The fun part is when you sit on their toons face and say "Haha, I pwned joo noob!" and then they say "(**&&%^ you, you ()&)&)&&&^%^ f^&&07!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I hate you, you ^%$## anbd you can go (@#$%^ your *@$%^&!!!!!!!

WAR sucked. It had to many instanced areas to make a good RvR game.

DAoC is the first good RvR game, and no one to my knowledge has made a good RvR game since.

In DAoC you had battle grounds, but they were just training for the end game RvR. You leveled out of them.

Once you reached a certain level, you couldn't go into a battle ground that was to low level for you and crush lower level characters. PLUS, the battle grounds were pretty much open world, for all players in that level range. Not just an instance of 6 vs 6 or something  like that, so it did not take away from open world PvP.

Eventually you reached end game (Max level) and there was open world PvP. No instances, but "Frontiers" that all players could enter into, and PvP.

There was an advantage to winning, you control so many forts, and you gain access to Darkness Falls for your faction, a cool dungeon with good XP and loot.

It was 3 factions, so two factions could gang up on 1 to offset any advantage if one faction got to strong. WAR had two factions, which sucks. Odd numbered factions are the way to go. 3, 5, 7, etc. OR, player made factions like EVE, but no one has figured out how to do the EVE model on the ground instead of space.

Why isn't anyone making a good RvR game?

Originally posted by Adamantine

Originally posted by Teilo

Originally posted by Sulaa

Well I don't think group size is what really matters , but how content is made. What do I mean by that?

 

Let's say you have two games. 

 

One standard group size is 6 , second has standard group size 5.

 

What is easier to get? well 5 obviously.

 

But game nr. 1 has alot of content (groups , instances) made for smaller groups (like 3 or 4 ppl size groups) apart of content for full groups of 6.

 

Game nr. 2 , has almost all content made for full size groups only (or solo).

 

So it might be lot easier to group in game nr. 1 even though on first sight game nr. 2 is easier to find cause standard size is smaller.

 

 

Just my 2 cents

I wish more games went the City of Heroes route.

it doesn't matter if you solo a mission or go in with a full team of 8, the thing scales up, so it can always be a challenge - there's even a difficulty setting where you can say I'm going to solo this mission, but I want it to spawn as though I were a full team.

Now thats too diablo for me.

I prefer the Vanguard approach - theres different content, some can be done solo, some can be done with 2 people, some can be done with 3 and more (i.e. 1 tank, 1 healer, n dps), some need really good full group (1 tank 2 healer 2 dps 1 bard) and some need a raidforce.

 

I agree. Scaling is very "gamey" and feels less RPG to me.

Also in a game like Vangaurd, you migh need at least 4 players at least level 12, but 2 players of level 15 can handle it also.

The point is the dungeon is X difficulty, and you must be X strength to overcome it. That's a cool challenge, and makes it feel more like a world that is dangerous, and like your character gets more powerful either in numbers (bigger group) or in levels.

As opposed to, be any group size, any level, we'll just adjust the dungeon so you can win. That feels very meh, to me.

Originally posted by Adamantine

Originally posted by Hyanmen

Less is more.

I cant believe you.

A guy wants to play with 7 friends - and THATS what you tell him ?

Send some of his friends away because "less is more" ?

 

the other problem is, IMO, you need extra room in a group so there can be an overlap of players joining and leaving.

Like a good group is say, 6 players. You can do really cool content, and make great XP.

But if you're full, then one player can't join till one player leaves. It's hard enough to find groups, why make it harder?

If the total group size is larger than the optimum group size for good content and xp, then players can come and go in the group fewer problems.

There can be an overlap as one player joins, and another players is getting ready to leave in a few minutes, without forcing one to leave for another to join.

For example, take SWTOR.

if the optimal group size for content and xp is 4, then the total group size should be 6.

That let's players join, and leave, while still maintaining a group of 4.

Otherwise, if total size is 4, then someone leaves, you're down to 3, then you have to look for one more.

If it's 6, then maybe you're 5 one can leave, you're still good with 4, one can join you're 5 again, one can leave at any time, you're still 4, 2 more can join you're 6, two can leave at any time, you're still good with at least 4,  and so forth.

It's much more flexible for maintaining groups when there's room for players to join and leave while still maintaining an optimal group size. 

Originally posted by Adamantine

Uh hu.

What you're obviously missing is the fact that WoW is already losing subscriptions in the USA and Europe. They clearly admitted so recently... that thread must be still around here, somewhere, "WoW hasnt reached its peak yet" or something like that.

And they never would have managed their numbers without the help of their success in China, anyway.

I read 60% of MMO players want F2P - that means 40% want P2P.

(Nobody complains about B2P, though, and GW2 might be actually the first game that manages that - even if I still expect GW2 to have an item shop, just like GW1 had)

 

but of the 60% wanting F2P only a certain number of those players count, the ones actually spending money in the cash shops.

Games are not free to develop, and it's not free to run the servers. SOMEONE has to pay or the game will go under. ALL those 60% are not paying, they just want to play. SOME of those 60% can't pay, they don't even have the money to buy items if they wanted to. They just bounce from F2P to F2P, playing the first part of the game, until they get to the part that turns really grindy and you need xp potions or items from the cash shop.

I think it's more accurate to compare the percentage that want F2P and ARE ACTUALLY SPENDING MONEY IN THE CASH SHOP, to those that pay a SUBSCRIPTION FEE>

The truly "Free" players don't count, since developers don't make any money off of them.

Originally posted by squeaky1

As an avid SWG fan, I have been very unhappy with SOE over the last several years.  That being said, and with all of the Smed bashing going on, it seems that maybe he's not so dumb as many people think.

http://www.isuppli.com/Media-Research/News/Pages/PC-Multiplayer-Online-Games-Subscription-Revenue-Declines-as-Microtransactions-Take-Hold.aspx

People here need to face reality.  As much as you may hate it, micro-transactions are here to stay.

The reality is WoW.

As long as WoW collects subscriptions, the reality is P2P is alive and well.

If WoW falters, IMO, some other company will take advantage of that market and the P2P players that are willing to pay a subscription.

More people like potatos (and potato chips) than brussel sprouts. Why don't all farmers quit growing brussel sprouts and plant potatos instead?

Because some people DO like brussel sprouts, and some farmer WILL take that money.

As long as there are players that prefer subscription based games instead of cash shops, some Developer WILL take that money.

And it's not chump change either. WoW does pretty good. If WoW goes F2P, that leaves a big market for someone to jump into and take advantage of the players that like Subscription based games instead of cash shops.

I don't think anyone cares about vanity items. It doesn't change the game.

But xp potions, rings of +1 mana, boots of speed, anything that has in game stats, well, some people prefer a game where every player has to earn them and cannot buy them.

Some developer will probably be glad to take money from those players.

Obviously  a P2P model alone will not do it. You ALSO have to make a good game, but that goes for the F2P games as well. No one is going to buy items in a really really bad F2P game either.

DAoC had a max group size of 8. It worked very well and was a lot of fun.

6 is a good group, with room for 2 more.

What's great about that is forming groups that last, so players can come and go.

Your healer has to leave in 15 minutes. With a  group size of 8, no problem. You can let another healer join NOW if you're not full, and then the other healer can leave later with no real disruption.

With a group of 6, you'd have to say, sorry, we're full, then the healer wanting to join runs off somewhere else, then the healer in your group leaves, then you're looking for a new healer, etc.

It also encourages you to let those dual class players join. So what if you're not full tank, or full dps? Maybe you're a hybrid tank/dps. No problem with an 8 member group. We already have a full tank and a full dps, so the more the merrier.

PLUS DAoC gave you a bonus in XP for a full group. So adding another player was a Bonus! So what if we don't REALLY need another DPS? We get a bonus in XP if you join, so come on in!

That's the way to do it, IMO.

Both the PC and the Console are coming to an end. We just need 1gbps internet speeds, and we can move to the cloud.

Then you just need a display device. Something capable of streaming, which very CPU or GPU intensive.

The games will be on a server, and at 1gbps you won't feel any lag at all. Plug in a mouse and keyboard, or a controller, or whatever depending on the game.

Do you believe in the invisible hand fo teh free market?

"the term economists use to describe the self-regulating nature of the marketplace."

It basically means, if there are not enough apples, the price for apples will go up. Farmers will see that the market is paying a high price for apples, so they will grow more apples to satisfy the demand. If they grow to many apples, then the price will go down, until they can't make a profit selling apples.

Then, farmers will quit growing apples. In which case the price will go up...

So with competition and market forces, eventually you reach an equilibrum where apples are being priced at what people can afford, and what makes farmers a profit.

The market will decide how many apples get grown, adn what price people will pay for them.

Does this apply to MMORPGs? Are people complaining about the developers, when really it's just the market determining what gets produced? Have developers really figured out what MMROPG players are willing to pay for, and they are already providing it?

In that case, what the market wants is F2P games, and WoW. Plus a few other P2P games, but not many.

Or do you think it's so much harder to make a good MMORPG than grow an apple, that the market is not able to respond quickly to the demand? That there is a market for something besides WoW and F2P games, but developers havent' figured out how to make it yet?

Originally posted by quentin405

 I am totally for it.  To keep it fair I would say the cash shop should be ONLY cosmetic items and maybe some health potions or something..

 

Which one? Only cosmetic, or items with stats?

Selling a plus one sword, or a health potion isn't much of a difference. You're fighting a mob. It has one hit point left and you have one hit point left. It's the mobs turn to swing.

Whether you buy a plus 1 sword, or you drank a health potion that gave you 1 more hit point, the outcome is the same. You win, when you would have lost, by paying cash.

If you like that, fine.

But how can you compare "cosmetic" to a health potion?

I will not play a game that has a cash shop that sells items that have stats. If they items do anything, except change looks, I won't play the game. Weapons, armor, items taht increase mana, xp potions, if it changes a stat and you can buy it with real life cash, I won't play.

If it's a pet dragon that has no stats adn all you can do is look at it, or a pair of high heels that have no stats, I don't care.

If someone else wants to play a game with a cash shop that sells items that have in game stats, that's fine. Whatever people enjoy is fine with me.

I can understand the desire for a game that's trying to mirror reality in medieval arms and armor, but that doesn't really interest me.

For me, the game is the determinant of what is light, heavy, gives more protection, etc. much more so than any real life comparison.

Come on. There are dragons and healing potions and spells that let you fly and all sorts of stuff that has no correlation to the real world .

Who's to say the plate mail in such a world is light, heavy, or gives this protection or that? I'm happy letting the world designers make those desicsions, and then making decisions about my character accordingly.

If they want to tell me that plate is lighter that chain, or heavier than chain, fine with me. Usually there's 10 kinds of chain and 10 kinds of plate anyway.

Chain Mail level 10 ight be vastly superior to Plate Male level 1, or vice a versa. There's usually some magic involved as well in the upper levels.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hv6RbEOlqRo

This is a simple feature to implement. It should be in all next gen MMORPGs.

Originally posted by ArcheAge

Simple really.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing_game

That's paper and pencil, which is different from Computer.

Role-playing video game

Role-playing video games (commonly referred to as role-playing games or RPGs) is a video game genre with origins in pen-and-paper role-playing games^[1] such as Dungeons & Dragons, using much of the same terminology, settings and game mechanics. The player in RPGs controls one character, or several adventuring party members, fulfilling one or many quests. The major similarities with pen-and-paper games involve developed story-telling and narrative elements, player character development, complexity, as well as replayability and immersion. Electronic medium removes the necessity for a gamemaster and increases combat resolution speed. RPGs have evolved from simple text-based console-window games into visually rich 3D experiences.

You'll notice there's nothing about playing a role. Instead there is "character development". \

Paper and Pencil RPG = acting out a role.

Computer RPG = Character development with stats and gear.

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by ActionMMORPG

Part of MMORPG design (themepark) is to convey a player experienced storyline.

One mechanic to do so is quest text.  A crisis befalls the NPC and the character is expected to resolve the crisis in exchange for reward.  The crisis events chain together and present a story that the player experiences.

Problem is, quest text is generally very wordy and at the same time the player is under pressure to move quickly to maximize progression versus time.  The end result being that people don't read quest text if it's possible to skip it.  Just tell me how many rats to kill, or where I am supposed to take this letter, etc.  I'm not bashing this.  I haven't read quest text since my Druid hit 15 or so in the Barrens during Vanilla.  It became waste of time.

So without quest text how can a story be presented?  Some games (GW for exaple) use voiceover and in-game character animation.  Another along the same lines would be CG animated cut scenes that play fullscreen or in a quest dialog window.  I have to wonder how often these get skipped.

What else is there that can be used?

Not reading the quest text isn't necessarily a bad thing. Not every player is interested in the developer's story. For most players, the develoiper's story is irrelevant to both their character and them as a player. In that light, changing where or how it is relayed will not change the amount of attention paid to it.

Increasing the relevance of your themepark's story to the player's experience increases the level that it engages and entertains the player.  Now, in most MMOs, the player cannot change the story or impact the game world, so how does one change the relevance?

Branching Storylines - if the players know their decisions will lead to different outcomes they will follow the story to work toward the end they want. For example, put two levers at the end of a quest with a witch tied to the table between them, and players will walk back to the NPC at the entrance to re-read that quest text juuust to double check. :) The two main reasons devs don't take this approach are that web walkthroughs can often negate the exploratory aspects of the branched quest gameplay and if a player completes a questline with Rewrd A because of their choices but wants Reward B, it can result in a negative gaming experience and sometimes in a petition for reset/change.

Player Behaviour Tracking - If a system logs where the player has been or what he has done/seen, quest content and environment actions can be changed to move the story along for the player in an engaging way.  Not to be confused with phasing, the approach here was seen in a very simple manner with Ultima Online and current day LOTRO in how NPCs react to players who completed certain tasks. The biggest problem with bartender rumors, proximity shouts by NPCs and the like is that they can easily get missed by the player.  This type of mechanic works best as an enhancement to a system and not the primary method of disseminating relevant storyline info.

CREATE A MORE DYNAMIC GAMEWORLD - Part of the problem is that the worlds and the quests in almost every themepark MMO are static. The WOW of today is no different from the WOW of six or seven years ago. How many people have told Mankrik so far about his wife being ass-up in the mud down the road? Has a single territory line changed? Is there any fear of Orgrimmar falling to the enemy? Or even fear of losing the trivial little dives of Kargath or Razor Hill? The story in 2004 is still the same in 2011. There's no need to read the quest text becausde the world has not changed.

If the players cannot affect the game world then one other option would be to progress the game world forward  so that people will want to read content that tells them what has progressed and changed. Asheron's Call did this. The world story moved forward each month and players would seek out the new information through a variety of means:

• Town Criers and comments by various NPCs
• New 'rumors' in taverns and libraries
• The intro story that was posted before the patch came out
• Seeking out the new quests and items that were going in

Whether the players were diving into this content in game or hitting up sites like Maggie the Jackcat's site for it, many were eagerly getting up to speed on the newest advances in the in-game story to one degree or another.

 

The goal is to make the story relevant to your players. Once they have a want to look for storyline info, you now have a wide range of ways you can deliver it to them. The above list is jsut some of them, with the last one being a path that is rarely taken in NA/EU subscription games, but very common in the Eastern F2Ps as they are updated much more regularly and often have live events and other content to support the various story arcs.

This.

If the Quest has zero effect on the game world, there is no reason to read it.

Quests can be boiled down to what they actually affect. That is all that matters, so that's what players look for. 

My character at least will be changed, because if I do the quest I will have Boots of Speed that I don't have now.

So that's what I look for in the text. What elements actually affect something? 20  Spider legs = Boots of Speed.

As far as I'm concerned the quest giver could just say that. The story affects nothing. Put it in, take it out, nothing changes.

So make the story affect the game world.

The construction crew at the Hellbent Gorge has run out of wood to build the new bridge. They need 20K pieces of wood to finish contruction.

Why is the wood missing? The loggers were run out when the woods were infested with werewolves. if you go there to chop wood, be careful, you'll probably be attacked, and it's worse at night.

Why are they building the bridge? Well, that's the only way to get to the Crystal Mine. They say the Alaware on Continent B sell adamantium used to make weapons, and they will only sell it  for Crystals. You'll definitely need an adamantium weapon if you're going to be fighting Trolls.

VS

The Colfan were attacked by a strange magic the Alaware use which is based on the Crystals. They want the mine closed. All you have to do is burn it down. But there is a protection spell on the bridge protecting it from fire. First, you have to negate the spell.

The only way to negate the spell is to raise a Flash Demon. To do that you need to sacrifice 10K pixies. Once the Colfan feels safe from the Alaware magic, they will be willing to start selling the ingredients used to make magic wands which produce ice rays and do cold damage. You'll definitely need one of those if you are going into the Fire Mountains.

So you could choose a side here, and which side you choose is going to affect the world.

It's just an example. It doesn't have to be weapons, or a bridge, the point is there's an affect on the world, and you won't know what changes you're making to the world unless you read the story.

You COULD just go kill 20 pixies, and collect some silver not knowing that you're working on destroying the bridge.

Now let's add one more aspect, PvP.

You can kill players that are killing Pixies, OR you can kill players that are chopping wood, which gives yuo the ability to also PREVENT a change to the game world. 

I'm willing to bet players would do things to change the game world if it was nothing more than a cosmetic change.

For example, you do Task X and it changes the season from Summer to Winter, and snow starts to fall.

Originally posted by Saerain

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

HUGE world, which had players of different races start at opposite ends of the world.

That is one of the best things about Vanguard, frankly. Universal starting locations are near the top of my list of things I hate about modern MMO trends.

Well, sure if you want a solo friendly game. Makes no difference if you start 4 hours away from any other player on the map if you're going to play solo.

Originally posted by Cephus404

 

That doesn't change what I said though.  It applies to everyone.  The whole point here is developers trying to make money.  Apparently, they think they can make more money with P2W games.

I don't think WoW has decided to go F2P because they're going broke with the P2P model. And I think there will be a WoW for the forseeable future.

It might not be a Blizzard game, but SOMEONE will make the big popular P2P game.

Originally posted by Cephus404

There are several problems here.

1.  MMORPGs are simply not designed for actual role-playing, sorry. 

 

 

For the purposes of this discussion, roleplaying means character development, i.e. progression. That is the only aspect of Table Top roleplaying games that  carries over to Computer Role Playing games.

The idea of pretending to be a character, like an actor plays a "role" in a movie, is not relevant to this discussion.

Originally posted by Cephus404

Originally posted by wfSeg

This is a terrible analogy. A better one would be:

Can you imagine going to an amusement park and paying for the items?

MMOs are amusement parks. You don't want to ride the roller coaster? Fine, don't pay for it. You don't want that giant stuffed teddy bear? Ok, don't pay for it. Just enjoy whatever they offer for free.

Good point.  Far too many people are far too concerned with what everyone else is doing in a game.  This pointless competition nonsense ruins games.  Play the game, enjoy yourself and stop worrying about what everyone else is doing.  If they want to pay to win, who cares?  It doesn't affect you.  Don't like it, don't do it.

This is not IMO accurate.

The more accurate statement would be, if you don't like it, dont' play that game.

It's goofy to insist that a games rules dont' affect you.

if they didn't then they would not exist.

A game with a cash shop is not the same as a game without a cash shop.

No matter how  much you pretend, or close your eyes and wish upon a star, you can't change that fact.

Originally posted by Drokar

  Games like Vanguard, while it had a poor release, is now perhaps the best mmo out and it hasnt had dev attention in well over a year.  If all these people that troll on these forums were truly interested in a challenge, Vanguard would be rolling with subs. 

"Challenge" alone isn't going to do it.

You also need a good game.

Vangaurd had a LOT of problems when it released. It was buggy, laggy, to begin with.

Then it had features which sucked.

HUGE world, which had players of different races start at opposite ends of the world. Why do that in a PvE game? Trainers for certain races missing in some areas, so you had to train up in your racial area, further separating players in what was supposed to be a grouping game.

Diplomacy?

What the hell? A single player mini game, in a game that's supposed to be encouraging group play?

People are standing around doing nothng, and you wonder, what are they doing? Lost in single player mini game. Really belongs in a solo game like WoW.

that's just for starters.

Good =/= challenging.

Darkfall is challenging. Go play that.