Originally posted by waynejr2

Well, what if travel could be tied into the game of playing the market?  Rather than a global AH, you have a lot of local markets where people can up a items to sell.  Someone could take items from one market travel a long ways away to another market to resell at a higher price. That makes it more a virtual world.   With the got to have it now crowd, you teleport everywhere making that game play meaningless.

The root problem is travel itself isn't fun, and is extremely shallow.

You would have to have a consistent and almost constant stream of these types of interactions for travel's shallowness to be ignorable (because in that case you'd consistently be engaging in some deep system, even if it wasn't travel itself.)  Obviously it would be more types of interactions than just a local market (and local markets aren't even all that deep or fun a system compared to some of the other alternatives.)

As for the "got to have it now" crowd?  The alternative is a game which deliberately wastes players' time (which is what's happening with excessive travel.)  So we have the "gotta have it now" crowd and the "enjoys having their time wasted" crowd.  Which would you rather be in?  The former crowd gets to experience games just as deep (or deeper, given that they're actually interacting with game systems rather than having their time wasted) than the latter.

Originally posted by waynejr2

Originally posted by Axehilt

@Bunnyhopper: So if psuedo-AFKable travel requires maybe 1-3 decisions in 5-15 minutes, you think that's enough decisions for travel itself to be interesting?

The frequency of decisions isn't some absolute "more is always better" metric.

However a baseline of decisions is required to achieve the desired amount of game depth.

That baseline is greater than 1 decision every 5 minutes.

Well, what if travel could be tied into the game of playing the market?  Rather than a global AH, you have a lot of local markets where people can up a items to sell.  Someone could take items from one market travel a long ways away to another market to resell at a higher price. That makes it more a virtual world.   With the got to have it now crowd, you teleport everywhere making that game play meaningless.

You could still have meaningful trade like that, with travel, if you can't carry the weight/volume by teleports.

That would leave the game world feeling like it's actually there, offering the chance to go explore for adventure or just travel and see the scenery if one wants, while still keeping meaning for trade and such. Or they can instantly travel to a dungeon to meet up with friends or check out a mystery or grind for X.

It can even add an element to the last, grinding for X. If weights and volumes require overland travel, then encampments outside of Dungeons for storage can be implemented, and caravans back to cities, homes, or guild headquarters also. These can be player run, or at least player built or owned. And added game play can be in the form of these encampments and caravans attracting random NPC raids, so that having players involved in the defense of them is game play. Player caravan Masters and Camp Quartermasters can be "jobs" for players, and NPC hireling guards can add to their professions.

You wouldn't need very many players, percentage wise, to want to do these things to make a name for themselves, as well as their fortunes, in this way. From my experiences from UO, there were plenty of players crying for the chance to be a little unique and establish a "place" in the game world. Whole guilds wanted to make a name for themselves like this.

Originally posted by Rayshe

Originally posted by thekid1

All I know is I''m tired of doing quests. LAME quests. Singe player games have much better quests (and NPC, creatures AI) then mmorpg's. So in that respect the OP is right when he says mmorpgs are ten year old console games.

I don't get it. Why is is so hard to take advantage of the fact you can have 5000 people on one server and design a game for that which does not involve LAME quests and annoying raids.

I only know two games which are designed properly; Eve online and Planetside (dead now)

And neither of them are rpg's.

There is a simple awnser to that. you dont like theme park games. its pretty obvious, The problem with having missions that have things like open world PVP is that it forces people who don't want it while they are leveling (the majority i assure you) to get randomly killed by somone as they finish fighting a mob, then in return be corpse camped until logging to boost someones Epeen.

 

My opinion is that if they changed PvP servers to that they had more quests for random killing of players, less people would complain. sadly when it comes to AI based quests you are somewhat limited in what you can do.

 Haven't been killed by another player in EVE in a few years now.

Just because a bunch of companies do/ did it wrong, doesn't mean that ti's not possible to do it right.  You seem to have the same mentality as a lot of developers do, it's all or nothing.  Either the game degrades into a massive free for all deathmatch (MO, Darkfall) or it's completely structured to ensure that no player can impact any other players experience (basically every PvE focused themepark). 

CCP is the only company that gets it right, and shows that it's possible to make a game were players can co-exist.  The carebear miners, mission runers, and manufacturers are as important to the world as the PvPers who blow each other up en mass to drive the economy.

Whenever a group of guys comes along and says, "we want to make a game that is like UO" the inevitably end up with a game were there is little content outside of killing one another.  They want to forgo questing, because they think that a sandbox should be all about the players, they lax on punishing killing one another because they have no quests and players need something to do, they build robust crafting systems that require players to go out and try and kill stuff endlessly; while avoiding being killed by other players in order to drive the economy within the game.  It always leads to failure.

EVE caters to every play style, and that's why it works.  If more devs would start paying attention to this, and stop trying to focus on one thing over the other in an effort to stand out, we would see more engaging MMO's being developed and fewer themeparks that attract a bunch of people for the first couple of months before switching to free to play to get all those people to come back after they leave.

It's all about safety in the known.  Look at Zenimax Online, they take one of the best single player, sandbox RPG's of all time and decided it was best to make another themepark MMO that banks on standing out by being a 3 faction PvP game ala DAoC.  Instead of different and creative, they're choosing safe and secure in a model that they THINK works well. 

EVE has been going for 9 years, and only when they do something stupid do they see any kind of drop in subscribers.  WoW just dropped to almost 9 million subs, they used to have over 11 million.  Bioware decided to make ToR a F2P game, has it even been out a year?  And yes, free to play does indicate a certian level of failure, if you're profitting on a subscription model you don't switch to free to play. 

A lot of MMO's don't even bother trying subsciptions anyomre, and I don't believe for a minute that has anything to do with developers getting smart and realizing that F2P is the way to go.  It has more to do with entering a market were you offer nothing new.  Only so many people are going to play your MMO, and if those people have already played it before it ever got installed on their PC, you're going to be hard pressed to convince them to pay monthly for it.  If you're only giving people what they've already got, or you're only offering MMO lite gameplay (world of tanks) then the only option you have is free to play. 

It's not a dead genre, it's a stale, old, boring one.  People will only pay you to play the same game for so long, eventually they get tired of it, and stop paying you, and that is exactly what we've been seeing happen in the genre.  People have decided to stop paying.

---

Originally posted by Axehilt

---

Originally posted by waynejr2 Well, what if travel could be tied into the game of playing the market?  Rather than a global AH, you have a lot of local markets where people can up a items to sell.  Someone could take items from one market travel a long ways away to another market to resell at a higher price. That makes it more a virtual world.   With the got to have it now crowd, you teleport everywhere making that game play meaningless.

---

The root problem is travel itself isn't fun, and is extremely shallow.

You would have to have a consistent and almost constant stream of these types of interactions for travel's shallowness to be ignorable (because in that case you'd consistently be engaging in some deep system, even if it wasn't travel itself.)  Obviously it would be more types of interactions than just a local market (and local markets aren't even all that deep or fun a system compared to some of the other alternatives.)

As for the "got to have it now" crowd?  The alternative is a game which deliberately wastes players' time (which is what's happening with excessive travel.)  So we have the "gotta have it now" crowd and the "enjoys having their time wasted" crowd.  Which would you rather be in?  The former crowd gets to experience games just as deep (or deeper, given that they're actually interacting with game systems rather than having their time wasted) than the latter.

 

---

Originally posted by Foomerang

Actually, Uncharted Waters Online has a system like this and it works pretty well.

 

There's nothing wrong with open markets.  What's wrong is if there's a significant amount of non-gameplay consistently being experienced by players in the form of a lot of time spent travel which lacks any significant gameplay or game depth.

---

Originally posted by Axehilt

---

Originally posted by Foomerang Actually, Uncharted Waters Online has a system like this and it works pretty well.  

---

There's nothing wrong with open markets.  What's wrong is if there's a significant amount of non-gameplay consistently being experienced by players in the form of a lot of time spent travel which lacks any significant gameplay or game depth.

---

edit: im getting off work now, so I probably wont see your response for a while.

You guys don't understand, you JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND GODAMNIT. GRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAHRRRRRRRRRRR

All I will contribute to this is this: It is my sincere opinion that if you enjoy questing on rails, token farming, battlegrounds and dailies -- yes, that's YOU I am talking to -- YOU MORON YOU. You dull, mechanical, organized, oh-ho-fiddle-with-a-project model airplane autist assembly line freak. Did the carrot teach you nothing? You had it equipped all that time! They were mocking you, FOOL.

Originally posted by Foomerang

What is your definition of gameplay? Its probably different than mine.

 

edit: im getting off work now, so I probably wont see your response for a while.

Do you consider watching your avatar's walking animation "gameplay"?

Gameplay is when the player makes interesting decisions.  It's better gameplay if the decisions remain interesting for a long period of time.

Travel lacks almost all gameplay because the only decision you're typically presented with is avoiding mobs.  This is an alright minigame for about the first week we all encountered it in MMORPGs (if that.)  After which, travel essentially becomes devoid of any interesting interactions -- it essentially just becomes a massive shallow timesink.  Hence my argument in favor of either (a) removing it (fast travel), or (b) improving it (giving it deeper gameplay.)  Since there are several game mechanics which require travel, option B is a possibility which should get explored more often.

Originally posted by Scot

Originally posted by SoulSurfer
Well this thread certainly isn't dead....

Yeah, unfortunately for the gaming companies old gamers did not die when the decided to redesign MMO's for console and now social network players.

Once we do everyone can live in the la la land that modern MMO's are the best ever! Pre-order your copy of the one that is going to be this months five minute wonder today!

I just pre-purchased GW2 today, and got to play the stress test.  It's the last themepark style I will buy.  So, far it seems promising, and fun.  The genre has definently evolved... (but yeah, mmo's of yester-decade are dead)

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Scot

Originally posted by SoulSurfer
Well this thread certainly isn't dead....

Yeah, unfortunately for the gaming companies old gamers did not die when the decided to redesign MMO's for console and now social network players.

Once we do everyone can live in the la la land that modern MMO's are the best ever! Pre-order your copy of the one that is going to be this months five minute wonder today!

"Pre-order"? YOu are kidding me. MMOs are going F2P. Just click on STEAM and download.

And you don't have to exaggerate .... good fun f2p MMOs can last a few weeks.

In the famous words of the Star Craft Battlecruiser captain: "TAKE IT SLOW"

=P

---

Originally posted by Axehilt

---

Originally posted by Foomerang What is your definition of gameplay? Its probably different than mine.   edit: im getting off work now, so I probably wont see your response for a while.

---

Do you consider watching your avatar's walking animation "gameplay"?

Gameplay is when the player makes interesting decisions.  It's better gameplay if the decisions remain interesting for a long period of time.

Travel lacks almost all gameplay because the only decision you're typically presented with is avoiding mobs.  This is an alright minigame for about the first week we all encountered it in MMORPGs (if that.)  After which, travel essentially becomes devoid of any interesting interactions -- it essentially just becomes a massive shallow timesink.  Hence my argument in favor of either (a) removing it (fast travel), or (b) improving it (giving it deeper gameplay.)  Since there are several game mechanics which require travel, option B is a possibility which should get explored more often.

---

Travel is(was) part of the experience. Maybe you ran into a mob or two. Maybe you took in the scenery. Maybe it gave you downtime to chat. Or perhaps organize your inventory and plan out the rest of your gaming session. It was all part of the gameplay.

Think about it this way: When you play poker with a group of people and its not your turn, are you no longer playing cards? No. You're still playing cards. You're still in the game and participating even if you're not constantly betting or drawing. Maybe you're talking to another player, or looking at your pot or planning your next move. Its part of the experience.

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Foomerang

What is your definition of gameplay? Its probably different than mine.

 

edit: im getting off work now, so I probably wont see your response for a while.

Do you consider watching your avatar's walking animation "gameplay"?

Gameplay is when the player makes interesting decisions.  It's better gameplay if the decisions remain interesting for a long period of time.

Travel lacks almost all gameplay because the only decision you're typically presented with is avoiding mobs.  This is an alright minigame for about the first week we all encountered it in MMORPGs (if that.)  After which, travel essentially becomes devoid of any interesting interactions -- it essentially just becomes a massive shallow timesink.  Hence my argument in favor of either (a) removing it (fast travel), or (b) improving it (giving it deeper gameplay.)  Since there are several game mechanics which require travel, option B is a possibility which should get explored more often.

Travel gives immersion and a sense of a huge persistant world,  travelling also can give a sense of accomplishment.  I was so pleased with myself when I made the trip from Darnassus to Elwynn Forest as a Night Elf in WoW.  It' gives adventure.  If you just port to where ever, your missing all of the exciting events that could happen on the way there..  One of the reasons I hate GW2 is because you'll just be porting around everywhere, it makes the world feel small and for me, boring.

Originally posted by Foomerang

 

---

Originally posted by Axehilt

---

Originally posted by Foomerang What is your definition of gameplay? Its probably different than mine.   edit: im getting off work now, so I probably wont see your response for a while.

---

Do you consider watching your avatar's walking animation "gameplay"?

 

Gameplay is when the player makes interesting decisions.  It's better gameplay if the decisions remain interesting for a long period of time.

Travel lacks almost all gameplay because the only decision you're typically presented with is avoiding mobs.  This is an alright minigame for about the first week we all encountered it in MMORPGs (if that.)  After which, travel essentially becomes devoid of any interesting interactions -- it essentially just becomes a massive shallow timesink.  Hence my argument in favor of either (a) removing it (fast travel), or (b) improving it (giving it deeper gameplay.)  Since there are several game mechanics which require travel, option B is a possibility which should get explored more often.

---

 

Travel is(was) part of the experience. Maybe you ran into a mob or two. Maybe you took in the scenery. Maybe it gave you downtime to chat. Or perhaps organize your inventory and plan out the rest of your gaming session. It was all part of the gameplay.

Think about it this way: When you play poker with a group of people and its not your turn, are you no longer playing cards? No. You're still playing cards. You're still in the game and participating even if you're not constantly betting or drawing. Maybe you're talking to another player, or looking at your pot or planning your next move. Its part of the experience.

The point is that it is NOT a fun part. If people want to skip it, they don't find it fun. Boring part of gameplay should be cut. Back in EQ when it was first released, you need to stare at your spellbook to gain back your mana.

It was part of the gameplay too, and it was part of the "experience". Few likes that "experience" very much and obviously they got rid of this ridiculous "gameplay".

So, it is not a defense saying that it is a part of the gameplay. If it is boring and considered bad gameplay by many, why have it?

Originally posted by QuicklyScott

 

Travel gives immersion and a sense of a huge persistant world,  travelling also can give a sense of accomplishment.  I was so pleased with myself when I made the trip from Darnassus to Elwynn Forest as a Night Elf in WoW.  It' gives adventure.  If you just port to where ever, your missing all of the exciting events that could happen on the way there..  One of the reasons I hate GW2 is because you'll just be porting around everywhere, it makes the world feel small and for me, boring.

Immersion should not get int the way of FUN. The sense of a huge persistent world is secondary when the goal is to get through a dungoen, kill everything inside, and get loot.

There are MANY ways to give a sense of accomplishment. Getting from ponit A to B is really not at the top of the list. I would MUCH rather forgone the "accomplishment" of walking for 10 min, and instead have the accomplishment of kililng a tough monster.

If you make traveling into a stealth game (to avoid/beat monster so you can get from point A to B), then it is not traveling .. it is a dungeon romp. There is no exciting events when i ride the boat in EQ, WOW or any other game. For THAT kind of traveling, please let me skip it.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by QuicklyScott

 

Travel gives immersion and a sense of a huge persistant world,  travelling also can give a sense of accomplishment.  I was so pleased with myself when I made the trip from Darnassus to Elwynn Forest as a Night Elf in WoW.  It' gives adventure.  If you just port to where ever, your missing all of the exciting events that could happen on the way there..  One of the reasons I hate GW2 is because you'll just be porting around everywhere, it makes the world feel small and for me, boring.

 There is no exciting events when i ride the boat in EQ, WOW or any other game. For THAT kind of traveling, please let me skip it.

FFXI had the best ferry rides, getting attacked by sea monsters which wiped all the noobs, and people fishing off the sides, etc... was fun times.  If you missed the boat you have to wait extra 7 mins, on top of 7 min ride, haha missing the ferry by a few steps when your running on the docks was hilarious.  I miss moments like these you encounter on your travels. 

Now it's just star-trek beam me up Scotti... Teleport here, way point this, set new homepoint that... Kinda wish GW2 didn't have so many tele's, but I guess those days are gone too, because everyone needs to be somewhere NOW.  Kinda makes me want to drive my car the exact speed limit on my next commute for the lols.

Welcome to this world.

Every generation changes what the generation before it tried to accomplish managing to alienate the older generation to some degree.

I suggest buying a walking stick so you have something to point at the young'uns while yelling at them for ruining the world/s.

heres a crazy idea in regards to "i cant play gw2 cuz of the portals everywhere" 1. you have to find them first. 2. if they reallly bother you... d o n t  u s e  t h e m ?  

that is all. thank you.

---

Originally posted by nariusseldon

---

Originally posted by Foomerang  

---

Originally posted by Axehilt

---

Originally posted by Foomerang What is your definition of gameplay? Its probably different than mine.   edit: im getting off work now, so I probably wont see your response for a while.

---

Do you consider watching your avatar's walking animation "gameplay"?   Gameplay is when the player makes interesting decisions.  It's better gameplay if the decisions remain interesting for a long period of time. Travel lacks almost all gameplay because the only decision you're typically presented with is avoiding mobs.  This is an alright minigame for about the first week we all encountered it in MMORPGs (if that.)  After which, travel essentially becomes devoid of any interesting interactions -- it essentially just becomes a massive shallow timesink.  Hence my argument in favor of either (a) removing it (fast travel), or (b) improving it (giving it deeper gameplay.)  Since there are several game mechanics which require travel, option B is a possibility which should get explored more often.

---

  Travel is(was) part of the experience. Maybe you ran into a mob or two. Maybe you took in the scenery. Maybe it gave you downtime to chat. Or perhaps organize your inventory and plan out the rest of your gaming session. It was all part of the gameplay. Think about it this way: When you play poker with a group of people and its not your turn, are you no longer playing cards? No. You're still playing cards. You're still in the game and participating even if you're not constantly betting or drawing. Maybe you're talking to another player, or looking at your pot or planning your next move. Its part of the experience.

---

The point is that it is NOT a fun part. If people want to skip it, they don't find it fun. Boring part of gameplay should be cut. Back in EQ when it was first released, you need to stare at your spellbook to gain back your mana.

It was part of the gameplay too, and it was part of the "experience". Few likes that "experience" very much and obviously they got rid of this ridiculous "gameplay".

So, it is not a defense saying that it is a part of the gameplay. If it is boring and considered bad gameplay by many, why have it?

---

Games that have one constant, screaming level of FUN! are dime a dozen. I don't need my games to be shoving action down my throat nonstop. Whats so wrong with a game having subtlety and dynamic range? What better format than a virtual world to give varied paces in the gaming experience? I understand you want action on demand. And there is a place for that. Id just like to see that dynamic range come back to virtual world mmorpgs. Thats what made the genre unique.