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?).

I am not sure you get the point. You can have a monster event that is open to all players, even if some players are much more powerful. Weaker players can still be useful. The level of vertical progression possible doesn't have anything to do with events. Events being restricted to a particular level are an entirely separate themepark abomination.

Lets say that in theory a particular random event randomly happens to have a danger level so that you can fight it with 10 characters or arbitrary power level X. In a sandbox there is no reason you cannot fight this event with 20 characters of arbitrary power level X/2. Or 5 of X and 10 of X/2. Or 40 of X/4.

You might not be able to win with 5 players of X/2, or even 10. But that doesn't mean players of X/2 cannot participate.

Indeed one could fight also with a player of power level X*10 if one wanted. Or you could have 10 players with power level X*infinity. Maybe the fight is way too easy for them but they want to practice microing a small group of golems because they just learned how to make them and aren't used to microing or even setting default orders.

The fact that one of these players could in theory fight an infinite number of players of power level X has no effect on whether players of any power level can assist in defeating the monster event.

Because sandbox.

The existence of vertical progression is totally separate from limiting group sizes to gate content to a specific level.

Originally posted by Amaranthar

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

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.

That has nothing to do with the vertical progression of economics or of character skills. That is a way of imposing a mediating force to mitigate the effects of vertial progression in whatever area. Vertical progression is still massive and present.

Originally posted by Cuathon

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.

 

These are good points, and obviously a game can't be implemented with the same style of magic.

However the point about horizontal progression still stands. If all cards in magic were balanced relative to each other, you could still have powerful "combos" that only become accessible once you've obtained enough cards.

The reasonable power difference between low and high levels is achievable through vertical progression (though no one does it this way). I see the advantages of horizontal progression as adding a new dimension of strategy and trial and error to the game, especially if it's a PvP game.

In regards to getting access to new materials, it would be different than upgrading old materials, so long as the new materials provide a different function. For instance, if you gain the ability to work with star metal you gain the new ability to make weapons that do extra damage to demons (or something). If this was your initial plan for upgraded materials, then this was horizontal progression all along. :)

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by Amaranthar

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

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.

That has nothing to do with the vertical progression of economics or of character skills. That is a way of imposing a mediating force to mitigate the effects of vertial progression in whatever area. Vertical progression is still massive and present.

It has everything to do with it. The top dog is sharing the wealth in his efforts to get richer. This is how societies are formed and cities are built. And that is the incentive I want to see in a Sandbox World.

Originally posted by Cuathon

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?).

I am not sure you get the point. You can have a monster event that is open to all players, even if some players are much more powerful. Weaker players can still be useful. The level of vertical progression possible doesn't have anything to do with events. Events being restricted to a particular level are an entirely separate themepark abomination.

Lets say that in theory a particular random event randomly happens to have a danger level so that you can fight it with 10 characters or arbitrary power level X. In a sandbox there is no reason you cannot fight this event with 20 characters of arbitrary power level X/2. Or 5 of X and 10 of X/2. Or 40 of X/4.

You might not be able to win with 5 players of X/2, or even 10. But that doesn't mean players of X/2 cannot participate.

Indeed one could fight also with a player of power level X*10 if one wanted. Or you could have 10 players with power level X*infinity. Maybe the fight is way too easy for them but they want to practice microing a small group of golems because they just learned how to make them and aren't used to microing or even setting default orders.

The fact that one of these players could in theory fight an infinite number of players of power level X has no effect on whether players of any power level can assist in defeating the monster event.

Because sandbox.

The existence of vertical progression is totally separate from limiting group sizes to gate content to a specific level.

But by limiting and gating, you are in effect taking out meaning. You're trying to make all things equal. That's where boredom starts to set in. The only difference is that that group of gryphons looks different than that Ancient Dragon.  And they look different "just the same" to Group A of 20 players and Group B of 5.

Originally posted by Amaranthar

Originally posted by Cuathon

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?).

I am not sure you get the point. You can have a monster event that is open to all players, even if some players are much more powerful. Weaker players can still be useful. The level of vertical progression possible doesn't have anything to do with events. Events being restricted to a particular level are an entirely separate themepark abomination.

Lets say that in theory a particular random event randomly happens to have a danger level so that you can fight it with 10 characters or arbitrary power level X. In a sandbox there is no reason you cannot fight this event with 20 characters of arbitrary power level X/2. Or 5 of X and 10 of X/2. Or 40 of X/4.

You might not be able to win with 5 players of X/2, or even 10. But that doesn't mean players of X/2 cannot participate.

Indeed one could fight also with a player of power level X*10 if one wanted. Or you could have 10 players with power level X*infinity. Maybe the fight is way too easy for them but they want to practice microing a small group of golems because they just learned how to make them and aren't used to microing or even setting default orders.

The fact that one of these players could in theory fight an infinite number of players of power level X has no effect on whether players of any power level can assist in defeating the monster event.

Because sandbox.

The existence of vertical progression is totally separate from limiting group sizes to gate content to a specific level.

But by limiting and gating, you are in effect taking out meaning. You're trying to make all things equal. That's where boredom starts to set in. The only difference is that that group of gryphons looks different than that Ancient Dragon.  And they look different "just the same" to Group A of 20 players and Group B of 5.

Now I just have no idea what you are talking about. I am against group size limits and gating content based on levels.

The rest of your post I am not sure what you are even referring too? What have gryphons and ancient dragons got to do with anything.

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by Amaranthar

Originally posted by Cuathon

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?).

I am not sure you get the point. You can have a monster event that is open to all players, even if some players are much more powerful. Weaker players can still be useful. The level of vertical progression possible doesn't have anything to do with events. Events being restricted to a particular level are an entirely separate themepark abomination.

Lets say that in theory a particular random event randomly happens to have a danger level so that you can fight it with 10 characters or arbitrary power level X. In a sandbox there is no reason you cannot fight this event with 20 characters of arbitrary power level X/2. Or 5 of X and 10 of X/2. Or 40 of X/4.

You might not be able to win with 5 players of X/2, or even 10. But that doesn't mean players of X/2 cannot participate.

Indeed one could fight also with a player of power level X*10 if one wanted. Or you could have 10 players with power level X*infinity. Maybe the fight is way too easy for them but they want to practice microing a small group of golems because they just learned how to make them and aren't used to microing or even setting default orders.

The fact that one of these players could in theory fight an infinite number of players of power level X has no effect on whether players of any power level can assist in defeating the monster event.

Because sandbox.

The existence of vertical progression is totally separate from limiting group sizes to gate content to a specific level.

But by limiting and gating, you are in effect taking out meaning. You're trying to make all things equal. That's where boredom starts to set in. The only difference is that that group of gryphons looks different than that Ancient Dragon.  And they look different "just the same" to Group A of 20 players and Group B of 5.

Now I just have no idea what you are talking about. I am against group size limits and gating content based on levels.

The rest of your post I am not sure what you are even referring too? What have gryphons and ancient dragons got to do with anything.

Well, I too have no idea what you mean. Maybe if you explained to me how you'd design this.

Lets put a WoW level 80 together with a WoW level 40, out exploring the world. How do you handle various encounters with various levels and numbers of MOBs?

Originally posted by Amaranthar

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by Amaranthar

Originally posted by Cuathon

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?).

I am not sure you get the point. You can have a monster event that is open to all players, even if some players are much more powerful. Weaker players can still be useful. The level of vertical progression possible doesn't have anything to do with events. Events being restricted to a particular level are an entirely separate themepark abomination.

Lets say that in theory a particular random event randomly happens to have a danger level so that you can fight it with 10 characters or arbitrary power level X. In a sandbox there is no reason you cannot fight this event with 20 characters of arbitrary power level X/2. Or 5 of X and 10 of X/2. Or 40 of X/4.

You might not be able to win with 5 players of X/2, or even 10. But that doesn't mean players of X/2 cannot participate.

Indeed one could fight also with a player of power level X*10 if one wanted. Or you could have 10 players with power level X*infinity. Maybe the fight is way too easy for them but they want to practice microing a small group of golems because they just learned how to make them and aren't used to microing or even setting default orders.

The fact that one of these players could in theory fight an infinite number of players of power level X has no effect on whether players of any power level can assist in defeating the monster event.

Because sandbox.

The existence of vertical progression is totally separate from limiting group sizes to gate content to a specific level.

But by limiting and gating, you are in effect taking out meaning. You're trying to make all things equal. That's where boredom starts to set in. The only difference is that that group of gryphons looks different than that Ancient Dragon.  And they look different "just the same" to Group A of 20 players and Group B of 5.

Now I just have no idea what you are talking about. I am against group size limits and gating content based on levels.

The rest of your post I am not sure what you are even referring too? What have gryphons and ancient dragons got to do with anything.

Well, I too have no idea what you mean. Maybe if you explained to me how you'd design this.

Lets put a WoW level 80 together with a WoW level 40, out exploring the world. How do you handle various encounters with various levels and numbers of MOBs?

Well since I am talking about sandboxes I don't "handle" it at all. The game generates the monsters and they do what they do. Its up to the players where they go and what monsters they fight.

Originally posted by Cuathon

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.

That makes no sense.

If it is a RPG, it has health, attack power, and what-not. Unless levels and xp has NO impact, you have to have *some* VP because the numbers will change (usually bigger when you have more xp .. whether it is a level or a skill).

Each area, depending on the density of mobs, and their strength, has a difficulty. Sure, you can dynamically CHANGE its diffiulty, but there is one nevertheless. At a particular point in time, the area is suitable for say L50. Yes, you can bring your L10 friend, but either:

a) levels does not matter and he is as effective as a L50, or

b) levels matter, and he can't really help ... just tagging along, and there is no reason to bring him.

YOu cannot have it both ways. Either xp and playing has very little effect (thus, NOT a RPG), or there is no way to balance the content (dynamically or not) for both toons with high and low power.

Originally posted by Cuathon

 

Well since I am talking about sandboxes I don't "handle" it at all. The game generates the monsters and they do what they do. Its up to the players where they go and what monsters they fight.

That is such a cop out.

What happened when all your players complain the game is generated monsters that are too weak and too few, and they are sick of camping rabbits? You tell them "do what you need to do"?

VWRPG is a good starting point I think, but it's too vague, it could be applied to a variety of games. Additionally, there is no specific idea that people can cling to in indentifying what a "virtual world" is. I'm sure there are quite a few which would label Second Life as a virtual world, and it's clear that is not what you (the OP) are trying to refrence. Also, some people might identify Second Life as a roleplaying game.

Because of this, I think the real bone of contention is the confusion in regards to what 'roleplaying' is, because it is such a relative term. Some beleive that roleplaying requires the existence of a linear narative, where others see it as a personal freedom to do what they wish within the confines of the world, and still yet there are those who verbally and visually embody every nuance of their character's persona. Specifically, themepark advocates adhere to the linear narative and feel lost without it, whereas the 'sandbox' advocate generally abhores linearity and the existence of an over-arching story altogether. Because of these varying ideals and opinions adding "RPG" to the end of the acronym no longer serves the purpose it once did. It is no longer adequate to simply state that a game is a 'roleplaying' game, therefore, maybe they shouldn't be included?

Simply throwing out acronymns may never be sufficient to isolate a specific sub-genre from it's parent genre, at least not without a lot of educating (marketing) in regards to the exact specfiics of what a potential acronymn means. There will always be games that can't fit into a specific sub-genre, however the following might be good starting candidates;

MMORPG - Should be Eliminated (This acronymn has ceased to provide any clarity in regards to features or specifics, and because of such should be eliminated.)

MMO - Should be Eliminated (This acronym is just a simplified form of MMORPG, and as such fails to provide any clarity either, and because of such should be eliminated.)

MMOG (Massively Multiplayer Online Game) - Semi-New (Generalized category for games which feature a large multipler environment (e.g., World of Tanks), could offer other features.)

MMOW (Massively Multiplayer Online World) - New (This acronym might be able to provide a more accurate description for games which intend to provide some form of persistence, and are thus differentiated from MMOGs.)

MMORTS - Retained (This acronym is an acurate descriptor for it's intended purpose.)

MMOFPS - Retained (This acronym is an acurate descriptor for it's intended purpose.)

MMOSDW (Massively Multiplayer Online Story Driven World) - New (This acronym might be able to provide a more accurate description for games typically classified as themeparks (e.g., SWTOR), although it doesn't not contain the 'RPG', and thus it does not fall into the problems described above, could offer other features, but should usually include class and level based progression, simple economies, and loot based systems.)

MMOVW (Massively Multiplayer Online Virtual World) - New (This acronym might be able to provide a more accurate description for games typically classified as sandboxes (e.g., SWG), although it doesn't not contain the 'RPG', and thus it does not fall into the problems described above, could offer other features, but should include classles and open skill-based (professions?) progression, player-driven economies, crafting-driven systems.)

MMOPDW (Massively Multiplayer Online Player Driven World) - New (Alternate for MMOVW.)

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Cuathon

 

Well since I am talking about sandboxes I don't "handle" it at all. The game generates the monsters and they do what they do. Its up to the players where they go and what monsters they fight.

That is such a cop out.

What happened when all your players complain the game is generated monsters that are too weak and too few, and they are sick of camping rabbits? You tell them "do what you need to do"?

 

In TTS I would say make a gate and travel to new worlds. I can't speak for someone elses game. If they make a shitty game that can't solve that problem its not my fault.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Cuathon

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.

That makes no sense.

If it is a RPG, it has health, attack power, and what-not. Unless levels and xp has NO impact, you have to have *some* VP because the numbers will change (usually bigger when you have more xp .. whether it is a level or a skill).

Each area, depending on the density of mobs, and their strength, has a difficulty. Sure, you can dynamically CHANGE its diffiulty, but there is one nevertheless. At a particular point in time, the area is suitable for say L50. Yes, you can bring your L10 friend, but either:

a) levels does not matter and he is as effective as a L50, or

b) levels matter, and he can't really help ... just tagging along, and there is no reason to bring him.

YOu cannot have it both ways. Either xp and playing has very little effect (thus, NOT a RPG), or there is no way to balance the content (dynamically or not) for both toons with high and low power.

 

You could give them some traps to set, have them man a ballista or other weapon if there is one, you could form a circle so you can use their mana as if it was yours to cast better spells, I can think of a million more ways in TTS. Again I can't tell you how other games choose to deal with this. Only what I am doing personally.

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Cuathon

 

Well since I am talking about sandboxes I don't "handle" it at all. The game generates the monsters and they do what they do. Its up to the players where they go and what monsters they fight.

That is such a cop out.

What happened when all your players complain the game is generated monsters that are too weak and too few, and they are sick of camping rabbits? You tell them "do what you need to do"?

 

In TTS I would say make a gate and travel to new worlds. I can't speak for someone elses game. If they make a shitty game that can't solve that problem its not my fault.

So? A gate does not solve the balance problem. "Cop out" refers to you ignoring the issue of balance. A gate will not magically make the game easier or harder. Sure, if an area is too hard, everyone fled to another. You have no tools to balance the OTHER area.

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Cuathon

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.

That makes no sense.

If it is a RPG, it has health, attack power, and what-not. Unless levels and xp has NO impact, you have to have *some* VP because the numbers will change (usually bigger when you have more xp .. whether it is a level or a skill).

Each area, depending on the density of mobs, and their strength, has a difficulty. Sure, you can dynamically CHANGE its diffiulty, but there is one nevertheless. At a particular point in time, the area is suitable for say L50. Yes, you can bring your L10 friend, but either:

a) levels does not matter and he is as effective as a L50, or

b) levels matter, and he can't really help ... just tagging along, and there is no reason to bring him.

YOu cannot have it both ways. Either xp and playing has very little effect (thus, NOT a RPG), or there is no way to balance the content (dynamically or not) for both toons with high and low power.

 

You could give them some traps to set, have them man a ballista or other weapon if there is one, you could form a circle so you can use their mana as if it was yours to cast better spells, I can think of a million more ways in TTS. Again I can't tell you how other games choose to deal with this. Only what I am doing personally.

Still does not solve the issue. Trap has power. Ballista or other weapon have power. Either a L10 can wield the SAME weapon as a L50, and so there is no power difference, or he cannot. It does not matter if you can use your mana with others, or whatever mechanics you create. Either a person is effective in combat, or he is not, if you do not scale him with the group.

You are just ignoring design problems, and try to wish it away.

Plus, i doubt u can code "a million ways".

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Cuathon

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.

That makes no sense.

If it is a RPG, it has health, attack power, and what-not. Unless levels and xp has NO impact, you have to have *some* VP because the numbers will change (usually bigger when you have more xp .. whether it is a level or a skill).

Each area, depending on the density of mobs, and their strength, has a difficulty. Sure, you can dynamically CHANGE its diffiulty, but there is one nevertheless. At a particular point in time, the area is suitable for say L50. Yes, you can bring your L10 friend, but either:

a) levels does not matter and he is as effective as a L50, or

b) levels matter, and he can't really help ... just tagging along, and there is no reason to bring him.

YOu cannot have it both ways. Either xp and playing has very little effect (thus, NOT a RPG), or there is no way to balance the content (dynamically or not) for both toons with high and low power.

 

You could give them some traps to set, have them man a ballista or other weapon if there is one, you could form a circle so you can use their mana as if it was yours to cast better spells, I can think of a million more ways in TTS. Again I can't tell you how other games choose to deal with this. Only what I am doing personally.

 

Still does not solve the issue. Trap has power. Ballista or other weapon have power. Either a L10 can wield the SAME weapon as a L50, and so there is no power difference, or he cannot. It does not matter if you can use your mana with others, or whatever mechanics you create. Either a person is effective in combat, or he is not, if you do not scale him with the group.

You are just ignoring design problems, and try to wish it away.

Plus, i doubt u can code "a million ways".

Well see in TTS you CAN wield anything in the game. Anything. Level doesn't matter. Mostly because there are no levels.

However, your character stats and skills might not be as good as a more powerful player, depending on what they spent their time on. Maybe they are much better at various things than you.

Also the way that mana works in TTS having another player supply you mana is a HUGE deal. Now, your friend may not be able to have as large of an effect on a battle as you, but he will have some. Having another player with you is ALWAYS a benefit. Obviously if you have a power level of 1million and he has one of 10000 he isn't a big asset. But he is one. And he can do power level independent things. Like setting traps while you do other stuff. Scrying for other enemies, casting spells that you are too busy to cast. Typically in anything when a really high power level player is working together with lower power level players, the fight is going to be more than 2 people anyways. I dislike always having to explain how its very RTS like.

But if you keep insisting on referring to levels, which don't exist in TTS, you will probably always be trapped in wah wah land where your  thoughts don't apply to TTS.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Cuathon

 

Well since I am talking about sandboxes I don't "handle" it at all. The game generates the monsters and they do what they do. Its up to the players where they go and what monsters they fight.

That is such a cop out.

What happened when all your players complain the game is generated monsters that are too weak and too few, and they are sick of camping rabbits? You tell them "do what you need to do"?

 

In TTS I would say make a gate and travel to new worlds. I can't speak for someone elses game. If they make a shitty game that can't solve that problem its not my fault.

So? A gate does not solve the balance problem. "Cop out" refers to you ignoring the issue of balance. A gate will not magically make the game easier or harder. Sure, if an area is too hard, everyone fled to another. You have no tools to balance the OTHER area.

Why would I? The game is balanced across the whole game, not every single monster encounter. If one area is too hard for you you do other things. And it won't be too hard for some people. As I have said dozens of times, I am far more concerned about areas being too easy, which is why gates are the solution. Because anytime a player travels to a new world for the first time it makes the entire game more difficult. If you run around to 10 other worlds before you were actually prepared it could get you in a lot of trouble by massively increasing the amount of enemies to fight.

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by Apraxis

 

 

Well see in TTS you CAN wield anything in the game. Anything. Level doesn't matter. Mostly because there are no levels.

However, your character stats and skills might not be as good as a more powerful player, depending on what they spent their time on. Maybe they are much better at various things than you.

Also the way that mana works in TTS having another player supply you mana is a HUGE deal. Now, your friend may not be able to have as large of an effect on a battle as you, but he will have some. Having another player with you is ALWAYS a benefit. Obviously if you have a power level of 1million and he has one of 10000 he isn't a big asset.  How does one person have 100 times the power level of another player in a game with "no levels"?But he is one. And he can do power level independent things. Like setting traps while you do other stuff. Scrying for other enemies, casting spells that you are too busy to cast. Typically in anything when a really high power level player is working together with lower power level players, the fight is going to be more than 2 people anyways. I dislike always having to explain how its very RTS like.

But if you keep insisting on referring to levels, which don't exist in TTS, you will probably always be trapped in wah wah land where your  thoughts don't apply to TTS.

It really irks me when people say that their game design doesn't have levels.  It has levels, just because you call them something else, doesn't mean that it's not levels, or effectively the same thing.  UO had levels, Eve has levels, it's just lots (in UO's case) or lots an lots (in Eve's case).

Any MMO that involves PVE is going to need some sort of vertical progression.  Saying that "my game doesn't have much verticle progression, it has horizontal progression" is a red herring.  If you have to play a long time to open game content up, that's verticle progression.  If you do it by opening up a bunch of different skills (buying honey, climbing trees, laying traps) or by increasing the power of the characters - at the end of the day, it is still a progression system which demands the players spend a lot of time playing their character.

But since the idea is for your players to play the game for a long time, neither one is a bad idea.   The problem with the many skills thing is that it makes it much more difficult to implement and balanced, and you still wind up with "optimum builds", and at the end of the day, less player variety than a class and level based game like the original EQ.

Originally posted by Cuathon

The game is balanced across the whole game...

Your game doesn't exist. <--- this is fact, it's an extremely safe bet that the above statement isn't. I am not suggesting that your game won't be built or can't be built, btw.

I'm hoping that I (or others here) can impress upon you that if you really want to create an engaging and balanced game, you need to be somewhat open to what Narius and other helpful posters are offering you, rather than just adamantly repeating that your ideas and your current 'vision' are fine the way they are.

The truth is that you have nothing solved and nothing figured out, and you aren't going to really understand that until you actually have your game in motion and all these issues that people are pointing out are right in front of you. Being a bit more receptive now to the chance that your ideas may need adjustment or may be flawed can save you a heck of a lot of time later.

Many  of your ideas seem to work well for you because you are looking at a single snapshot in time and not taking into consideration how this affects not only the global aspect of the gameplay but how people actually play games. The input from many of the threads here could really help you refine your ideas into working, compelling game content.

Your game doesn't exist, Cuathon. Being a bit more open to alternate ideas and constructive criticism could help you have one heck of a great game when it finally does.

Originally posted by grimfall

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by Apraxis

 

 

Well see in TTS you CAN wield anything in the game. Anything. Level doesn't matter. Mostly because there are no levels.

However, your character stats and skills might not be as good as a more powerful player, depending on what they spent their time on. Maybe they are much better at various things than you.

Also the way that mana works in TTS having another player supply you mana is a HUGE deal. Now, your friend may not be able to have as large of an effect on a battle as you, but he will have some. Having another player with you is ALWAYS a benefit. Obviously if you have a power level of 1million and he has one of 10000 he isn't a big asset.  How does one person have 100 times the power level of another player in a game with "no levels"?But he is one. And he can do power level independent things. Like setting traps while you do other stuff. Scrying for other enemies, casting spells that you are too busy to cast. Typically in anything when a really high power level player is working together with lower power level players, the fight is going to be more than 2 people anyways. I dislike always having to explain how its very RTS like.

But if you keep insisting on referring to levels, which don't exist in TTS, you will probably always be trapped in wah wah land where your  thoughts don't apply to TTS.

It really irks me when people say that their game design doesn't have levels.  It has levels, just because you call them something else, doesn't mean that it's not levels, or effectively the same thing.  UO had levels, Eve has levels, it's just lots (in UO's case) or lots an lots (in Eve's case).

Any MMO that involves PVE is going to need some sort of vertical progression.  Saying that "my game doesn't have much verticle progression, it has horizontal progression" is a red herring.  If you have to play a long time to open game content up, that's verticle progression.  If you do it by opening up a bunch of different skills (buying honey, climbing trees, laying traps) or by increasing the power of the characters - at the end of the day, it is still a progression system which demands the players spend a lot of time playing their character.

But since the idea is for your players to play the game for a long time, neither one is a bad idea.   The problem with the many skills thing is that it makes it much more difficult to implement and balanced, and you still wind up with "optimum builds", and at the end of the day, less player variety than a class and level based game like the original EQ.

Level means something special aside from just vertical progression. Players who are used to levels have problems thinking outside of that box, even if we want to say that skills are equivalent to levels.

Level games are typically associated with group size caps for instance.