Originally posted by Creslin321

One thing that I think is way different (in a bad way) when you compare the MMORPGS and RPGs of today to their counterparts of 90's is this concept that everything should be "fair."  In themepark MMORPGs, you are guided from quest to quest in a way that ensures the mobs you fight will always be around your level, so you always have a "fair" (typically easy) fight.  The same is true of modern SPRPGs, though they sometimes use devices like level-scaling to enforce this fairness as opposed to simply guiding the player.

This can be nice because you know you'll never be put in a fight you can't win, but it kind of kills any feeling of exploration, danger, and most importantly, PROGRESSION in the game.  For example, in WoW, I'm always fighting MOBs that are yellow or green..that's it.  The quest nodes and zone levels on the map are very careful to guide me along a carefully determined path so that this is the case.  I never really feel like I'm progressing, because my foes are almost always the exact same level as me...they increase in strength precisely proportionately to my advanacement.

So I think this philosophy is misguided.  You see, I believe that RPGs are about progression FAR more than they are about action-packed or highly tactical combat.  And guiding the player so that they are always fighting "equal" opponents kills that sense of progression.

In old school RPGs like early Final Fantasy games, the Ultima Series (including UO), or Everquest, if you wandered off the beaten path slightly, you may wind up meeting mobs that will hand you your behind on a silver platter.  This may seem unfair, but it really puts the danger of the world into perspective.  You KNOW that a sand giant can absolutely destroy you, because you encounter them often...they are as much a part of the world of a level 18 as they are a level 40.

And when you finally get high enough level to kill a sand giant...man that's a good feeling.  You feel like you actually accomplished something...the deadly predator of yesterday is now your prey!

So in conclusion, I really think (MMO)RPGs should get back to showing the player the terrifying monsters of the world at a lower level, and not being afraid to let them stumble on a dragon's lair just to put everything in perspective.  I'm not advocating the use of "grief NPCs" like Everquest had, but I think it would be good to even have a few "non-aggro" NPCs of higher levels wandering around lower level places so that players could have something to strive for.

i used to play a warrior in old diablo 1. remember the acid-spitting dogs? and the succubus throwing lazer balls at your head? instant death to a warrior. i never ran around screaming "balance". instead, i ran to my friend playing a mage and said "go hit that with your lightning!" and then remember when he'd come running back into the room, going, "it's all resistant to lightning!"

and then you both tried to get to the stairway up again?

awesome days.

i'm totally for some beasts being hard to impossible for my class as well as level. i want to feel a trickle of fear when i see something i KNOW is resistant to my killing skills.

and something else - in pvp i really HATE balance. sure, a warrior vs warror would be nice and balanced, but i don't see why all classes should balance across the board. i really don't. not as closely as they often do. each needs their awesome doom-o-mighty spell, of course, but i don't feel if x goes 1-on-1 with y class, they should be a tough call or land out even-stevens.

personally, i'd prefer imbalance over crowd-control wars anyday.

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Banaghran

Can, but never has been, if "some classes suck at something" is hard to balance, your system is even harder to balance without it becoming homogenized, exponentially.

I guess if we call WOW classes homogenized, then sure.  But realistically when you're in one spec you have a very specific role and playstyle unique to your current spec.

...and then you can switch specs, allowing you to potentially be good at everything, just not all at once.   Without balance overcomplication.

Realistically...

4 classes can do one thing, 4 classes can do 2 things and 2 classes can do 3 things -- you CANNOT be good at everything playing any class

raid balancing dicatates dps and utility equivalence, the only difference not seen as OP is a difference not tied to the role performance, thus we see one class dpsing with (old numbers) 40k hp, another with 20k hp -- if you see "intentionally gimping yourself without reason" as "unique playstyle", i guess it is true :)

And ofcourse, what is the big playstyle difference between a mage and a moonkin ? One shoots nature stuff, the other elemental/arcane stuff?

Carefull with this one. :)

Flame on!

:)

Originally posted by headphones

Originally posted by Creslin321

One thing that I think is way different (in a bad way) when you compare the MMORPGS and RPGs of today to their counterparts of 90's is this concept that everything should be "fair."  In themepark MMORPGs, you are guided from quest to quest in a way that ensures the mobs you fight will always be around your level, so you always have a "fair" (typically easy) fight.  The same is true of modern SPRPGs, though they sometimes use devices like level-scaling to enforce this fairness as opposed to simply guiding the player.

This can be nice because you know you'll never be put in a fight you can't win, but it kind of kills any feeling of exploration, danger, and most importantly, PROGRESSION in the game.  For example, in WoW, I'm always fighting MOBs that are yellow or green..that's it.  The quest nodes and zone levels on the map are very careful to guide me along a carefully determined path so that this is the case.  I never really feel like I'm progressing, because my foes are almost always the exact same level as me...they increase in strength precisely proportionately to my advanacement.

So I think this philosophy is misguided.  You see, I believe that RPGs are about progression FAR more than they are about action-packed or highly tactical combat.  And guiding the player so that they are always fighting "equal" opponents kills that sense of progression.

In old school RPGs like early Final Fantasy games, the Ultima Series (including UO), or Everquest, if you wandered off the beaten path slightly, you may wind up meeting mobs that will hand you your behind on a silver platter.  This may seem unfair, but it really puts the danger of the world into perspective.  You KNOW that a sand giant can absolutely destroy you, because you encounter them often...they are as much a part of the world of a level 18 as they are a level 40.

And when you finally get high enough level to kill a sand giant...man that's a good feeling.  You feel like you actually accomplished something...the deadly predator of yesterday is now your prey!

So in conclusion, I really think (MMO)RPGs should get back to showing the player the terrifying monsters of the world at a lower level, and not being afraid to let them stumble on a dragon's lair just to put everything in perspective.  I'm not advocating the use of "grief NPCs" like Everquest had, but I think it would be good to even have a few "non-aggro" NPCs of higher levels wandering around lower level places so that players could have something to strive for.

i used to play a warrior in old diablo 1. remember the acid-spitting dogs? and the succubus throwing lazer balls at your head? instant death to a warrior. i never ran around screaming "balance". instead, i ran to my friend playing a mage and said "go hit that with your lightning!" and then remember when he'd come running back into the room, going, "it's all resistant to lightning!"

and then you both tried to get to the stairway up again?

awesome days.

i'm totally for some beasts being hard to impossible for my class as well as level. i want to feel a trickle of fear when i see something i KNOW is resistant to my killing skills.

and something else - in pvp i really HATE balance. sure, a warrior vs warror would be nice and balanced, but i don't see why all classes should balance across the board. i really don't. not as closely as they often do. each needs their awesome doom-o-mighty spell, of course, but i don't feel if x goes 1-on-1 with y class, they should be a tough call or land out even-stevens.

personally, i'd prefer imbalance over crowd-control wars anyday.

You can still have such thigns as damage resistance, and creatures that are going to be harder for some classes to defeat compared to other classes when you are using a system where classes are largely blanced across the board. In truth for myself atleast having the classes more blanced makes such fights better, as you need to use the abilities you are given wisely or merely spamming them wildly. Also when you create a class system that has large changes in power between different classes, which make class A stronger versus class B you make a pecking order system, as players in pve or pvp will seek out those creatures that are of a type they are strong against. I would much rather have a system of blance that makes it about how well i excute, and use the abilities i am given in my class, then a system that puts a pecking order in place. The thing is that even in a game where you are using imbalancess between classes you will have players ccing the classes that are largely strong against them so as to ignore these, while focusing on the classes they are strong against which basically is a crowd control war really. By making the classes more blanced you make the fights more about how well you fight with your class, and so you prioritize your cc for those players that are playing issues classes or which appear to be better players, as a method of gaining a advantage in combat.

I have no issues with mobs having resistances against attacks, but making them completely immune to the abilities of one class making them worthless in combat with them is abit much. Immunity to damage should be largely rare in games no matter if it is mmo or not, but making a ghost harder for a physical melee-type claas to kill compared to those that use magic is not a bad idea. Even in a setting like forgotten realms or other games a mage was not stronger then a warror/fighter, but the choices that they each made could result in one out shining the other, and in the difficulty they each had in fighting creatures. I prefer this type of skill where it is your prep that makes fighting harder or easier, alongside what you are playing, as it is hwo well you plan or execute your tactic or stratagies that ensure victory not if you are using the class type thatt is strong against those your fighting.

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Cuathon

DECISIONS IN YOUR GAMES ARE NOT MEANINGFUL.

In an unfair fight, autoattacking beats the opponent. There is no depth.  Decisions are meaningless.

In a fair fight, clever and/or quick tactical ability use beats the opponent.  There is depth.  Decsisions are meaningful.

I don't know very many people who want to AFK and auto-attack in games.  I know a lot of people who want to engage in interesting combat.

I don't know why you'd even try to dispute this (particularly since your argument amounts to "Nuh-uh it's not meaningful." and proceeds to zip off on an unrelated tangent about the meaning of MMOs.)

Even world-lovers want a deep game where decisions are meaningful.  Even world-centric games benefit from combat which isn't shallow.

 

For me anyways, the meaning in MMO's comes from the consequences for losing, and I prefer games designed where making sure you don't die at all cost (to avoid said consequences) is the most important factor, not how you win the fight or how fair it is.

There is no meaning in winning or losing the actual fight itself, (unless one is interested in personal stats), I'm looking to advance a cause in the long run, which titles such as DAOC, Shadowbane, L1/L2 and EVE provided.

But that's just me.  Other folks (OK, many other folks) play MMO's for a different reason, more for entertainment I suppose, or how their skills match up against others in a sports like combat model, but me, I play to crush, and don't care what tactics need to be employed to ensure victory.

Yet oddly enough, I'm a carebear, I don't run around ganking folks, I like to fight when there's a real need to, when the advantage is on my side, and be responsbile (and have the ability) to extract myself from the engagement if the odds are against me. (again, more like real life combat is fought)

Even in PVE, the game should some times provide content that not only surprises you, but crushes you face down into the dirt.  Should it do it consistently, no, of course not, that would be no fun.

But every now and again, you should not know for sure of the outcome of the battle, and bear consequences for decided to take the change anyways.

I'm currently playing SWTOR, and while I do die, I do so far more frequently than I normally would, because there's no consequences for losing.  I have no need to be attentive, heck, I want to afk I just walk away and not worry if something spawns to kill me, because I'll just respawn on the spot.

Can I beat that pair of elites standing in front of me, what the heck, let's find out.  Oh, I died, heal up, do it again. (the repair bills are negligible)

I will say, one time, I ran into a fight that I was having a problem with, and was determined to win, and actually had to wait for a 10 minute respawn timer (because I lost many times trying different strategies) but I eventually prevailed.

Literally the only memorable encounter in 45 levels of playing so far.

Most everything else, I just know I'm going to win, if I can be arsed enough to care about it.

---

Originally posted by Axehilt
Skill, wherever it comes from, is the entire point of competitive games.  My performance is my own, not some game rule declaring my defeat or victory.

---

On Topic:
I think what people are missing is that "skill" is a PvP term. It is the battlefield FPS games that bring this term into gaming. I think players rarely use the term "skill" in describing there exploits vs NPC AI.

When I played tabletop RPG games, it was about exploring the land that the DM had designed. There was fighting, to be sure, but there was also puzzle solving, mysteries to be solved, and lots of NPC interaction. There was lore to be discovered. Sure, some gamers had to min/max their characters, but they missed out on the essence of what the games were all about.

I think that the Creslin's use of "fair fight" kind of threw people off about what he was really getting at. In reality, "fair fight" means all contestants have an equal chance of winning, all things considered. That means you have a 50/50 chance of losing as well as winning. That's not Creslin's point, I think.

To me, I brought away the thought that today's MMOs seem to make things "safe" for players and he (and I) miss the old games where things were not as safe. It's not about soloing vs grouping. It's about being in a fight and having to watch your back for add-ons, especially that hill giant (sand giant) wandering suspiciously close to your fight. It's about going off the beaten path and... OOPS! I found a monster I should not have amongst the monsters I usually fight! Instead, there are child-proof locks on all the kitchen drawers.

What I found in SW:TOR were elites and bosses in specific places. You went to them, not they to you. In EQ, sand giants wandered the zone (N Ro and the Oasis), Kizdan Gix wandered the Commonlands, Griffins flew throughout lower level zones. These monsters added suspense and a sense of excitement lacking in today's games. "Skill" has nothing to do with this aspect.

Originally posted by Banaghran

Well, if you allow for the reasoning that buying a better weapon is good decision making and thus skill (that overgearing your opponent is skill), which game actually does NOT fit your description of skill based fair fight?

Even in games where players twoshot each other in pvp (do we see that as not-skill-based ?), one could argue that a player twoshots you because he applied his skill in properly setting up his talents and equipping items which give him superior attack power.

Or not?

Any game that allows non-skill factors like Population (zerging) or Progression (level/gear) to overwhelm the importance of skill in any given battle.  Also if too many decisions are strategic (buying a weapon) at the cost of individual battles being devoid of gameplay, that makes for very boring games because most of your gameplay can end up being completely empty.

Games where players two-shot or one-shot each other can still involve skill, but obviously we don't play Basketball to "whoever makes the first shot wins", because that wouldn't be a very good measure of skill, would it?

I enjoyed a game purely based on pre-fight strategy called Warstorm (FB CCG), but only because it felt like the "no decisions during battle" design decision was absolutely necessary in order to achieve asynchronous combat (non-live multiplayer).  Also you didn't really waste much time in combat and could fast-forward it, becaues the developers recognized there wasn't much gameplay to it.  But I imagine the #1 complaint and reason it never became big was that battles weren't interactive.

Originally posted by AlBQuirky

Originally posted by Axehilt
Skill, wherever it comes from, is the entire point of competitive games.  My performance is my own, not some game rule declaring my defeat or victory.
 

So you prefer player skill vs character skill.

Me?  No, just about everyone.  Look around.  When it comes to competitive (PVP) games mankind has made over its history (Go, Chess, Soccer, Hockey, FPSes, RTSes, Fighting games) the overwhelming majority have focused on player skill.  MMORPGs are known for lousy PVP specifically because they break this rule.

And when it comes to PVE, the popular games are the ones with exciting fights where decisions matter during the fight.  The thread has mentioned many RPGs where both types of skill can exist.  In fact, that's the trend in RPGs because players aren't really interested in the AFK-Auto-attacking situation I described earlier.

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Banaghran

Well, if you allow for the reasoning that buying a better weapon is good decision making and thus skill (that overgearing your opponent is skill), which game actually does NOT fit your description of skill based fair fight?

Even in games where players twoshot each other in pvp (do we see that as not-skill-based ?), one could argue that a player twoshots you because he applied his skill in properly setting up his talents and equipping items which give him superior attack power.

Or not?

Any game that allows non-skill factors like Population (zerging) or Progression (level/gear) to overwhelm the importance of skill in any given battle.  Also if too many decisions are strategic (buying a weapon) at the cost of individual battles being devoid of gameplay, that makes for very boring games because most of your gameplay can end up being completely empty.

Games where players two-shot or one-shot each other can still involve skill, but obviously we don't play Basketball to "whoever makes the first shot wins", because that wouldn't be a very good measure of skill, would it?

I enjoyed a game purely based on pre-fight strategy called Warstorm (FB CCG), but only because it felt like the "no decisions during battle" design decision was absolutely necessary in order to achieve asynchronous combat (non-live multiplayer).  Also you didn't really waste much time in combat and could fast-forward it, becaues the developers recognized there wasn't much gameplay to it.  But I imagine the #1 complaint and reason it never became big was that battles weren't interactive.

Population (zerging) -- player skill at socializing

Progression (level/gear) -- no different from buying a better weapon

Dont you think?

Flame on!

:)

Originally posted by Banaghran

Population (zerging) -- player skill at socializing

Progression (level/gear) -- no different from buying a better weapon

As I said before, when these other decisions cause moment-to-moment gameplay to be devoid of interesting decisionmaking, it tends to make playing the game rather dull. 

But in terms of your progression comment, choosing a weapon is much different from time investment (which is what most progression is.)

In one game you have a weapon choice (such as choosing your Champion before a League of Legends match.)  In the other you have a Time Investment Contest.

"Who's played this game longer" is about the least interesting way of deciding a winner that a game can offer, wouldn't you say?

But that's most of what progression is in RPGs, which is why it makes for terrible PVP.

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Banaghran

Population (zerging) -- player skill at socializing

Progression (level/gear) -- no different from buying a better weapon

As I said before, when these other decisions cause moment-to-moment gameplay to be devoid of interesting decisionmaking, it tends to make playing the game rather dull. 

But in terms of your progression comment, choosing a weapon is much different from time investment (which is what most progression is.)

In one game you have a weapon choice (such as choosing your Champion before a League of Legends match.)  In the other you have a Time Investment Contest.

"Who's played this game longer" is about the least interesting way of deciding a winner that a game can offer, wouldn't you say?

But that's most of what progression is in RPGs, which is why it makes for terrible PVP.

Devoid, where?

I didnt say CHOOSE a weapon, i said BUY a weapon :)

I dont know, to me it looks like every game working that way, a grandmaster chess player plays the game longer...

It seems to me that the only problem here is that you dont see "character experience" as important at all, only "player experience", completely discounting a aspect like "managers", "team owners" and "coaches", people part of the game experience in "modern pvp games" having exactly the same "gameplay" as rpg players, the first mainstream rpg computer games even started with people playing for GROUPS of characters.

And that is a more complex discussion than "fair", the whole problem of "is the character playing the game or me" and what should be more important, and if making the player play the game exclusively does not make the game a fps with more complex rules in the end :)

Bottom line, i still think that discounting the character in games where one of the main themes is upgrading and shaping the character is making the pvp unfair and terrible (meaning, obviously, like in your case, "the type of pvp i dont like" ).

Flame on!

:)

I will not dwelve into discussion deeply.

Just want to say my opinion.

I am sick and tired of all this "fairness" in mmorpg's.

I want sense of danger and unpredictability.

I want to meet mobs that might beat me into ground so next time I see them I have to avoid / run from them or find some help to kill them.

I have nothing against some mobs / situatuons putting me out of favour cause of my class / weapon. Like some mobs giving me alot of problems cause I am f.e. melee warrior when if I would play mage I would propably had much easier time, etc

As for competetive pvp.  <-- don't care about it in mmorpg's at all -for me there might not be competetive pvp at all in mmorpg I play.

Thus I don't care much about 1v1 balance.

edit:

basically I want mmorpg game world to not be fair like real world is not ,but at same time stay totally separated from real world so it does not have influence  (via cash shop /rmt /cheating or other matter) or it is possibly as minimal as possible.

Alternative virtual world to dive into for a little while before I go back to manage everyday RL issues.

---

Originally posted by Axehilt

---

Originally posted by AlBQuirky

---

Originally posted by Axehilt
Skill, wherever it comes from, is the entire point of competitive games.  My performance is my own, not some game rule declaring my defeat or victory.
 

---

So you prefer player skill vs character skill.

---

Me?  No, just about everyone.  Look around.  When it comes to competitive (PVP) games mankind has made over its history (Go, Chess, Soccer, Hockey, FPSes, RTSes, Fighting games) the overwhelming majority have focused on player skill.  MMORPGs are known for lousy PVP specifically because they break this rule.
And when it comes to PVE, the popular games are the ones with exciting fights where decisions matter during the fight.  The thread has mentioned many RPGs where both types of skill can exist.  In fact, that's the trend in RPGs because players aren't really interested in the AFK-Auto-attacking situation I described earlier.

---

If I wanted to FPS, I'd paintball. If I want to match wits, I'd play chess. Why must MMORPGs be this way? It is about playing the role of someone who is NOT the player. Does this concept escape you?

Originally posted by BanaghranDevoid, where?

I didnt say CHOOSE a weapon, i said BUY a weapon :)

I dont know, to me it looks like every game working that way, a grandmaster chess player plays the game longer...

It seems to me that the only problem here is that you dont see "character experience" as important at all, only "player experience", completely discounting a aspect like "managers", "team owners" and "coaches", people part of the game experience in "modern pvp games" having exactly the same "gameplay" as rpg players, the first mainstream rpg computer games even started with people playing for GROUPS of characters.

And that is a more complex discussion than "fair", the whole problem of "is the character playing the game or me" and what should be more important, and if making the player play the game exclusively does not make the game a fps with more complex rules in the end :)

Bottom line, i still think that discounting the character in games where one of the main themes is upgrading and shaping the character is making the pvp unfair and terrible (meaning, obviously, like in your case, "the type of pvp i dont like" ).

Flame on!

:)

 

Given an FPS is the Gold Standard for gaming where Player Skill is dominant, I wouldn't refer to it as if it's a negative correlary for MMOs.

As to your analogy regarding Grand Masters in Chess practising a lot.  Of course they do, to hone Player Skills.  In an MMO or FPS that would be, for instance, learning how to kite or los ranged behind obstructions.

IT's funny really: "Gear Progression", and the way it's metastasized in MMOs in general to take over and become THE reason to log into a game, as well as being viewed/used to make players "any good" is what's KILLED the progression and evolution of online gaming with others. It's been a progressive backsliding, and devolution. Dumbing things down.

So that's it's all just gotten, well, . . . dumber.

Seriously. It's produced an entire generation of players who are PROGRAMMED to believe that's the shizznits, but even scarier is the fact it's spawned an entire generation of DEVS on the same bandwagon.

Self feeding delusion that's spawned mechanical, gerbil-wheel, cyclic and endlessy repeating, mindless GRINDING.

Nothing really UNKNOWN, just find a spoiler so you know how to run the steps for this challenge. No real THINKING, just check a spoiler to see what to do and what buttons to push when. No real rewards for SKILL, because if you just pile up gear rewards on masses of players mechanically Grinding spoiler driven slot-car tracks that'll make everyone "skilled".

I have the perhaps vain hope SOMEONE will get it more, as opposed to less right sometime in 2012, with a game that reduces the blind power curve climb based on gear rewards alone, to something that actually interacts with the PLAYER more . . . with rewards based more, as opposed to less, on that.     

As to the entire premise of the thread, starting from the OPs post:

Heh-heh.  I don't think 90% of the people in this thread, including the OP, actually UNDERSTAND what the definition of "fair" is within the context of the discussion.  I know the OP didn't get it right, and he's the one started the thread.

So, out of curiosity, what is the definition of "fair" here?  How would you define it?

Here are some scenario examples to get your critical thinking gears unstuck for the purposes of MMO gaming:

You are a level 10 doing quests on a PvP server in a level 10ish zone and a level 60 squashes you. Is this fair or not, and why?

You are a level 10 doing quests on a PvP server in a level 10ish zone and are jumped by four level 9 - 12's and squashed.  Is this fair or not, and why?

In the level 60 squashing example above, some might argue he/she is contributing to the DANGER in the zone, so it's really Ok and good . . . just level up.  Is this really true or not, and why?

In many MMOs you see instanced "battlegrounds" with queues, and they are typically bracketted by (about) 10 levels depending on game.  Why bracket the battlegrounds, what purpose does it serve?

You are in your level 20 zone questing trying to complete a kill 99999 tree frog farming quest, when a level 40 multi-boxer runs by with six toons in tow, repeatedly, cycling the zone farming those tree frogs for the rare blue tree frog toe amulet.  You never get your quest done because you've only managed to kill 3 / 9999 frogs in four hours as a result.  is this fair or not, and why?

There actually IS a relevant idea to "fair" in an MMO and a competative/recreational game.  But I bet most people won't have a clue how to work it out.  I could be wrong though, so, lets see what the opionions are on what the very definition of "fair" is in a game.

Originally posted by Silverbranch

Originally posted by BanaghranDevoid, where?

I didnt say CHOOSE a weapon, i said BUY a weapon :)

I dont know, to me it looks like every game working that way, a grandmaster chess player plays the game longer...

It seems to me that the only problem here is that you dont see "character experience" as important at all, only "player experience", completely discounting a aspect like "managers", "team owners" and "coaches", people part of the game experience in "modern pvp games" having exactly the same "gameplay" as rpg players, the first mainstream rpg computer games even started with people playing for GROUPS of characters.

And that is a more complex discussion than "fair", the whole problem of "is the character playing the game or me" and what should be more important, and if making the player play the game exclusively does not make the game a fps with more complex rules in the end :)

Bottom line, i still think that discounting the character in games where one of the main themes is upgrading and shaping the character is making the pvp unfair and terrible (meaning, obviously, like in your case, "the type of pvp i dont like" ).

Flame on!

:)

 

 

Given an FPS is the Gold Standard for gaming where Player Skill is dominant, I wouldn't refer to it as if it's a negative correlary for MMOs.

As to your analogy regarding Grand Masters in Chess practising a lot.  Of course they do, to hone Player Skills.  In an MMO or FPS that would be, for instance, learning how to kite or los ranged behind obstructions.

IT's funny really: "Gear Progression", and the way it's metastasized in MMOs in general to take over and become THE reason to log into a game, as well as being viewed/used to make players "any good" is what's KILLED the progression and evolution of online gaming with others. It's been a progressive backsliding, and devolution. Dumbing things down.

So that's it's all just gotten, well, . . . dumber.

Seriously. It's produced an entire generation of players who are PROGRAMMED to believe that's the shizznits, but even scarier is the fact it's spawned an entire generation of DEVS on the same bandwagon.

Self feeding delusion that's spawned mechanical, gerbil-wheel, cyclic and endlessy repeating, mindless GRINDING.

Nothing really UNKNOWN, just find a spoiler so you know how to run the steps for this challenge. No real THINKING, just check a spoiler to see what to do and what buttons to push when. No real rewards for SKILL, because if you just pile up gear rewards on masses of players mechanically Grinding spoiler driven slot-car tracks that'll make everyone "skilled".

I have the perhaps vain hope SOMEONE will get it more, as opposed to less right sometime in 2012, with a game that reduces the blind power curve climb based on gear rewards alone, to something that actually interacts with the PLAYER more . . . with rewards based more, as opposed to less, on that.     

 Even if you go to a site that showcases the stratagies of the fights in a raid or such, than you still need to perform the actions sequence to succeed, which is to a degree skill oriented weither it is how you define or see skill does not matter. As skill is defined as having the capasity to perform a pre-determined action with the least usage of time and/or energy. This kind of discrition can be taken for excuting raid content, pvp fights, even questings really. In most pvp fights a player is using a stratagy either player created or found on a site to counter their attackers. The biggest difference between pvp skilled play and pve skilled play is how random the encounters can be, but but yet outside of the randomness of the fights it is still the excutions of the stratagy that matters for if you can be seen as skilled in them.

The fact is that no matter what we will be grinding i n games for rewards in some shape or form in mmos. The reason is that even if you enjoy the activities you are doing, that any actions you do repetively is a grind not to mentsion a time sink. Without many more players seeking have more of the player's skill determine their victory as well as pregression in games, we will not see a game as you hope for right now.

It's probably too deep into the thread to spend as much time and energy as I'm about to discussing this, but oh well, here goes.

You are running into a completely different issue than your realize. It is not about a fair fight, at its root.

This idea of "fairness" is something I've been thinking about a lot over the last few months. I actually came across it not by playing MMOs, but by playing PnP D&D 4th edition. I have been a big proponent of 4th edition with my friends, who were quite skeptical of it. On paper it looks great: the game is far more balanced, and it really was not de-featured, so long as you could look past the smoke and mirrors of previous sections (for example, it looks like you can be all kinds of classes that are way different and do way more things in D&D3.5, however, they all end up getting very similar skill boosts are spell/attack options. They are, perhaps more "the same" than in 4th).

However, I still found myself not enjoying combat, despite having many more combat options, and a more dynamic game revolving around it. The reason for this: everything at every level is fair for every character, more or less. This is exactly what OP was explaining with MMOs.

I firmly believe that this issue is not due to the precise balance of level and power of enemies, but a fundamental and ubiquitous flaw in design in RPGs of every type. We are only now noticing this issue because the simplification and precision of modern game design brings this flaw into the light.

The answer is NOT  to inject flaws into level and power balance. Nor were past games not hampered by this flaw. We just didn't pay attention to it, because it was hidden by bad game design.

Consider, instead, how gameplay actually plays out relative to your level: 

• Modern games rank your opponents based off of level and a status, such as elite. You know exactly what to expect each time you fight them, and becasue the game is well balanced you will rarely be wrong.
• By putting in some imbalance in the strength of opponents (or by removing this "consider" ability completely) the only thing we gain is uncertainty. meaning we have to fight an enemy once, or maybe twice, before we have a good idea of how easily or when we can beat it. We will still be following the same exact gameplay, level after level, where our power never actually changes in relation to what we are fighting.

Originally posted by Creslin321

One thing that I think is way different (in a bad way) when you compare the MMORPGS and RPGs of today to their counterparts of 90's is this concept that everything should be "fair."  In themepark MMORPGs, you are guided from quest to quest in a way that ensures the mobs you fight will always be around your level, so you always have a "fair" (typically easy) fight.  The same is true of modern SPRPGs, though they sometimes use devices like level-scaling to enforce this fairness as opposed to simply guiding the player.

This can be nice because you know you'll never be put in a fight you can't win, but it kind of kills any feeling of exploration, danger, and most importantly, PROGRESSION in the game.  For example, in WoW, I'm always fighting MOBs that are yellow or green..that's it.  The quest nodes and zone levels on the map are very careful to guide me along a carefully determined path so that this is the case.  I never really feel like I'm progressing, because my foes are almost always the exact same level as me...they increase in strength precisely proportionately to my advanacement.

So I think this philosophy is misguided.  You see, I believe that RPGs are about progression FAR more than they are about action-packed or highly tactical combat.  And guiding the player so that they are always fighting "equal" opponents kills that sense of progression.

In old school RPGs like early Final Fantasy games, the Ultima Series (including UO), or Everquest, if you wandered off the beaten path slightly, you may wind up meeting mobs that will hand you your behind on a silver platter.  This may seem unfair, but it really puts the danger of the world into perspective.  You KNOW that a sand giant can absolutely destroy you, because you encounter them often...they are as much a part of the world of a level 18 as they are a level 40.

And when you finally get high enough level to kill a sand giant...man that's a good feeling.  You feel like you actually accomplished something...the deadly predator of yesterday is now your prey!

So in conclusion, I really think (MMO)RPGs should get back to showing the player the terrifying monsters of the world at a lower level, and not being afraid to let them stumble on a dragon's lair just to put everything in perspective.  I'm not advocating the use of "grief NPCs" like Everquest had, but I think it would be good to even have a few "non-aggro" NPCs of higher levels wandering around lower level places so that players could have something to strive for.

I like this post, but I expected to see a PVP-based conversation.  IMO, your post covers the PVE aspects well, but let's not forget that people are constantly whining about PVP balance and fairness.  The reality of a fair fight in PVP is that RPGs and balanced PVP are on opposite ends of a sliding scale.  The more you strive for balance, the closer you get to being an FPS or just something else entirely.  That is to say, the only way to fully balance a PVP experience is to remove all of the RPG elements from it.

Totally thought this thread was about pvp until I read OP. Completely agree. I think one of the reasons worlds feel so static these days is because they're so perfectly planned. I think, now that most games have done away with any significant death penalty, now's as good a time as ever to introduce powerful roaming monsters, areas filled with powerful mobs that are near low level mobs, maybe some caves with completely different level requirements than the land it's in. Makes players more wary, and also gives high level people a reason to mingle with lower levels.

I could not agree with the OP more!  I miss the "fear factor" so much it hurts.  No game that has been released to popular acclaim in the last several years (that I know of at least) has that "potential death around the corner" feeling like the games of old had.