids don't read for fun, you will see that magic was something special. Not every Tom, Dick, and Harry had it. Magical powers made a difference in a fight, as opposed to GW and WoW where they were not incredibly more useful than anyone else. Now that type of gameplay is fine, I love GW, but as long as you leave it that way you are not going to change anything fundamentally.

I've been working a long time on a way to recover magic as something special, but even so if players all want to be wizards we could have a problem. In any case we will see how players respond to it. There is a pretty serious separation between mages, crafters, explorers and so forth.

  Cuathon

Advanced Member

Joined: 10/24/04
Posts: 2254

Draw Something is now an MMO. God has forsaken us.

1/01/12 12:11:05 PM#14
Originally posted by AdamTM
Originally posted by BCuse
Originally posted by Purutzil
Originally posted by Cuathon

I think the fact that all themepark mmos are the same is actually part of their value.

With a sandbox or virtual world mmo, what if you don't like the world? There is a lot of variation among sandboxes and that makes an even smaller demographic break down to smaller groups because half of sandboxers don't like space mmos and half of them don't like fantasy mmos. Then a bunch of them like steampunk which isn't really fantasy or space and so on and so on. If you could find a genre of world that the majority of sandboxers could agree on you might get a viable game. If more people had been willing to play EvE we might have gotten companies to attempt another high quality sandbox game.

Biggest problem is the sandbox mechanic lets the few become strong and once that happens, they pretty much stay there. Everyone else has very little chance of ever overthrowing a strong power. Having everyone the same would make most sandbox players shy away from the game since they want something to progress and get better with, but at the same time it creates an imbalance that goes beyond what a normal themepark would. Its a whole capitalism deal. A few top players take control of everything while the rest are little peons. The top dine on the finest foods, surf and turf all they like, while the lower end have bread and scraps every night.

if someone puts in more hours works hard they should be able to have more than the guy who plays much less.  i dont care if the person who plays a ton has more than me.  in my opinion the idea that everyone has to be balanced or have the same as everyone else is the problem in mmorpgs today.  for me i want my mmorpg to be virtual worlds, if i want to play thempark type games i play my console.

At the same time, there needs to be at least the chance that you can get as good as people who play more and are more powerful.

Most sandboxes make this virtually impossible, making the game only for the top 10% of its established user-base.

Whats the point in playing a game in which, like in the real world, you will never be able to succeed at anything because someone else that was there before you will just roflstomp you.

Whats the motivation to play a game that is basically an excercise in futility. Working for something is fine, working towards something unobtainable is not.


You can still achieve something in the game even if you cannot compete 1v1 with top players. What is my motivation to play more if someone who plays less can easily compete?

Your statement is utterly contradictory, you cannot have both of these at the same time:

"if someone puts in more hours works hard they should be able to have more than the guy who plays much less."

"At the same time, there needs to be at least the chance that you can get as good as people who play more and are more powerful."

These opinions are mutually exclusive.

If I play 10x more than you, why should you get to achieve as much as me? Whats my motivation to play a lot if it doesn't mean anything in terms of in game success. If you choose to focus on a social community or hobby that isn't that game that is your personal choice. Just as it is my personal choice to spend most of my time with online friends or irl friends who play a game instead of getting plastered or playing basketball. I don't get to automatically be as good at those things that you choose to do, so why should you automatically be just as good as me at what I chose to do? This argument works for playing other mmorpgs or literally any other hobby or activity that the more casual player of a specific game engages in. If I choose to play EvE and you choose to play Lineage we both don't get to be just as good at either game as each other.

 

Further, if you can't play a game without being in the top tier than maybe that game isn't for you. If I play a game where I am not a top tier crafter that doesn't mean that the time I spend crafting items for people who need them is useless. Which is what you seem to be insinuating. Sure if the game is 1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1... it would be a problem, but if you are so insistent on soloing all the time and never being involved in the community why are you playing an mmorpg instead of an srpg?

If my guild has 1 tier 1 crafter, 2 tier 2 crafters, 3 tier 3 crafters and 4 tier 4 crafters and the tier 1 and 2 crafters can't produce all the necessary gear for the guild than those lower tier crafters are vital to our success in getting gear. It would not be better to only have the 1 and 2 tier crafters.

Similarly for our mages, our explorers, and our melee fighters. The best mage isn't the only one that counts.

  Amaranthar

Advanced Member

Joined: 1/18/06
Posts: 2146

1/01/12 12:13:43 PM#15
Originally posted by Cuathon
Originally posted by Amaranthar
Originally posted by Cuathon
Originally posted by Purutzil
Originally posted by Cuathon

I think the fact that all themepark mmos are the same is actually part of their value.

With a sandbox or virtual world mmo, what if you don't like the world? There is a lot of variation among sandboxes and that makes an even smaller demographic break down to smaller groups because half of sandboxers don't like space mmos and half of them don't like fantasy mmos. Then a bunch of them like steampunk which isn't really fantasy or space and so on and so on. If you could find a genre of world that the majority of sandboxers could agree on you might get a viable game. If more people had been willing to play EvE we might have gotten companies to attempt another high quality sandbox game.

Biggest problem is the sandbox mechanic lets the few become strong and once that happens, they pretty much stay there. Everyone else has very little chance of ever overthrowing a strong power. Having everyone the same would make most sandbox players shy away from the game since they want something to progress and get better with, but at the same time it creates an imbalance that goes beyond what a normal themepark would. Its a whole capitalism deal. A few top players take control of everything while the rest are little peons. The top dine on the finest foods, surf and turf all they like, while the lower end have bread and scraps every night.

In any competitive system with progression and no cap, real or in game, some persons always take the lead. Why is it a problem in mmorpgs when mmorts games have millions of players who don't seem to give a shit? Some people have giant fleets and space empires and some don't and it takes up to 5 years for the game to end up just the top players. And that is in games where a single player can have unlimited armies, as opposed to rpgs with diminishing returns or something. It shouldn't be that difficult to design a system where in 90% of cases its more beneficial to cooperate than compete at least at micro scales. At macro scales it might be better to set the game to competition, though its not necessary.

Man, I can go on and on just on these comments. But I have to limit myself to something readable.

Cuathon, on your first comment. Be carefull how you read things. Most gamers post things without any real, in depth study of the subject, much less their own real feelings and reactions to what they experience. As an example, players are tired of Themeparks, and they post that they want "something different", and then someone thinks that maybe a Sci-Fi game would be "different", and then some more posters just like them chime in with the same thing for months, and it grows like a festering wound. So they get all excited about SWTOR, and then find out that the game play is the same thing and start talking about how GW2 will be different. In the end, I think it's far more important to consider the game play experience that players want than any one or few of these overall sorts of details. But I also believe that fantasy is the king, followed somewhat closely by Sci-Fi, and all the others (Zombies, mafia, modern day, furries, etc.) are way behind in what gamers want for their setting. One of the big basics that Eve misses on is actually having a humanoid avatar, and their complete mishandling of that is telling. They make up for that with what they do offer in an industry completely lacking of any quality compitition.

Purutzil, you have a point but that's only because the game (whichever one) is designed that way. Cuathon has a good point as a reply. "Diminishing returns" and a cooperative structure with social ties are huge here. Games can be built so that there's an increasingly difficult tree to that ladder of success, and leave it to players to decide individually where they want to stop along that tree and play the rest of the game. Sort of like in RL, if you want to be the head of a corporation, you need to do all the things required to get there and to run said corporation. Most people simply don't want to do that much, and would rather live their lives doing the things they want to do. I think big "success" (financially) in MMOs should also bring big organizational skills and constant attention to maintaining the "well oiled machine". I'm not sure, but I think Eve has a lot more right here than not.


SWTOR isn't really a sci fi game in the same sense as EvE though. SWTOR is just a fantasy game reskinned. You have to actually change the mechanics to get a different game. For instance the idea that magic is something all players should be able to access. If magic is a scarce resource compared to bows or melee weapons you get an entirely new combat paradigm. If you ever read a book like we nerds of old have done, as opposed to someone too cool to like reading, which includes 90% of the population, even academically involved kids don't read for fun, you will see that magic was something special. Not every Tom, Dick, and Harry had it. Magical powers made a difference in a fight, as opposed to GW and WoW where they were not incredibly more useful than anyone else. Now that type of gameplay is fine, I love GW, but as long as you leave it that way you are not going to change anything fundamentally.

I've been working a long time on a way to recover magic as something special, but even so if players all want to be wizards we could have a problem. In any case we will see how players respond to it. There is a pretty serious separation between mages, crafters, explorers and so forth.

I'm 58 years old, and had an extensive reading background in this stuff. So, yeah, I agree.

And this is a very good point and an exciting one. I've already started reading your posts with more seriousness lately, this is welcome to hear. (I don't know if you have any financial means at all, and so I still have trouble getting into it, to be honest.)

Can I suggest that something along the lines of "deminishing returns", social interactions, and "maintenance" might be what you need? But then, lots of gamers just want to be a mage without difficulty and blast fireballs throughout the game, and there would be a lot of recoil to the mere suggestion.

Once upon a time....

  Cuathon

Advanced Member

Joined: 10/24/04
Posts: 2254

Draw Something is now an MMO. God has forsaken us.

1/01/12 12:26:13 PM#16
Originally posted by Amaranthar
Originally posted by Cuathon
Originally posted by Amaranthar
Originally posted by Cuathon
Originally posted by Purutzil
Originally posted by Cuathon

I think the fact that all themepark mmos are the same is actually part of their value.

With a sandbox or virtual world mmo, what if you don't like the world? There is a lot of variation among sandboxes and that makes an even smaller demographic break down to smaller groups because half of sandboxers don't like space mmos and half of them don't like fantasy mmos. Then a bunch of them like steampunk which isn't really fantasy or space and so on and so on. If you could find a genre of world that the majority of sandboxers could agree on you might get a viable game. If more people had been willing to play EvE we might have gotten companies to attempt another high quality sandbox game.

Biggest problem is the sandbox mechanic lets the few become strong and once that happens, they pretty much stay there. Everyone else has very little chance of ever overthrowing a strong power. Having everyone the same would make most sandbox players shy away from the game since they want something to progress and get better with, but at the same time it creates an imbalance that goes beyond what a normal themepark would. Its a whole capitalism deal. A few top players take control of everything while the rest are little peons. The top dine on the finest foods, surf and turf all they like, while the lower end have bread and scraps every night.

In any competitive system with progression and no cap, real or in game, some persons always take the lead. Why is it a problem in mmorpgs when mmorts games have millions of players who don't seem to give a shit? Some people have giant fleets and space empires and some don't and it takes up to 5 years for the game to end up just the top players. And that is in games where a single player can have unlimited armies, as opposed to rpgs with diminishing returns or something. It shouldn't be that difficult to design a system where in 90% of cases its more beneficial to cooperate than compete at least at micro scales. At macro scales it might be better to set the game to competition, though its not necessary.

Man, I can go on and on just on these comments. But I have to limit myself to something readable.

Cuathon, on your first comment. Be carefull how you read things. Most gamers post things without any real, in depth study of the subject, much less their own real feelings and reactions to what they experience. As an example, players are tired of Themeparks, and they post that they want "something different", and then someone thinks that maybe a Sci-Fi game would be "different", and then some more posters just like them chime in with the same thing for months, and it grows like a festering wound. So they get all excited about SWTOR, and then find out that the game play is the same thing and start talking about how GW2 will be different. In the end, I think it's far more important to consider the game play experience that players want than any one or few of these overall sorts of details. But I also believe that fantasy is the king, followed somewhat closely by Sci-Fi, and all the others (Zombies, mafia, modern day, furries, etc.) are way behind in what gamers want for their setting. One of the big basics that Eve misses on is actually having a humanoid avatar, and their complete mishandling of that is telling. They make up for that with what they do offer in an industry completely lacking of any quality compitition.

Purutzil, you have a point but that's only because the game (whichever one) is designed that way. Cuathon has a good point as a reply. "Diminishing returns" and a cooperative structure with social ties are huge here. Games can be built so that there's an increasingly difficult tree to that ladder of success, and leave it to players to decide individually where they want to stop along that tree and play the rest of the game. Sort of like in RL, if you want to be the head of a corporation, you need to do all the things required to get there and to run said corporation. Most people simply don't want to do that much, and would rather live their lives doing the things they want to do. I think big "success" (financially) in MMOs should also bring big organizational skills and constant attention to maintaining the "well oiled machine". I'm not sure, but I think Eve has a lot more right here than not.


SWTOR isn't really a sci fi game in the same sense as EvE though. SWTOR is just a fantasy game reskinned. You have to actually change the mechanics to get a different game. For instance the idea that magic is something all players should be able to access. If magic is a scarce resource compared to bows or melee weapons you get an entirely new combat paradigm. If you ever read a book like we nerds of old have done, as opposed to someone too cool to like reading, which includes 90% of the population, even academically involved kids don't read for fun, you will see that magic was something special. Not every Tom, Dick, and Harry had it. Magical powers made a difference in a fight, as opposed to GW and WoW where they were not incredibly more useful than anyone else. Now that type of gameplay is fine, I love GW, but as long as you leave it that way you are not going to change anything fundamentally.

I've been working a long time on a way to recover magic as something special, but even so if players all want to be wizards we could have a problem. In any case we will see how players respond to it. There is a pretty serious separation between mages, crafters, explorers and so forth.

I'm 58 years old, and had an extensive reading background in this stuff. So, yeah, I agree.

And this is a very good point and an exciting one. I've already started reading your posts with more seriousness lately, this is welcome to hear. (I don't know if you have any financial means at all, and so I still have trouble getting into it, to be honest.)

Can I suggest that something along the lines of "deminishing returns", social interactions, and "maintenance" might be what you need? But then, lots of gamers just want to be a mage without difficulty and blast fireballs throughout the game, and there would be a lot of recoil to the mere suggestion.


Well my financial means are quite limited, but my time and intellectual means(designing and coding) are quite high. I think that I could probably finish designing and then code the game and test the purely mechanical things one by one, such as does the spawn system work properly and does the crafting produce the expected results and does the world generator produce good distributions of resources magic and what not, but the question is could I get it hosted so that it is playable. I would say that what I am doing is more like a thought exercise, something full of interesting ideas to discuss and challenges in coding to figure out, rather than a realistic goal of getting the hardware that can run the software in its entirety.

  AdamTM

Novice Member

Joined: 5/05/05
Posts: 1395

I'M PUNCHING YOUR SALAD!!!!

1/01/12 12:55:20 PM#17
Originally posted by Cuathon
Originally posted by AdamTM
Originally posted by BCuse
Originally posted by Purutzil
Originally posted by Cuathon

I think the fact that all themepark mmos are the same is actually part of their value.

With a sandbox or virtual world mmo, what if you don't like the world? There is a lot of variation among sandboxes and that makes an even smaller demographic break down to smaller groups because half of sandboxers don't like space mmos and half of them don't like fantasy mmos. Then a bunch of them like steampunk which isn't really fantasy or space and so on and so on. If you could find a genre of world that the majority of sandboxers could agree on you might get a viable game. If more people had been willing to play EvE we might have gotten companies to attempt another high quality sandbox game.

Biggest problem is the sandbox mechanic lets the few become strong and once that happens, they pretty much stay there. Everyone else has very little chance of ever overthrowing a strong power. Having everyone the same would make most sandbox players shy away from the game since they want something to progress and get better with, but at the same time it creates an imbalance that goes beyond what a normal themepark would. Its a whole capitalism deal. A few top players take control of everything while the rest are little peons. The top dine on the finest foods, surf and turf all they like, while the lower end have bread and scraps every night.

if someone puts in more hours works hard they should be able to have more than the guy who plays much less.  i dont care if the person who plays a ton has more than me.  in my opinion the idea that everyone has to be balanced or have the same as everyone else is the problem in mmorpgs today.  for me i want my mmorpg to be virtual worlds, if i want to play thempark type games i play my console.

At the same time, there needs to be at least the chance that you can get as good as people who play more and are more powerful.

Most sandboxes make this virtually impossible, making the game only for the top 10% of its established user-base.

Whats the point in playing a game in which, like in the real world, you will never be able to succeed at anything because someone else that was there before you will just roflstomp you.

Whats the motivation to play a game that is basically an excercise in futility. Working for something is fine, working towards something unobtainable is not.


You can still achieve something in the game even if you cannot compete 1v1 with top players. What is my motivation to play more if someone who plays less can easily compete?

Nobody said anything about "easily"

Your statement is utterly contradictory, you cannot have both of these at the same time:

"if someone puts in more hours works hard they should be able to have more than the guy who plays much less."

"At the same time, there needs to be at least the chance that you can get as good as people who play more and are more powerful."

These opinions are mutually exclusive.

Absolutely not.  They are only mutually exclusive in a system where player-skill takes no part in the competition.

Lets take combat for example, there is no way that a player in a Velator can take on a Megathron in EVE, furthermore, there is not even a way of 10 (or maybe even 100) players in Velators taking on a Megathron in EvE. The stat-differences make it impossible, and there is nothing the player controls in combat.

A hybrid system is where it's at.

In games like LoL my lvl 30 summoners glyphs/talents, will give me a considerable edge vs. lvl1 players, however I'm not invincible, in fact, i can be taken down despite those bonuses if i meet a higher skilled player or a smurf.

This can be expanded to all activities in a sandbox environment. If solving a puzzle only requires you to have a certain skill on a certain level, the competition always ends in the powerful becoming more powerful.

EVEs only saving grace is that it has an extremely powerful metagame, where the competition comes from coordination outside the game, the game-design itself is built around an exploitative play-to-win system (pay to play, play to que more skills that are trained on a linear time-based scale).

If I play 10x more than you, why should you get to achieve as much as me? Whats my motivation to play a lot if it doesn't mean anything in terms of in game success.

Nobody said "anything", its not black-and-white.

Furthermore, there is a difference between playing a game and getting better at -the game- (bettering yourself) not just sinking more money and time into it then other players, because the latter borders on "pay to win".

If you choose to focus on a social community or hobby that isn't that game that is your personal choice. Just as it is my personal choice to spend most of my time with online friends or irl friends who play a game instead of getting plastered or playing basketball. I don't get to automatically be as good at those things that you choose to do, so why should you automatically be just as good as me at what I chose to do?

Hybrid system include your personal achievement in time-investment AND personal player skill, so its fair for -EVERYONE-

This argument works for playing other mmorpgs or literally any other hobby or activity that the more casual player of a specific game engages in. If I choose to play EvE and you choose to play Lineage we both don't get to be just as good at either game as each other.

Yes, if you interpret minmaxing your characters gear and grinding for money as "being better at the game", which i don't.

 

Further, if you can't play a game without being in the top tier than maybe that game isn't for you. If I play a game where I am not a top tier crafter that doesn't mean that the time I spend crafting items for people who need them is useless. Which is what you seem to be insinuating. Sure if the game is 1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1... it would be a problem, but if you are so insistent on soloing all the time and never being involved in the community why are you playing an mmorpg instead of an srpg?

Absolutely not. What I am advocating is equal -chance- for everyone, not equalizing everyone to the same level. 

Simply put I do not see any motivation to play a game that is not giving me equal chances, i.e. a game that is rigged against me from the start. There can be no competition in such a game, except for the already established players.

If my guild has 1 tier 1 crafter, 2 tier 2 crafters, 3 tier 3 crafters and 4 tier 4 crafters and the tier 1 and 2 crafters can't produce all the necessary gear for the guild than those lower tier crafters are vital to our success in getting gear. It would not be better to only have the 1 and 2 tier crafters.

Similarly for our mages, our explorers, and our melee fighters. The best mage isn't the only one that counts.

I didn't mention usefulness at any point. Usefullness has nothing to do with fairness or competition.

 

  Cuathon

Advanced Member

Joined: 10/24/04
Posts: 2254

Draw Something is now an MMO. God has forsaken us.

1/01/12 1:10:45 PM#18
Originally posted by AdamTM
Originally posted by Cuathon
Originally posted by AdamTM
Originally posted by BCuse
Originally posted by Purutzil
Originally posted by Cuathon

I think the fact that all themepark mmos are the same is actually part of their value.

With a sandbox or virtual world mmo, what if you don't like the world? There is a lot of variation among sandboxes and that makes an even smaller demographic break down to smaller groups because half of sandboxers don't like space mmos and half of them don't like fantasy mmos. Then a bunch of them like steampunk which isn't really fantasy or space and so on and so on. If you could find a genre of world that the majority of sandboxers could agree on you might get a viable game. If more people had been willing to play EvE we might have gotten companies to attempt another high quality sandbox game.

Biggest problem is the sandbox mechanic lets the few become strong and once that happens, they pretty much stay there. Everyone else has very little chance of ever overthrowing a strong power. Having everyone the same would make most sandbox players shy away from the game since they want something to progress and get better with, but at the same time it creates an imbalance that goes beyond what a normal themepark would. Its a whole capitalism deal. A few top players take control of everything while the rest are little peons. The top dine on the finest foods, surf and turf all they like, while the lower end have bread and scraps every night.

if someone puts in more hours works hard they should be able to have more than the guy who plays much less.  i dont care if the person who plays a ton has more than me.  in my opinion the idea that everyone has to be balanced or have the same as everyone else is the problem in mmorpgs today.  for me i want my mmorpg to be virtual worlds, if i want to play thempark type games i play my console.

At the same time, there needs to be at least the chance that you can get as good as people who play more and are more powerful.

Most sandboxes make this virtually impossible, making the game only for the top 10% of its established user-base.

Whats the point in playing a game in which, like in the real world, you will never be able to succeed at anything because someone else that was there before you will just roflstomp you.

Whats the motivation to play a game that is basically an excercise in futility. Working for something is fine, working towards something unobtainable is not.


You can still achieve something in the game even if you cannot compete 1v1 with top players. What is my motivation to play more if someone who plays less can easily compete?

Nobody said anything about "easily"

Your statement is utterly contradictory, you cannot have both of these at the same time:

"if someone puts in more hours works hard they should be able to have more than the guy who plays much less."

"At the same time, there needs to be at least the chance that you can get as good as people who play more and are more powerful."

These opinions are mutually exclusive.

Absolutely not.  They are only mutually exclusive in a system where player-skill takes no part in the competition.

RPGs are supposed to be about a specific set of skills. Why do people insist of shoving twitch into non twitch games. Go play LoL if you like LoL, stop trying to make every game like LoL. I have played something like 6000 games in LoL. I love LoL, but LoL is not a sandbox, or even a themepark its a battle arena.

Lets take combat for example, there is no way that a player in a Velator can take on a Megathron in EVE, furthermore, there is not even a way of 10 (or maybe even 100) players in Velators taking on a Megathron in EvE. The stat-differences make it impossible, and there is nothing the player controls in combat.

A hybrid system is where it's at.

In games like LoL my lvl 30 summoners glyphs/talents, will give me a considerable edge vs. lvl1 players, however I'm not invincible, in fact, i can be taken down despite those bonuses if i meet a higher skilled player or a smurf.

LoL has an incredibly small progression cap both outside and inside the game. That is not sandbox. Sandboxes do not have progression caps.

This can be expanded to all activities in a sandbox environment. If solving a puzzle only requires you to have a certain skill on a certain level, the competition always ends in the powerful becoming more powerful.

EVEs only saving grace is that it has an extremely powerful metagame, where the competition comes from coordination outside the game, the game-design itself is built around an exploitative play-to-win system (pay to play, play to que more skills that are trained on a linear time-based scale).

If I play 10x more than you, why should you get to achieve as much as me? Whats my motivation to play a lot if it doesn't mean anything in terms of in game success.

Nobody said "anything", its not black-and-white.

Furthermore, there is a difference between playing a game and getting better at -the game- (bettering yourself) not just sinking more money and time into it then other players, because the latter borders on "pay to win".

In original RPGs it was mostly dice rolls. The way to become more powerful is to put in time. That's what RPGs are for. You are supposed to invest yourself in the game world and thereby get more powerful.

If you choose to focus on a social community or hobby that isn't that game that is your personal choice. Just as it is my personal choice to spend most of my time with online friends or irl friends who play a game instead of getting plastered or playing basketball. I don't get to automatically be as good at those things that you choose to do, so why should you automatically be just as good as me at what I chose to do?

Hybrid system include your personal achievement in time-investment AND personal player skill, so its fair for -EVERYONE-

And who decides just how much twitch counts? Twitch is a biological function. Not everyone can get the same twitch. Everyone can make the choice to play a game. Thats why its based on time, because some people choose to play it. If you choose to go and get drunk or play football 10 hours a week, you lose out to players who decided to invest in the game world.

This argument works for playing other mmorpgs or literally any other hobby or activity that the more casual player of a specific game engages in. If I choose to play EvE and you choose to play Lineage we both don't get to be just as good at either game as each other.

Yes, if you interpret minmaxing your characters gear and grinding for money as "being better at the game", which i don't.

 I make a distinction between being better at the game, and being more powerful in the game. RPGs are not supposed to be about twitch. The learning curve is both in game knowledge and lore and time invested, RPGs are games where you pretend its real. Thats what role playing is. An rpg is supposed to be an "alternate world."

Further, if you can't play a game without being in the top tier than maybe that game isn't for you. If I play a game where I am not a top tier crafter that doesn't mean that the time I spend crafting items for people who need them is useless. Which is what you seem to be insinuating. Sure if the game is 1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1... it would be a problem, but if you are so insistent on soloing all the time and never being involved in the community why are you playing an mmorpg instead of an srpg?

Absolutely not. What I am advocating is equal -chance- for everyone, not equalizing everyone to the same level. 

That is not what you are advocating. I am willing to concede that you believe you are advocating that, but that is not reality. Not everyone can be equally good at twitch.

Simply put I do not see any motivation to play a game that is not giving me equal chances, i.e. a game that is rigged against me from the start. There can be no competition in such a game, except for the already established players.

Because its not a fucking esport, its a virtual world. If you want an esport play a god damn esport. Stop trying to make all mmorpgs esports or facebook casual games.

If my guild has 1 tier 1 crafter, 2 tier 2 crafters, 3 tier 3 crafters and 4 tier 4 crafters and the tier 1 and 2 crafters can't produce all the necessary gear for the guild than those lower tier crafters are vital to our success in getting gear. It would not be better to only have the 1 and 2 tier crafters.

Similarly for our mages, our explorers, and our melee fighters. The best mage isn't the only one that counts.

I didn't mention usefulness at any point. Usefullness has nothing to do with fairness or competition.

You mean balance and competition. Balance and fairness arent the same in technical design terms. The whole point of a sandbox is that its not balanced. Thats was a sandbox is. Play a MOBA or a Themepark if you don't like sandboxes. Or, if you r eally insist, make your own "balanced" sandbox. See how many people wan't t o play that. Sandboxes are not supposed to be balanced the same way as a MOBA or other esport game, thats why they are separate genres.

 

 

  AdamTM

Novice Member

Joined: 5/05/05
Posts: 1395

I'M PUNCHING YOUR SALAD!!!!

1/01/12 1:27:25 PM#19
Originally posted by Cuathon
Originally posted by AdamTM
Originally posted by Cuathon
Originally posted by AdamTM
Originally posted by BCuse
Originally posted by Purutzil
Originally posted by Cuathon

I think the fact that all themepark mmos are the same is actually part of their value.

With a sandbox or virtual world mmo, what if you don't like the world? There is a lot of variation among sandboxes and that makes an even smaller demographic break down to smaller groups because half of sandboxers don't like space mmos and half of them don't like fantasy mmos. Then a bunch of them like steampunk which isn't really fantasy or space and so on and so on. If you could find a genre of world that the majority of sandboxers could agree on you might get a viable game. If more people had been willing to play EvE we might have gotten companies to attempt another high quality sandbox game.

Biggest problem is the sandbox mechanic lets the few become strong and once that happens, they pretty much stay there. Everyone else has very little chance of ever overthrowing a strong power. Having everyone the same would make most sandbox players shy away from the game since they want something to progress and get better with, but at the same time it creates an imbalance that goes beyond what a normal themepark would. Its a whole capitalism deal. A few top players take control of everything while the rest are little peons. The top dine on the finest foods, surf and turf all they like, while the lower end have bread and scraps every night.

if someone puts in more hours works hard they should be able to have more than the guy who plays much less.  i dont care if the person who plays a ton has more than me.  in my opinion the idea that everyone has to be balanced or have the same as everyone else is the problem in mmorpgs today.  for me i want my mmorpg to be virtual worlds, if i want to play thempark type games i play my console.

At the same time, there needs to be at least the chance that you can get as good as people who play more and are more powerful.

Most sandboxes make this virtually impossible, making the game only for the top 10% of its established user-base.

Whats the point in playing a game in which, like in the real world, you will never be able to succeed at anything because someone else that was there before you will just roflstomp you.

Whats the motivation to play a game that is basically an excercise in futility. Working for something is fine, working towards something unobtainable is not.


You can still achieve something in the game even if you cannot compete 1v1 with top players. What is my motivation to play more if someone who plays less can easily compete?

Nobody said anything about "easily"

Your statement is utterly contradictory, you cannot have both of these at the same time:

"if someone puts in more hours works hard they should be able to have more than the guy who plays much less."

"At the same time, there needs to be at least the chance that you can get as good as people who play more and are more powerful."

These opinions are mutually exclusive.

Absolutely not.  They are only mutually exclusive in a system where player-skill takes no part in the competition.

RPGs are supposed to be about a specific set of skills. Why do people insist of shoving twitch into non twitch games. Go play LoL if you like LoL, stop trying to make every game like LoL. I have played something like 6000 games in LoL. I love LoL, but LoL is not a sandbox, or even a themepark its a battle arena.

Lets take combat for example, there is no way that a player in a Velator can take on a Megathron in EVE, furthermore, there is not even a way of 10 (or maybe even 100) players in Velators taking on a Megathron in EvE. The stat-differences make it impossible, and there is nothing the player controls in combat.

A hybrid system is where it's at.

In games like LoL my lvl 30 summoners glyphs/talents, will give me a considerable edge vs. lvl1 players, however I'm not invincible, in fact, i can be taken down despite those bonuses if i meet a higher skilled player or a smurf.

LoL has an incredibly small progression cap both outside and inside the game. That is not sandbox. Sandboxes do not have progression caps.

This can be expanded to all activities in a sandbox environment. If solving a puzzle only requires you to have a certain skill on a certain level, the competition always ends in the powerful becoming more powerful.

EVEs only saving grace is that it has an extremely powerful metagame, where the competition comes from coordination outside the game, the game-design itself is built around an exploitative play-to-win system (pay to play, play to que more skills that are trained on a linear time-based scale).

If I play 10x more than you, why should you get to achieve as much as me? Whats my motivation to play a lot if it doesn't mean anything in terms of in game success.

Nobody said "anything", its not black-and-white.

Furthermore, there is a difference between playing a game and getting better at -the game- (bettering yourself) not just sinking more money and time into it then other players, because the latter borders on "pay to win".

In original RPGs it was mostly dice rolls. The way to become more powerful is to put in time. That's what RPGs are for. You are supposed to invest yourself in the game world and thereby get more powerful.

If you choose to focus on a social community or hobby that isn't that game that is your personal choice. Just as it is my personal choice to spend most of my time with online friends or irl friends who play a game instead of getting plastered or playing basketball. I don't get to automatically be as good at those things that you choose to do, so why should you automatically be just as good as me at what I chose to do?

Hybrid system include your personal achievement in time-investment AND personal player skill, so its fair for -EVERYONE-

And who decides just how much twitch counts? Twitch is a biological function. Not everyone can get the same twitch. Everyone can make the choice to play a game. Thats why its based on time, because some people choose to play it. If you choose to go and get drunk or play football 10 hours a week, you lose out to players who decided to invest in the game world.

This argument works for playing other mmorpgs or literally any other hobby or activity that the more casual player of a specific game engages in. If I choose to play EvE and you choose to play Lineage we both don't get to be just as good at either game as each other.

Yes, if you interpret minmaxing your characters gear and grinding for money as "being better at the game", which i don't.

 I make a distinction between being better at the game, and being more powerful in the game. RPGs are not supposed to be about twitch. The learning curve is both in game knowledge and lore and time invested, RPGs are games where you pretend its real. Thats what role playing is. An rpg is supposed to be an "alternate world."

Further, if you can't play a game without being in the top tier than maybe that game isn't for you. If I play a game where I am not a top tier crafter that doesn't mean that the time I spend crafting items for people who need them is useless. Which is what you seem to be insinuating. Sure if the game is 1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1... it would be a problem, but if you are so insistent on soloing all the time and never being involved in the community why are you playing an mmorpg instead of an srpg?

Absolutely not. What I am advocating is equal -chance- for everyone, not equalizing everyone to the same level. 

That is not what you are advocating. I am willing to concede that you believe you are advocating that, but that is not reality. Not everyone can be equally good at twitch.

Simply put I do not see any motivation to play a game that is not giving me equal chances, i.e. a game that is rigged against me from the start. There can be no competition in such a game, except for the already established players.

Because its not a fucking esport, its a virtual world. If you want an esport play a god damn esport. Stop trying to make all mmorpgs esports or facebook casual games.

If my guild has 1 tier 1 crafter, 2 tier 2 crafters, 3 tier 3 crafters and 4 tier 4 crafters and the tier 1 and 2 crafters can't produce all the necessary gear for the guild than those lower tier crafters are vital to our success in getting gear. It would not be better to only have the 1 and 2 tier crafters.

Similarly for our mages, our explorers, and our melee fighters. The best mage isn't the only one that counts.

I didn't mention usefulness at any point. Usefullness has nothing to do with fairness or competition.

You mean balance and competition. Balance and fairness arent the same in technical design terms. The whole point of a sandbox is that its not balanced. Thats was a sandbox is. Play a MOBA or a Themepark if you don't like sandboxes. Or, if you r eally insist, make your own "balanced" sandbox. See how many people wan't t o play that. Sandboxes are not supposed to be balanced the same way as a MOBA or other esport game, thats why they are separate genres.

 

 

I find your hostile tone to be not deserving of a response, you didn't understand a word i said. g'day

  Cuathon

Advanced Member

Joined: 10/24/04
Posts: 2254

Draw Something is now an MMO. God has forsaken us.

1/01/12 1:36:56 PM#20
Originally posted by AdamTM
Originally posted by Cuathon
Originally posted by AdamTM
Originally posted by Cuathon
Originally posted by AdamTM
Originally posted by BCuse
Originally posted by Purutzil
Originally posted by Cuathon

I think the fact that all themepark mmos are the same is actually part of their value.

With a sandbox or virtual world mmo, what if you don't like the world? There is a lot of variation among sandboxes and that makes an even smaller demographic break down to smaller groups because half of sandboxers don't like space mmos and half of them don't like fantasy mmos. Then a bunch of them like steampunk which isn't really fantasy or space and so on and so on. If you could find a genre of world that the majority of sandboxers could agree on you might get a viable game. If more people had been willing to play EvE we might have gotten companies to attempt another high quality sandbox game.

Biggest problem is the sandbox mechanic lets the few become strong and once that happens, they pretty much stay there. Everyone else has very little chance of ever overthrowing a strong power. Having everyone the same would make most sandbox players shy away from the game since they want something to progress and get better with, but at the same time it creates an imbalance that goes beyond what a normal themepark would. Its a whole capitalism deal. A few top players take control of everything while the rest are little peons. The top dine on the finest foods, surf and turf all they like, while the lower end have bread and scraps every night.

if someone puts in more hours works hard they should be able to have more than the guy who plays much less.  i dont care if the person who plays a ton has more than me.  in my opinion the idea that everyone has to be balanced or have the same as everyone else is the problem in mmorpgs today.  for me i want my mmorpg to be virtual worlds, if i want to play thempark type games i play my console.

At the same time, there needs to be at least the chance that you can get as good as people who play more and are more powerful.

Most sandboxes make this virtually impossible, making the game only for the top 10% of its established user-base.

Whats the point in playing a game in which, like in the real world, you will never be able to succeed at anything because someone else that was there before you will just roflstomp you.

Whats the motivation to play a game that is basically an excercise in futility. Working for something is fine, working towards something unobtainable is not.


You can still achieve something in the game even if you cannot compete 1v1 with top players. What is my motivation to play more if someone who plays less can easily compete?

Nobody said anything about "easily"

Your statement is utterly contradictory, you cannot have both of these at the same time:

"if someone puts in more hours works hard they should be able to have more than the guy who plays much less."

"At the same time, there needs to be at least the chance that you can get as good as people who play more and are more powerful."

These opinions are mutually exclusive.

Absolutely not.  They are only mutually exclusive in a system where player-skill takes no part in the competition.

RPGs are supposed to be about a specific set of skills. Why do people insist of shoving twitch into non twitch games. Go play LoL if you like LoL, stop trying to make every game like LoL. I have played something like 6000 games in LoL. I love LoL, but LoL is not a sandbox, or even a themepark its a battle arena.

Lets take combat for example, there is no way that a player in a Velator can take on a Megathron in EVE, furthermore, there is not even a way of 10 (or maybe even 100) players in Velators taking on a Megathron in EvE. The stat-differences make it impossible, and there is nothing the player controls in combat.

A hybrid system is where it's at.

In games like LoL my lvl 30 summoners glyphs/talents, will give me a considerable edge vs. lvl1 players, however I'm not invincible, in fact, i can be taken down despite those bonuses if i meet a higher skilled player or a smurf.

LoL has an incredibly small progression cap both outside and inside the game. That is not sandbox. Sandboxes do not have progression caps.

This can be expanded to all activities in a sandbox environment. If solving a puzzle only requires you to have a certain skill on a certain level, the competition always ends in the powerful becoming more powerful.

EVEs only saving grace is that it has an extremely powerful metagame, where the competition comes from coordination outside the game, the game-design itself is built around an exploitative play-to-win system (pay to play, play to que more skills that are trained on a linear time-based scale).

If I play 10x more than you, why should you get to achieve as much as me? Whats my motivation to play a lot if it doesn't mean anything in terms of in game success.

Nobody said "anything", its not black-and-white.

Furthermore, there is a difference between playing a game and getting better at -the game- (bettering yourself) not just sinking more money and time into it then other players, because the latter borders on "pay to win".

In original RPGs it was mostly dice rolls. The way to become more powerful is to put in time. That's what RPGs are for. You are supposed to invest yourself in the game world and thereby get more powerful.

If you choose to focus on a social community or hobby that isn't that game that is your personal choice. Just as it is my personal choice to spend most of my time with online friends or irl friends who play a game instead of getting plastered or playing basketball. I don't get to automatically be as good at those things that you choose to do, so why should you automatically be just as good as me at what I chose to do?

Hybrid system include your personal achievement in time-investment AND personal player skill, so its fair for -EVERYONE-

And who decides just how much twitch counts? Twitch is a biological function. Not everyone can get the same twitch. Everyone can make the choice to play a game. Thats why its based on time, because some people choose to play it. If you choose to go and get drunk or play football 10 hours a week, you lose out to players who decided to invest in the game world.

This argument works for playing other mmorpgs or literally any other hobby or activity that the more casual player of a specific game engages in. If I choose to play EvE and you choose to play Lineage we both don't get to be just as good at either game as each other.

Yes, if you interpret minmaxing your characters gear and grinding for money as "being better at the game", which i don't.

 I make a distinction between being better at the game, and being more powerful in the game. RPGs are not supposed to be about twitch. The learning curve is both in game knowledge and lore and time invested, RPGs are games where you pretend its real. Thats what role playing is. An rpg is supposed to be an "alternate world."

Further, if you can't play a game without being in the top tier than maybe that game isn't for you. If I play a game where I am not a top tier crafter that doesn't mean that the time I spend crafting items for people who need them is useless. Which is what you seem to be insinuating. Sure if the game is 1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1... it would be a problem, but if you are so insistent on soloing all the time and never being involved in the community why are you playing an mmorpg instead of an srpg?

Absolutely not. What I am advocating is equal -chance- for everyone, not equalizing everyone to the same level. 

That is not what you are advocating. I am willing to concede that you believe you are advocating that, but that is not reality. Not everyone can be equally good at twitch.

Simply put I do not see any motivation to play a game that is not giving me equal chances, i.e. a game that is rigged against me from the start. There can be no competition in such a game, except for the already established players.

Because its not a fucking esport, its a virtual world. If you want an esport play a god damn esport. Stop trying to make all mmorpgs esports or facebook casual games.

If my guild has 1 tier 1 crafter, 2 tier 2 crafters, 3 tier 3 crafters and 4 tier 4 crafters and the tier 1 and 2 crafters can't produce all the necessary gear for the guild than those lower tier crafters are vital to our success in getting gear. It would not be better to only have the 1 and 2 tier crafters.

Similarly for our mages, our explorers, and our melee fighters. The best mage isn't the only one that counts.

I didn't mention usefulness at any point. Usefullness has nothing to do with fairness or competition.

You mean balance and competition. Balance and fairness arent the same in technical design terms. The whole point of a sandbox is that its not balanced. Thats was a sandbox is. Play a MOBA or a Themepark if you don't like sandboxes. Or, if you r eally insist, make your own "balanced" sandbox. See how many people wan't t o play that. Sandboxes are not supposed to be balanced the same way as a MOBA or other esport game, thats why they are separate genres.

 

 

I find your hostile tone to be not deserving of a response, you didn't understand a word i said. g'day


Blah blah blah, tell truth get blasted with tone argument. I responded very specifically to everything you said. You complained quite a bit about several inherent aspects of a sandbox. Sandboxes are not esports and you refuse to understand this. You kept arguing about how LoL does things as if MOBA gameplay was remotely relevant to a sandbox and it started frustrating me because so many people insist on this. MOBAs are not Sandboxes.

3 Pages 1 2 3 » Search