Originally posted by Apraxis

Maybe then i should label another acronym for a sub sub genre. VWORPGwoVP (without Vertical Progression) :)

Because i really cant stand deep vertical progression i think it almost destroyes any game, and even more Virtual Worlds.

I played a very long time MMORPGs, and the things on the genre apart from Themepark/Sandbox, which bugged me the most  were foremost contingent on progression.

• The level gap between veteran and noob players, playing with a friend, who just dont have the time to play that much is impossible.
• Areas of the world become abandond. Less reusability of conent. The world becomes incredibly smaller, because just a very limited part of it is for your level available.
• Balance problem between PvE and PvP, further problems of low level killing in PvP and so on
• grind -> forced to progress for the sake of it, not because it is fun, or because you are interested in that gameplay element
• ...

But, however, for each their own. I personally could never imagine to play a Virtual World with a deep vertical progression. But thats me.

 

 

You can have no vp in VOWs. I just personally don't think it exists. But if you could do it props. progression is a VOW irrelevant feature. Ie you can have it or not have it and be a VOW either way.

I think that in a real virtual world most of the problems you talk about disappear. If the world is dynamic then areas don't become useless because their composition changes.

If you play with a low level friend they can only be of assistance to you. The only reason NOT to hang with low levels is if content has a group cap and is balanced at the level cap and group cap. No group caps means if you have 15 level 50s and its for 15 level 50s you can still have your level 10 friend come.

Why do you have to grind? In a virtual world you could just not grind.

Just call them social RPGs 

Originally posted by emperorwings

Just call them social RPGs 

You can have a social rpg without a virtual world. They are RPGs that are social, but more than just that.

Originally posted by Apraxis

Maybe then i should label another acronym for a sub sub genre. VWORPGwoVP (without Vertical Progression) :)

Because i really cant stand deep vertical progression i think it almost destroyes any game, and even more Virtual Worlds.

I played a very long time MMORPGs, and the things on the genre apart from Themepark/Sandbox, which bugged me the most  were foremost contingent on progression.

• The level gap between veteran and noob players, playing with a friend, who just dont have the time to play that much is impossible.
• Areas of the world become abandond. Less reusability of conent. The world becomes incredibly smaller, because just a very limited part of it is for your level available.
• Balance problem between PvE and PvP, further problems of low level killing in PvP and so on
• grind -> forced to progress for the sake of it, not because it is fun, or because you are interested in that gameplay element
• ...

But, however, for each their own. I personally could never imagine to play a Virtual World with a deep vertical progression. But thats me.

 

 

good post. 

vertical progression is the main reason most MMOs are terrible "games".

for years now i've been trying to say virtual world versus MMO in most situations, in order to try to reduce the confusion in communication.

what with the huge influx of people that don't give a shit about worldiness or massiveness.

i don't want RPG tacked on either, as there are many generalities that can be discussed regardless of the gameplay genre, when just talking about the worldiness of games.  always tacking it on to the "MMO" acronym has already caused alot of confusion in conversations with people making RPG mechanics assumptions.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Sythion

And vertical progression is just an illusion where numbers get bigger, and ratios stay the same.

Real progression should be about how the players see their characters, not how big their numbers are. Narrative has a lot to do with this, though there are other factors too. IMO, horizontal progression is more real than vertical progression, because I actually feel like I'm growing and changing.

Bigger numbers just don't do it for me anymore.

No true.

Example. In WOW, you can go back to do older content, while over-gearing it. The additional power really shows. When you can two-man a L70 raid, when you have to do it with 10 people before, the power of progression shows.

And people do that regularly (including me) for mounts, and trasmorg gear, so don't say there is no reward from doing so.

Heck, even occasionallly running older heroics with current raid tier gear is fun. You can see bosses dying a LOT faster.

Sure it may not doing it for YOU. It certainly does it for many others including me.

Ok, i understand what you mean. And thats not really a problem for horizontal progression either, it is just different, and not that easy going. Lets give you a simple example:

A bear is a dangerous beast. To a noob it is almost certainly death. For a veteran bear hunter it is an easy task.

Noob scenario for both vertical/horizontal progression:

Noob: Oh. a bear! *draw a sword and hack and slay the bear*

Bear gets hit 5 dmg from sword. Is medicor wounded and gets angry.

Bear hit Noob for 20 dmg. Noob staggers.

Bear gets hit 6 dmg from sword. Gets even more angry.

Bear hits Noob for 25 dmg. Noob dies.

Veteran scenario for vertical progression:

Veteran: Lulz. a bear. *draw a sword and hack and slay the bear*

Bear gets hit for 1000 dmg from sword. Bear dies.

Veteran scenario for horizontal progression:

Veteran: Oh, a bear. Nice furs! *set up a trap with a honey pot and hide behind a tree*

Bear runs into trap. Bear gets 5 dmg from trap. Bear is ensnared.

Veteran shot with Bow at Bear. Bear gets 5 dmg from bow. Bear gets another 3 dmg from trap. Bear tries to escape

Bear gets 5 dmg from bow. Bear gets another 2 dmg from trap. Bear is out of the trap.

Veteran climb the tree. Bears is angry and serious wounded. Runs to the tree.

Veteran shot with Bow at bear for another 5 dmgs.

.... Bear dies. Veteran skins bear. Collect fur.

You get the difference? In a vertical progression it is a nobrainer, and may be fun whilst watching TV.

In horizontal progression it is also easy, because you have the knowledge how to hunt a bear, and you have different new abilities, which make the task easier. But it is of course nevertheless not a nobrainer, and watching TV meanwhile may be dangerous. Afterall a bear is a dangerous beast.

And even more(fur example) in a world with vertical progression the loot is not that valueable, it cant be. But in a horizontal progression world the value remains the same. (i always thought bronze1-bronze10 or what other silly names they got for crafting a sword at different levels would be rather silly.. but again, thats me) Or a fur is a fur, and iron is iron, and a sword is a sword. But a grandmaster forged sword may have a whole lot more durability, may be a little bit sharper, and so on.

But i know, i am on a anti progression crusade, and i really dont want to attack anyone for their opinion. Not everyone enjoys the same, and vertical progression may be what some people want. But i am not one of them.

Originally posted by Apraxis

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Sythion

And vertical progression is just an illusion where numbers get bigger, and ratios stay the same.

Real progression should be about how the players see their characters, not how big their numbers are. Narrative has a lot to do with this, though there are other factors too. IMO, horizontal progression is more real than vertical progression, because I actually feel like I'm growing and changing.

Bigger numbers just don't do it for me anymore.

No true.

Example. In WOW, you can go back to do older content, while over-gearing it. The additional power really shows. When you can two-man a L70 raid, when you have to do it with 10 people before, the power of progression shows.

And people do that regularly (including me) for mounts, and trasmorg gear, so don't say there is no reward from doing so.

Heck, even occasionallly running older heroics with current raid tier gear is fun. You can see bosses dying a LOT faster.

Sure it may not doing it for YOU. It certainly does it for many others including me.

Ok, i understand what you mean. And thats not really a problem for horizontal progression either, it is just different, and not that easy going. Lets give you a simple example:

A bear is a dangerous beast. To a noob it is almost certainly death. For a veteran bear hunter it is an easy task.

Noob scenario for both vertical/horizontal progression:

Noob: Oh. a bear! *draw a sword and hack and slay the bear*

Bear gets hit 5 dmg from sword. Is medicor wounded and gets angry.

Bear hit Noob for 20 dmg. Noob staggers.

Bear gets hit 6 dmg from sword. Gets even more angry.

Bear hits Noob for 25 dmg. Noob dies.

 

Veteran scenario for vertical progression:

Veteran: Lulz. a bear. *draw a sword and hack and slay the bear*

Bear gets hit for 1000 dmg from sword. Bear dies.

 

Veteran scenario for horizontal progression:

Veteran: Oh, a bear. Nice furs! *set up a trap with a honey pot and hide behind a tree*

Bear runs into trap. Bear gets 5 dmg from trap. Bear is ensnared.

Veteran shot with Bow at Bear. Bear gets 5 dmg from bow. Bear gets another 3 dmg from trap. Bear tries to escape

Bear gets 5 dmg from bow. Bear gets another 2 dmg from trap. Bear is out of the trap.

Veteran climb the tree. Bears is angry and serious wounded. Runs to the tree.

Veteran shot with Bow at bear for another 5 dmgs.

.... Bear dies. Veteran skins bear. Collect fur.

You get the difference? In a vertical progression it is a nobrainer, and may be fun whilst watching TV.

In horizontal progression it is also easy, because you have the knowledge how to hunt a bear, and you have different new abilities, which make the task easier. But it is of course nevertheless not a nobrainer, and watching TV meanwhile may be dangerous. Afterall a bear is a dangerous beast.

And even more(fur example) in a world with vertical progression the loot is not that valueable, it cant be. But in a horizontal progression world the value remains the same. (i always thought bronze1-bronze10 or what other silly names they got for crafting a sword at different levels would be rather silly.. but again, thats me) Or a fur is a fur, and iron is iron, and a sword is a sword. But a grandmaster forged sword may have a whole lot more durability, may be a little bit sharper, and so on.

But i know, i am on a anti progression crusade, and i really dont want to attack anyone for their opinion. Not everyone enjoys the same, and vertical progression may be what some people want. But i am not one of them.

 

That is a typical vertical progression example. But it doesn't make sense.

Firstly you cannot beat the bear unless you have tree climbing, honey pots, or traps.

So a n00b still cannot beat the bear. Ever. No matter what.

So how is that different from vertical progression?

And the hp example is still a no brainer. There is not a lot of thought or execution involved. You just need to be able to use a trap. Hot the trap hotkey and done.

And for the sword example, the reason real life superior swords are better is because steel, and slaving for hours folding the steel. If the player doesn't spend hours forging the sword why is it better? Because of an arbitrary number making the player a grand master. Why is the player a grand master? Something you neglected to explain.

Most of the time people who refer to horizontal progression are just referring to almost no progression or just trying to hide vertical progression behind gimmicks.

The n00b in your example is just as powerless to kill the bear as if the vet simply did more damage instead of having a trap.

Originally posted by Cuathon

That is a typical vertical progression example. But it doesn't make sense.

Firstly you cannot beat the bear unless you have tree climbing, honey pots, or traps.

So a n00b still cannot beat the bear. Ever. No matter what.

So how is that different from vertical progression?

And the hp example is still a no brainer. There is not a lot of thought or execution involved. You just need to be able to use a trap. Hot the trap hotkey and done.

And for the sword example, the reason real life superior swords are better is because steel, and slaving for hours folding the steel. If the player doesn't spend hours forging the sword why is it better? Because of an arbitrary number making the player a grand master. Why is the player a grand master? Something you neglected to explain.

Most of the time people who refer to horizontal progression are just referring to almost no progression or just trying to hide vertical progression behind gimmicks.

The n00b in your example is just as powerless to kill the bear as if the vet simply did more damage instead of having a trap.

I my eyes horizontal progression means access to new options, not access to new requirements. The scenario you are describing is bad design.

Think of horizontal progression like Magic: The Gathering. As your collection grows you are getting more powerful because you're getting access to new cards which will improve your versatility in deck options, and the synergy within your deck. And yes, a competent player with a great deck will probably beat a great player with an intro deck, but the margin of victory is much different. Likewise, a person who has planned for waht they want can go out and acquire the cards (or in mmorpgs, abilities) they want purposefully for far cheaper (in less time) than someone who doesn't.

So there are definite advantages. For those unable to see behind the numbers, or who get off on destroying grey mobs, vertical progression has its advantages as well.

Actually, horizontal progression is probably the best option for crafting: gaining the ability to use new materials which can then be mixed and matched as opposed to just getting better at making the same old stuff over and over again.

Originally posted by Sythion

Originally posted by Cuathon

That is a typical vertical progression example. But it doesn't make sense.

Firstly you cannot beat the bear unless you have tree climbing, honey pots, or traps.

So a n00b still cannot beat the bear. Ever. No matter what.

So how is that different from vertical progression?

And the hp example is still a no brainer. There is not a lot of thought or execution involved. You just need to be able to use a trap. Hot the trap hotkey and done.

And for the sword example, the reason real life superior swords are better is because steel, and slaving for hours folding the steel. If the player doesn't spend hours forging the sword why is it better? Because of an arbitrary number making the player a grand master. Why is the player a grand master? Something you neglected to explain.

Most of the time people who refer to horizontal progression are just referring to almost no progression or just trying to hide vertical progression behind gimmicks.

The n00b in your example is just as powerless to kill the bear as if the vet simply did more damage instead of having a trap.

I my eyes horizontal progression means access to new options, not access to new requirements. The scenario you are describing is bad design.

Think of horizontal progression like Magic: The Gathering. As your collection grows you are getting more powerful because you're getting access to new cards which will improve your versatility in deck options, and the synergy within your deck. And yes, a competent player with a great deck will probably beat a great player with an intro deck, but the margin of victory is much different. Likewise, a person who has planned for waht they want can go out and acquire the cards (or in mmorpgs, abilities) they want purposefully for far cheaper (in less time) than someone who doesn't.

So there are definite advantages. For those unable to see behind the numbers, or who get off on destroying grey mobs, vertical progression has its advantages as well.

Actually, horizontal progression is probably the best option for crafting: gaining the ability to use new materials which can then be mixed and matched as opposed to just getting better at making the same old stuff over and over again.

In magic most of the time you get access to objectively better cards as well as different ones. 90% of cards are not viable for tournament play. A lot of cards are only useful in a single very specific deck requiring lots of other special cards.

Additionally magic has maybe millions of different cards whereas most mmorpgs cannot possibly implement so many spells or actions.

Getting access to new materials is functionally identical to having upgraded old materials.

Magic also has all sorts of rules because many card combos achieve 1-3 turn wins. You cannot possibly argue that a 1 turn unstoppable win in magic is an example of horizontal progression. Even the most strict tournament formats have decks that can win in only a couple turns.

maybe people aren't bringing up the most airtight examples, but its a simple concept that i don't know how you can try to argue away as if it doesn't make sense.

give players more options instead of more power (hitting for bigger numbers of damage, taking smaller numbers of damage because your level is higher).

this gets rid of all the player to player unbalancing, where you can only have meaningful interactions if you are near the same point on a vertical progression path.

it lets every player fight every other player on the server on fairly even ground, and COOPERATE with every player on the server meaningfully.  it actually makes good utilization of the fact that the game is multiplayer, rather than putting up all these time gated walls of segregation, scattering everybody across this vertical spectrum.

yes, more options inherently gives you more power, as you can customize your actions to the situation at hand.  but its nothing like the current vertical models.  worlds apart.

Originally posted by Cuathon

 

 

Most of the time people who refer to horizontal progression are just referring to almost no progression or just trying to hide vertical progression behind gimmicks.

 

maybe there is something really fundamental that you aren't understanding about the concept.  because that statement makes no sense.

as terrible as Darkfall's power gap is between noobs and vets, it STILL illustrates a key difference between the typical model and a more natural one.

in EQ, a level 1 will miss everytime trying to hit a level 50.  the level 50 will oneshot the level 1 everytime.

in Darkfall, a person with maxed out stats hits everytime if their aim is true, but thats ALSO true of a brand new player.  they just hit for different amounts.   if the maxed out player had terrible real life skills,  a small group of total noobs could kill him.

that is NOT true of EQ.  there, you could have hundreds of noobs hitting on him and they wouldn't have a chance.  the level 50 could cast an AOE and kill huge groups with each hit.

Darkfall HAS A TON of verticality.  but it doesn't have all these level based bonuses and penalties.

Darkfall, overall, is NOT a good example of what i (and probably the other guys) want.    

just a certain good aspect of it, may help you got a concrete  idea of the dream, based on an existing game that has made some feeble steps in that direction.

since i know alot of people here have a hard time imagining anything that they haven't personally experienced.

PART of the hug gap between new players and maxed out chars, is that there is horizontal progression as well, COMBINED with all that vertical.   not only are the vets better at swords, they are better at bows, magic, jumping, running, sprinting, taking much longer to run out of stamina, & air (when swimming), mana, hitpoints (200 versus 450), etc, etc.   they also have all the magic schools (versus just 2 or 3 spells a new player has), and most of those spells are WAY more powerful (not just different) than the starter spells.

their progression is long in both dimensions.  

horizontally AND vertically.    exponentially worse.  how would you tweak Darkfall to make it be what i'm looking for?

get rid of the vertical alltogether, or make it extremely short.  

instead of getting more powerful spells, you just get more utility and more ways to disperse the same amount of damage over time.  just in different ways.  

a starter damage spell focuses it all in one projectile (100 damage for example), while a later earned spell lets you fire a shotgun like spray of 10 (each projectile doing 10 damage for example).

Yeap. Indeed Skill progression, like in Darkfall or for that Example UO too is vertical progression. You do more damage or hit more often with higher Skill level is vertical progression. They did it, to prevent that you could access all skills instantly, and you have to do something to avoid it. And one way is to build in another layer of vertical progression(to make some skill more efficient) into the horizontal progression, to enforce some time investment.

And there also is the problem of horizontal progression only. You have to do something, that not everyone could get any available skill(horizontal progression) instantly. DFO and UO solved it with vertical progression in every skill. In EvE they solved it with real time gain of skill points. In other games you got Level, and get skill points for every level. But as much as i know there is no game with horizontal progression only, at least i cant remember one.

But a decent amount of vertical progression is not really a problem, the problem comes with a deep progression like in most games nowadays. The vertical progression of UO was never that deep, but the grind to gm a skill was horrid in early UO, but they reduced it over time extremely.

The EvE way with real time gain of skill point is maybe not the worst(maybe even the best) how to do progression, it avoids useless grinding, but also avoids that everyone get everything instantly. But the truth is i dont know the perfect way how to do progression, but that is more or less independent from the question about vertical vs. horizontal progression.

But isnt this topic rather off-topic? Ok, i started it.. but nevertheless.

PS:

And my last example(bear) may be not the best, but i guess you got what i wanted to say. In horizontal progression erstwhile dangerous or impossible tasks become easy, because of obtained knowledge, and a variety of skills to help you solving the task. (as i would give you 10 other examples how to beat the bear with complete different skills and approaches)

Edit: @corpusc: absolutly agree. or better said a good explanation of horizontal progression against vertical.

There is a fundamental difference between disagreeing and not understanding.

Originally posted by Cuathon

There is a fundamental difference between disagreeing and not understanding.

 

Originally posted by RefMinor

Originally posted by Cuathon

There is a fundamental difference between disagreeing and not understanding.

 

 

Not on the GW2 forums there isn't.

/like

I mean, they think i don't understand horizontal progression, and I think THEY don't understand it. Kinda hard to get around. Plus I LIKE vertical progression.

Well, the whole point is to eliminate the thing where level 80's can totally dominate level 40's, and all the other formulas.

You still want vertical progression, just not to that degree.

If you take WoW, reduce the huge damage gains per level (and hit points), then the new abilities become what many think of as horizontal progression. Of course you'd have to look at the effects of those new abilities (special attack moves, new spells, whatever) and make sure they are balanced with that too.

The point is that players do like advancement. WoW and other EQ clones make that advancement BIG so as to make it more exciting and to hook the players. In this sort of game, that needs to be replaced with other "excitements". And there's plenty of new things to do and play that can be included in this more social sort of game. Economics, multiplayer endeavors (city building, cults, trade partnerships, etc.), rare items (Hope Diamond, ancient relics, gilded statues), territorial control, etc.

And you can also have events like a "march of the undead" or a dragon attack that isn't only for a level range.

Originally posted by Amaranthar

Well, the whole point is to eliminate the thing where level 80's can totally dominate level 40's, and all the other formulas.

You still want vertical progression, just not to that degree.

If you take WoW, reduce the huge damage gains per level (and hit points), then the new abilities become what many think of as horizontal progression. Of course you'd have to look at the effects of those new abilities (special attack moves, new spells, whatever) and make sure they are balanced with that too.

The point is that players do like advancement. WoW and other EQ clones make that advancement BIG so as to make it more exciting and to hook the players. In this sort of game, that needs to be replaced with other "excitements". And there's plenty of new things to do and play that can be included in this more social sort of game. Economics, multiplayer endeavors (city building, cults, trade partnerships, etc.), rare items (Hope Diamond, ancient relics, gilded statues), territorial control, etc.

And you can also have events like a "march of the undead" or a dragon attack that isn't only for a level range.

You still haven't explained why you can't have those same events without a level range for the current level of vertical progression though.

Also if you understand economics at all you realize that the equivalent to vertical progression in economics is even more gap creating than themepark mmo leveling systems. Competitive economics would be like WoW style level progression with no level cap, but worse. Look at EvE. That dude in the titan is gonna fuck up you and your 9 friends in tier 2 battleships.

And even if you reduce the vertical curve, thats not horizontal progression thats just less vertical progression and a level 80 is still going to pwn a level 40. Maybe you can take him down with 3 level 40s working together. But thats still not horizontal or skill based, its just you zerging him but needing a smaller zerg than before.

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by Amaranthar

Well, the whole point is to eliminate the thing where level 80's can totally dominate level 40's, and all the other formulas.

You still want vertical progression, just not to that degree.

If you take WoW, reduce the huge damage gains per level (and hit points), then the new abilities become what many think of as horizontal progression. Of course you'd have to look at the effects of those new abilities (special attack moves, new spells, whatever) and make sure they are balanced with that too.

The point is that players do like advancement. WoW and other EQ clones make that advancement BIG so as to make it more exciting and to hook the players. In this sort of game, that needs to be replaced with other "excitements". And there's plenty of new things to do and play that can be included in this more social sort of game. Economics, multiplayer endeavors (city building, cults, trade partnerships, etc.), rare items (Hope Diamond, ancient relics, gilded statues), territorial control, etc.

And you can also have events like a "march of the undead" or a dragon attack that isn't only for a level range.

You still haven't explained why you can't have those same events without a level range for the current level of vertical progression though.

Also if you understand economics at all you realize that the equivalent to vertical progression in economics is even more gap creating than themepark mmo leveling systems. Competitive economics would be like WoW style level progression with no level cap, but worse. Look at EvE. That dude in the titan is gonna fuck up you and your 9 friends in tier 2 battleships.

And even if you reduce the vertical curve, thats not horizontal progression thats just less vertical progression and a level 80 is still going to pwn a level 40. Maybe you can take him down with 3 level 40s working together. But thats still not horizontal or skill based, its just you zerging him but needing a smaller zerg than before.

You can have those same events. But they are for only those level groups. The whole point is to bring players together in one world, to play together if not as equals then as viable and to some degree effective.

Otherwise, you can't have a Sandbox World.

Moreover, you have to start segregating that world into zones per levels ala WoW. Or the alternative of throwing out the character's advancements and artificially making them "the same" when they happen to be working together, which in my opinion isn't good either as you lose "identity" for the characters (I mean, why even have levels at all in that case?).

Originally posted by Amaranthar

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by Amaranthar

Well, the whole point is to eliminate the thing where level 80's can totally dominate level 40's, and all the other formulas.

You still want vertical progression, just not to that degree.

If you take WoW, reduce the huge damage gains per level (and hit points), then the new abilities become what many think of as horizontal progression. Of course you'd have to look at the effects of those new abilities (special attack moves, new spells, whatever) and make sure they are balanced with that too.

The point is that players do like advancement. WoW and other EQ clones make that advancement BIG so as to make it more exciting and to hook the players. In this sort of game, that needs to be replaced with other "excitements". And there's plenty of new things to do and play that can be included in this more social sort of game. Economics, multiplayer endeavors (city building, cults, trade partnerships, etc.), rare items (Hope Diamond, ancient relics, gilded statues), territorial control, etc.

And you can also have events like a "march of the undead" or a dragon attack that isn't only for a level range.

You still haven't explained why you can't have those same events without a level range for the current level of vertical progression though.

Also if you understand economics at all you realize that the equivalent to vertical progression in economics is even more gap creating than themepark mmo leveling systems. Competitive economics would be like WoW style level progression with no level cap, but worse. Look at EvE. That dude in the titan is gonna fuck up you and your 9 friends in tier 2 battleships.

And even if you reduce the vertical curve, thats not horizontal progression thats just less vertical progression and a level 80 is still going to pwn a level 40. Maybe you can take him down with 3 level 40s working together. But thats still not horizontal or skill based, its just you zerging him but needing a smaller zerg than before.

You can have those same events. But they are for only those level groups. The whole point is to bring players together in one world, to play together if not as equals then as viable and to some degree effective.

Otherwise, you can't have a Sandbox World.

Moreover, you have to start segregating that world into zones per levels ala WoW. Or the alternative of throwing out the character's advancements and artificially making them "the same" when they happen to be working together, which in my opinion isn't good either as you lose "identity" for the characters (I mean, why even have levels at all in that case?).

Oh, and as to economics, I answered this in another post. I'll look it up and post the quote here shortly.

Edit to add the quote:

Originally posted by Amaranthar

Originally posted by anemo

(snip)

So I'm asking you as players what balance you expect.

I think "balance" should mean a system where the game doesn't fall into a single "king of the hill". Or at least makes it so that maintaining that "king" status is so involved that it can't be done forever.

The way I would go about it is to add an "expense" in serval ways to maintaining territory, or conquests. Ideally, you want to inject player politics in this. The reason for that is to add incentive for "subjects" to break off from the "king".

And to do that, you need to infuse a need for these "subjects", while also adding incentives to either stay or go for these subjects. Think of it as a 2-way trade (of anything, preferably multiple things such as money, trade agreements, taxes, power) between the "king" (which might be an individual or entire guild) and many "subjects" (which might be individuals or entire guilds, preferably both).

Basically, you want conquests to stretch the conquerer thin, forcing alliances with outsiders to maintain what was conquered.

The same thing can be done with economics.

But I'd also add that you don't want to completely eliminate the ability of some players to become "richer" than others. What you want to do is make them work for maintaining it, and add a need to work with others to do that.