There is no "today's context" in terms of what makes a good MMO. It is the same now as it was 20 years ago.
- We're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one. I just think gradual improvement is inevitable in any genre (or any industry really). Community standards/preferences will gradually shift. Today's context isn't very different from 10 years ago, but I think there are a couple important differences, especially when it comes to convenience. (Hence the regrettable market shift towards mobile games.)
Solid storytelling of a solid story.
Believable world.
Interesting and diverse content.
Enjoyable combat system.
Deep and meaningful crafting system.
Pushing technological barriers as hard as is possible.
Systems that encourage positive interaction with other players.
That is a list of what I consider key for a good MMO today. It is essentially a list from 20 years ago.
The fundamentals of a good MMO are the same. The only thing that has moved forward is the technical side - and this is a good thing.
The problem is, too many developers have shifted from the focus of what makes a good MMO, and moved to place their game to compete with the likes of online FPS games at first, then MOBA's, and now Battle Royale games.
Rather than making a good MMO for the sake of having the best MMO they can have, they are trying to compete for a 15 minute window people may have before school, or after dinner. They were competing for minutes, rather than competing for hours.
This is the point I am trying to make. An MMO should expect players to spend at least 10 hours a week in game, and should be focusing development efforts around that. Trying to compete for 15 minute blocks of player time runs count to that.
When you compete for 15 minutes of peoples time, you can't deliver a story at all, let alone a good story that is also well written.
With a 15 minute focus, you need to have instant travel to dungeons from literally anywhere in the games world. This is a fairly major step in destroying any suspension of disbelief in terms of the world feeling plausible.
You are also unable to produce diverse content, as diverse content requires players to learn it, and learning new content takes time. Same can be said with the combat system - if you focus on 15 minutes of gameplay, you will find yourself dumbing down combat itself, so people can just press 1, 1, 1, 2 and repeat ad infinitum.
In the scheme of 15 minute play focus, you also have to drop the need for any form of social interaction, as social interaction takes time.
While I have used the dungeon finder in the past as an example of what is wrong with many modern MMO's - and that older games got right - I am using it as one example to illustrate the entire change in focus to smaller content blocks that are easier to complete, and thus offer players less of a rewarding feeling (the in game reward is immaterial in this discussion).
Fortunately, due simply to the near total lack of fast travel in Ashes, the notion of catering to that 15 minute block will simply not work. Intrepid are essentially forcing themselves to cater to the player that wants to spend that 10 hours or more a week in game.
I mean, technology is always moving, and developers can do much more now than they could 15 years ago. There is talk now of 1,000 player characters in a siege - when EQ2 released getting even 50 in one fight was a technological challenge.
The notion of actual destructible environments was totally unthinkable 10 years ago, but these days it is freely talked about as being in development.
Graphics have improved immeasurably as well over the last 15 years, to the point where even I consider some older games unplayable due solely to their graphics.
Thing is, developers could put every player in the game in one fight, they could make the whole world totally destructible, they could use ray tracing to trace all their rays (because it "just works" or whatever), but if that game doesn't have it's fundamentals right, it will still be a shit game.
---
Will quickly also touch on flying and multi-mode dungeons.
WoW's game design is bad. Almost everything about it. If WoW were handed in to be graded in a game design course, it would get a D at best (vanilla WoW would have received a solid B- ).
The reason people that debate these things think that flying mounts and multi-mode dungeons destroyed WoW is because WoW did them in the worst way possible - and for most of the people in said debate, it is the only MMO experience they have. They identify flying mounts as the issue, rather than identifying Blizzard as the issue.
If the issue is that flying mounts allow people to skip over content in a literal sense, then add content to that Z-axis and it is no longer and issue. Suddenly, flying mounts go from being something clueless people point to as a reason WoW sucks, to being most important addition to MMO content since the advent of the instance.
Multi-mode dungeons I still don't have a working theory on, other than knowing there has to be a really good way to do it.
@wanderingmist
Yeah, I mean a lot of core design philosophies are just different between old and retail WoW, the game isn't made for you or me anymore so we perceive it to be bad. It's hard to judge the success of MMOs, usually it's through number of players and there are much larger demographics to target than the old MMORPG players that enjoyed games like classic WoW. I think a lot of design philosophies are just targeted at a different demographic now but we expect them to still be targeting us because this is a genre we enjoy. I suspect what ends up happening is that the target demographics are not interested in MMOs so they don't buy into it, and the demographic that enjoys MMOs (us) is not being catered to so we don't buy into the new MMOs either so it ends up feeling like a failure. Like what the video says about competing with these other games like fortnight is only true if you are competing for the same demographic right? Anyways I'm also getting vague in my thoughts now and have no expertise in game marketing so I'll just stop.
0
Options
Wandering MistModerator, Member, Founder, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited June 2019
@noaani Another good point. It's like comparing films to a TV series. You are never going to get the same amount of story and character development from a 2 hour film that you would from a 40 hour TV show. But then again do you need to? There have been plenty of films that have been able to put a huge amount of depth and character development into their films despite the short run-time compared to a TV series.
I guess the question we have to ask is, can you put quality meaningful gameplay into a short timeframe that doesn't rely on extrinsic reward systems? I believe you can. Monster Hunter World does this quite well, with the story broken up into bite-sized missions that can be completed quite quickly either solo or with teammates. And if you are really short on time, there are arena battles which cut out the tracking/stalking element of the missions and just puts you in a room with a big monster to kill.
When it comes to combat, the trick is designing a combat system that can be picked up fairly quickly by a new player, but still offers depth for someone willing to put lots of hours into mastering it. Fighting games are great at doing this.
The point is, just because you are restricted on playtime, doesn't mean you can't still make a good product.
I guess the question we have to ask is, can you put quality meaningful gameplay into a short timeframe that doesn't rely on extrinsic reward systems?
I personally disagree that this is the question to ask.
To me, the question isn't "can you", but rather "should you".
There are a number of games that do this well - but none of the games that do it well are MMORPG's. Even more specifically, none of them are MMORPG's with limited fast travel.
Sure, an MMO could do that. You could make an MMO that focuses on just dropping players in on content without all the stuff around it so that players could do something in 15 minutes. It wouldn't be a good MMO, but it would be an MMO. If you went out and developed an MMO based around this notion, what you then have, whether you intended to or not, is a WoW clone.
Because of that, I'm not debating what is and is not possible, I am debating what is and isn't a good fit for this specific game.
Sure, this game almost definitely will have encounters that take less 15 minutes - but they would be sitting at the bottom of a dungeon that takes a good hour to fight down to.
That is what this game is about.
I have no doubt there will also be node attacks that take less than 15 minutes to play through. Thing is, it won't be content on demand - if you are 15 minutes travel away from something that takes 15 minutes to do, you will miss out.
I don't see any real way to make meaningfully good content in Ashes specifically targeted for players to be able to complete in 15 minutes after logging in - I would expect it to usually take that long to just get to the content you want to do, let alone do it. There will always be something to do, but players would be more likely to expect to do things like harvesting, or killing enemies near their node - things to help level your character or your node, or perhaps a small contribution to a construction project.
Basically, if you log in with 15 minutes to kill, you would expect to do base level content rather than boss level content.
3
Options
MeowsedMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
@noaani That's a really good point about the raw time-investment and equivalent return on that investment that we expect from MMOs. It reminds an episode of Extra Credits from a while ago, on the topic of "Lifestyle Games". Essentially, lifestyle games are just games that become a big part of your life. Of course that includes spending a lot of time in the game, but it also includes out-of-game stuff like theory-crafting, research, generally thinking about the game in your down-time (at work, during commute, etc), taking part in the community of the game, probably buying some merch, etc..
It seems like today, a lot MMOs have stepped away from that idea. They want to be accessible to players without requiring that level of commitment.
Lifestyle games aren't just limited to the MMO genre, either. Competitive games (MOBAs and fighting games in particular) can also offer a level of depth that players can devote half of their life to.
To me, that's what it comes down to: depth. MMOs put most of their depth in the world. The environment, the stories, the character progression, the world systems, the communities, and the choices that we can make to interact with all those. And there's just no way to access that depth in 15-minute play sessions.
Conversely, time-investment is closely tied to depth, but it's not enough on it's own. 10-hour quests or grinding sessions are pointless if there's no depth to them. Spending time to travel on foot isn't good design if the world you're travelling through is shallow and uninteresting.
But in the end you're exactly right; AoC is supposed to be a game that is deep and meaningful, and the only way for it to work is if the game (and by extension, the devs) expect players to spend a looot of time in the game.
Hopefully the community has the same expectations. The people on these forums obviously do (talking on the forums about an unreleased game is clearly a sign that we have time to spare), but I wonder about the wider audience that will arrive after Intrepid makes their final marketing push before launch.
Conversely, time-investment is closely tied to depth, but it's not enough on it's own. 10-hour quests or grinding sessions are pointless if there's no depth to them. Spending time to travel on foot isn't good design if the world you're travelling through is shallow and uninteresting.
Absolutely true.
You can't have depth if players don't put time in to a game, and players won't put time in to a game if you don't have depth.
Developers need to set the expectation early in development, and clearly communicate that expectation to players before release.
I think a good example are some of the hub based dungeon crawlers. There you have those 15minute bursts of content. Into the dungeon kapauw and out in 10-15minutes. It's absolutely uninteresting after a short while. You smash through everything so damned fast you never stop to wonder what you actually hit.
For all intent and purposes it could have been a stickman. You just wont notice.
On the other hand you have a game like Vindictus(aka. Mabinogi heroes) same principle hack and slash, but stuff lived for a while and especially bosses were more aking to Monster Hunter bosses were you learned the tells and attack paterns and fought for quite some time. It was work to down a boss, but it felt really good.(Not anymore tho, now the leveling phase at least is just a fast slaugther like Kritika) I loved Vindictus but I can't bring myself to play it anymore, it just feels so bad now.
I can be a life fulfilling dream. - Zekece
I can be a life devouring nightmare. - Grisu#1819
0
Options
AuronMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Conversely, time-investment is closely tied to depth, but it's not enough on it's own. 10-hour quests or grinding sessions are pointless if there's no depth to them. Spending time to travel on foot isn't good design if the world you're travelling through is shallow and uninteresting.
Absolutely true.
You can't have depth if players don't put time in to a game, and players won't put time in to a game if you don't have depth.
Developers need to set the expectation early in development, and clearly communicate that expectation to players before release.
MMORPG players will also put in time if there is breadth.
Breadth > depth.
Certainly, the world has to remain interesting.
Grinding inherently means doing something uninteresting for a long period of time.
Conversely, time-investment is closely tied to depth, but it's not enough on it's own. 10-hour quests or grinding sessions are pointless if there's no depth to them. Spending time to travel on foot isn't good design if the world you're travelling through is shallow and uninteresting.
Absolutely true.
You can't have depth if players don't put time in to a game, and players won't put time in to a game if you don't have depth.
Developers need to set the expectation early in development, and clearly communicate that expectation to players before release.
MMORPG players will also put in time if there is breadth.
Breadth > depth.
Certainly, the world has to remain interesting.
Grinding inherently means doing something uninteresting for a long period of time.
I'm going to start out by saying that I'm not at all sure what grinding has to do with anything in this discussion. Grinding is the result of bad game designers, not as a result of needing to put time or effort in to anything. If a system is enjoyable in and of itself, grinding simply doesn't exist, if a system is not enjoyable, even the simple act of leveling up can be considered a grind.
Not specifically directed at you, just a general observation.
So...
Breadth is great, but it is no substitute for depth, and it never will be.
Lets imagine the game has five main paths, solo adventuring, group based, raiding, a crafting path, and a sailing path.
Imagine all five are equal in terms of content, reward, time investment etc.
Now, some people absolutely will take advantage of all five. This is a given. Some people, however, just don't like crafting and so won't use it. Some people will ONLY like crafting, and so only use that. Some people will love solo adventuring, but rarely want to group and never raid, and if the sailing path requires a number of people, that player that enjoys solo adventuring may find that the only things they enjoy from the above list are soloing and crafting. This means they only really play two fifths of the games breadth.
If none of these paths are particularly deep, a player that only enjoys a few of the above paths will quickly find themselves out of things to do. Most players simply won't partake in an activity in an MMO if they don't enjoy that specific activity.
If each of these paths are deep though, a player that only really cares about one will still find there is plenty to do.
I agree the world has to remain interesting, but it remains interesting by being deep.
A deep world has a story that is interconnected. The story from one area is inherently connected to the story from another area, which is tied to a thing you did 20 levels ago and will be referenced again a number of times in the future. This is a world that is deep.
A world that only has breadth though, that is where you go to a quest hub (or node in Ashes), and the story is totally disconnected from anything else in the game. Then you go to the next hub, and again, a story that is totally disconnected from the game.
It's like reading a multitude of haiku rather than reading a single epic. Sure, a haiku can be well constructed and amusing in and of itself, but once you read it and move on to the next, you're done with that first one. On the other hand a good epic can influence language and pop culture several millennia after the fact.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I'm going to start out by saying that I'm not at all sure what grinding has to do with anything in this discussion. Grinding is the result of bad game designers, not as a result of needing to put time or effort in to anything. If a system is enjoyable in and of itself, grinding simply doesn't exist, if a system is not enjoyable, even the simple act of leveling up can be considered a grind.
Grinding is leonerdo's complaint. And, yes, there are people who consider leveling to be a grind because for them endgame is the real game and they perceive leveling to be an unnecessary obstacle to endgame gameplay.
Breadth is great, but it is no substitute for depth, and it never will be.
Lets imagine the game has five main paths, solo adventuring, group based, raiding, a crafting path, and a sailing path.
Now, some people absolutely will take advantage of all five. This is a given. Some people, however, just don't like crafting and so won't use it. Some people will ONLY like crafting, and so only use that. Some people will love solo adventuring, but rarely want to group and never raid, and if the sailing path requires a number of people, that player that enjoys solo adventuring may find that the only things they enjoy from the above list are soloing and crafting. This means they only really play two fifths of the games breadth.
Right. These five paths are precisely why breadth trumps depth.
If the game is focused on depth for group adventuring and raiding, it's probably going to lose a lot of players.
If none of these paths are particularly deep, a player that only enjoys a few of the above paths will quickly find themselves out of things to do. Most players simply won't partake in an activity in an MMO if they don't enjoy that specific activity.
Nope. Each of those paths could have broad horizontal progression that is captivating rather than deep vertical progression. The progression in each of those paths does not have to be deep and vertical in order to be enjoyable.
But, really, there needs to be more paths to fun than just those five.
A deep world has a story that is interconnected. The story from one area is inherently connected to the story from another area, which is tied to a thing you did 20 levels ago and will be referenced again a number of times in the future. This is a world that is deep.
That is actually an example of breadth; not depth.
A broad world has a story that is interconnected. And continues to have a variety of new stories, regardless of level - even when you're capped at level 20 for months and years.
A world that only has breadth though, that is where you go to a quest hub (or node in Ashes), and the story is totally disconnected from anything else in the game. Then you go to the next hub, and again, a story that is totally disconnected from the game.
Nope. A broad world is one that changes dynamically regardless of level. Rather than being static, with players moving from one hub to another as the their levels increase - culminating in an endgame at level cap.
A broad world continues to have new stories even at level cap - regardless of what the level cap is.
It's like reading a multitude of haiku rather than reading a single epic. Sure, a haiku can be well constructed and amusing in and of itself, but once you read it and move on to the next, you're done with that first one. On the other hand a good epic can influence language and pop culture several millennia after the fact.
Haiku also influence language and pop culture for millennia.
But, haiku is an exceedingly poor reference for this discussion.
Still, I would rather have a multitude of abilities rather than one strong ability.
And I would much rather have a multitude of diverse quests than one epic quest.
I would also much rather fight an army of vampires, werewolves and witches for two hours than fight one epic dragon for one hour... and then fight the same epic dragon again for the second hour.
0
Options
Wandering MistModerator, Member, Founder, Kickstarter, Alpha One
@noaani and @dygz I get the feeling both of you are arguing for the same thing, just using different terminology. I see no reason to get bogged down in semantics here and instead let's focus on the core issue at hand. I'm sure we'll all agree that activities in an mmorpg need to have a purpose without feeling like a chore. This is incredibly hard to do, particularly when it comes to crafting. Crafting in WoW has ranged from utterly pointless to absolutely necessary and every variation in between.
With regards to the game world, one of the biggest complaints about Skyrim (as an example) is that it's a world as big as an ocean with the depth of a pond. This is another trap that a lot of developers fall into. They think that just having the biggest world possible is going to satisfy the players. This is definitely NOT the case. In fact, it's usually better to have a smaller game world that has a lot more in it, rather than relying on copy-pasting elements to give the illusion of depth. If you were to compare the world of Skyrim to the world of Bloodborne you will see this clearly. Bloodborne's world is a lot small than Skyrim but there is a lot more diversity and interest to it. In Skyrim you can walk for 10 minutes straight without encountering anything interesting, whereas in Bloodborne there is always something around every corner, whether it be an item that you need, a savepoint or just a group of mobs that require you to do something.
0
Options
MeowsedMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
(I think I'm just going to start every medium/long post with a Disclaimer... I just don't trust the internet to interpret my words correctly if I don't: When I'm talking about definitions, I'm only talking about my personal interpretation of the words. You can have different definitions, but my life would be easier if you didn't. @wanderingmist Yeah semantics are the worst thing to argue over in any setting, but sometimes you just gotta clear up some miscommunications before you move on.)
I only said the word "grind" once. And I don't even agree with your definition of it. So you kinda twisted my words.
You can have good, fun grinding and boring grinding. Grinding just means you're doing the the same thing (or very similar thing) over and over. Let's say 5 times or more. If it's something you enjoy every time you do it, then it's still grinding, but it's fun and I don't have a problem with it.
I put over 1000 hours into TF2 when I was in high school. Mostly on 6-8 maps and 4 (of 9) classes. And that game only had a few weapons for each class. So I'd say I easily put 50 hours on the Medic in the Turbine map alone. That's grinding. And there weren't even any appreciable rewards for the grind (maybe achievements, but those don't really matter). I just did it because the game was fun. And deep.
And oh look at that, a nice segue into my definition of depth. Vertical progression often has nothing to do with depth. Depth is all about the number of interacting systems in the game/activity (vertical progression can be one of those systems, but not the only one). The complexity of the activity and the sheer amount of small variations and nuances is what allows an activity to be deep and fun for a very long time. If an activity is deep, some people (not me) might not consider it to be a "grind" at all, because every time you do it, it's a little bit different.
Breadth is very similar in this regard, but not as interesting or compelling. Breadth is just having more options on the same level. Depth is having more levels. So a game can have 20 activities with 20 variations on each, and I'd call that breadth. Or a game can have 5 activities with 5 variations each, and you can do them with 5 different classes, and the 4 different types of nodes/region/biome might affect the activity in different ways, and the outputs/rewards for the activity may tie into several other game systems. That's what I call depth.
Basically, if I wanted breadth, I would just go play a bunch of different games. But personally (you are free to feel differently) I would prefer to play only a few games that are very deep.
Of course MMOs do benefit a ton from breadth. Having little mini-games and events spread around the world is super nice as a break from all the other content. And people always like having tons of class options, which I'd consider to be breadth. But I think depth is more important.
And I would much rather have a multitude of diverse quests than one epic quest.
To me, the one epic quest sounds a lot more engaging and satisfying. I think the standard RPG formula with one epic quest and a couple diverse side-quests mixed in, is probably ideal. For Ashes, the "one epic quest" is probably the story of a Metropolis, and that's spread out over many players and a lot of activities. So Ashes probably leans more into breadth when it comes to quests/story. I'm hoping the depth gets made up for in the combat, crafting, and economic systems.
Nope. A broad world is one that changes dynamically regardless of level. Rather than being static, with players moving from one hub to another as the their levels increase - culminating in an endgame at level cap.
A broad world continues to have new stories even at level cap - regardless of what the level cap is.
As with almost everything you post, this seems to be a definition you've pulled out of nowhere. I'm not even going to address the rest of your post, because none of it makes any real sense. However, I will address the above.
A board/deep and static/dynamic are not inherently related to each other.
You can have a world that is broad and static (WoW), broad and dynamic (Skyrim), deep and static (EQ2) as well as deep and dynamic (Ashes, hopefully).
Strangely, you can also technically have broad and deep together, along with either static or dynamic (static and dynamic are mutually exclusive), though the development cost of such a game is so prohibitive that such a world is only possible in theory. So much so, the only example I can think of is The Oasis from the movie Ready Player One.
So essentially, you are talking about 4 different properties a world could have, and confusing them to mean only two different things.
Among (many) other things, I think you are getting mixed up between a broad vs deep progression path, and a broad vs deep world. These are absolutely not the same thing, are not interchangeable, and should never be confused with each other. It is possible to have a game with a deep progression path or a broad progression path in any of the 4 practical world types outlined above.
I am very quickly remembering why you are the only person I have ever blocked on any forum, ever. However, I am going to do the single best thing I can do for you, and point out to you that Ashes is probably not the game for you.
I don't know if you ever played Archeage (I doubt it), but on almost every server I played on, there was that one player. Without exception, that player was a loudmouth in chat that thought he knew what he was saying, contradicted everyone else and was argumentative yet lacked the ability to put together a coherent argument. If someone went to trial, and in the list of crimes they had committed there was a murder of that one player, the jury would laugh, say thanks for killing him and let the accused player off.
In Ashes, that is going to be you.
While there is no trial system, people will see you and just kill you because of your attitude. Hell, if you and I were on the same server, I'd offer a perpetual gold reward for every kill of you with a time stamped screenshot posted to the forums for proof. While corruption is absolutely a thing, a little bit of corruption isn't too big of a deal, and people are usually happy to take a small hit for the chance to kill that one player.
So far, Dygz, we all know that you don't want to have to form an in game social network. We know you would rather meet people through Twitch/Discord and such than meet them in game. We know you don't want an overly deep progression path (not world though, as you don't know the difference between a deep and broad world). We know you would rather have several small tasks to perform than one larger task. We know you don't want your progression to be hampered by not grouping up. You also seem to want a meaningful crafting system.
While some of the above will mesh well with Ashes, much of it won't. There is, however, a game out there that meshes well with every single one of the things you claim to want - Path of Exile.
0
Options
Wandering MistModerator, Member, Founder, Kickstarter, Alpha One
@noaani While it's great that you are passionate about this topic, please refrain from any personal attacks. There's no need, especially when we are talking about purely hypothetical elements of game design that may not even be an issue in Ashes.
2
Options
MeowsedMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
@noaani Nah man. Wanderingmist is letting you off easy. I reported that shit. You can't tell someone off like that just because you disagree with them or you don't like how they talk, even if it's repeated. If you don't like someone, just piss off yourself and don't interact with 'em.
@dygz There's nothing wrong with your presence or contributions on these forums or in-game. The only thing I agree with noaani about is the definition of breadth and depth. But like I said in my post, it's fine for people to have different definitions and different opinions. We're all on these forums so we can talk shit out, not because we want everyone to completely agree with us.
@noaani Nah man. Wanderingmist is letting you off easy. I reported that shit. You can't tell someone off like that just because you disagree with them or you don't like how they talk, even if it's repeated. If you don't like someone, just piss off yourself and don't interact with 'em.
That wasn't a telling off - at least it wasn't intended to be. The first draft was. I didn't post that first draft.
The part about how I see his time in Ashes going, as well as the suggestion of a game that may be more to his liking (I game I play quite often, to be fair - it's actually a really good game) is all genuine. I saw dozens of players leave Archeage over time I played it for that exact reason. In every situation, it was obvious there were games out there better suited to what they wanted.
Obviously, I can't (and wouldn't, even if I could) make him leave the game or forum. Thing is, if something looks to me like it isn't going to be a good fit, if I can see someone (even someone I perpetually disagree with) is about to unknowingly get themselves in to a situation they would rather not be in, I'm the kind of person that has to say something.
I've told him I what *I* think about the type of game he want's. What he does with that info is up to him.
0
Options
Wandering MistModerator, Member, Founder, Kickstarter, Alpha One
@noaani Given that the game is still in pre-alpha, I'd say it's almost impossible for us to tell what the end result will be like, and whether it will suit anyone or not. Even with good intentions what you wrote was unnecessary and outside the scope of this thread.
0
Options
MeowsedMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited June 2019
Edit: Actually, nevermind, I don't wanna argue over this and drag it out.
Please, explain to me how you think he's supposed to take that?
How ever he want's.
I've played quite a few games that have threads with player bounty posts, some are one off, some are perpetual. There was discussion of that on the old forums for this game as well. Being able to attack and kill a player in game that you just don't like is (as far as we can tell) a part of the games design.
The thing with any game in which players are free to attack and kill others in game - and this is something I've been saying for over a year - is that if there is someone on a server that people don't like, people will attack and kill them at any opportunity. If the game doesn't have large PvP-free areas, and that player doesn't have a strong guild around them, such opportunities will be very frequent.
The combination of the way he communicates and the fact that he isn't really interested in a guild in the sense most of us know a guild to function kind of tells me exactly how I can see things going.
I totally agree with @wanderingmist that this thread was probably not the best place to pass on what I can see happening. However, passing it on was, in my mind, essential.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I only said the word "grind" once. And I don't even agree with your definition of it. So you kinda twisted my words. You can have good, fun grinding and boring grinding. Grinding just means you're doing the the same thing (or very similar thing) over and over. Let's say 5 times or more. If it's something you enjoy every time you do it, then it's still grinding, but it's fun and I don't have a problem with it.
My whole point is your misusage of the term grind.
It's not possible to have fun grinding - because the entire reason it's called grinding is because you're doing something over and over that's not fun and wears you down.
If you enjoy doing whatever repeatedly - it's not a grind.
And oh look at that, a nice segue into my definition of depth. Vertical progression often has nothing to do with depth. Depth is all about the number of interacting systems in the game/activity (vertical progression can be one of those systems, but not the only one). The complexity of the activity and the sheer amount of small variations and nuances is what allows an activity to be deep and fun for a very long time. If an activity is deep, some people (not me) might not consider it to be a "grind" at all, because every time you do it, it's a little bit different.
Vertical progression is a measure of shallowness and depth.
You can have shallow progression like a Level cap of 20 or deep progression like a Level cap of 80-100.
Ashes falls somewhere in the middle in terms of depth.
But, with 64 sub-classes and a plethora of augments -secondary, archetypes, racial, religious, social, etc - Ashes is extremely broad.
The horizontal progression is huge.
Ashes vertical progression with a level cap of 50 is low for an MMORPG - not deep.
Even for Nodes:
There are only 6 Stages of Node progression. That is shallow.
But what can be accomplished with a city or metro - especially with combos of type and racial influence is extremely broad.
Basically, if I wanted breadth, I would just go play a bunch of different games. But personally (you are free to feel differently) I would prefer to play only a few games that are very deep.
Um. If you have to play a bunch of different games to get breadth, that means that each of those games has very narrow breadth.
It's like saying you want to play a bunch of different games if you want depth because each of those games has a Level cap of 20 instead of 50-100.
I would prefer to play one game that is shallow in depth but is extremely broad.
I think the standard RPG formula with one epic quest and a couple diverse side-quests mixed in, is probably ideal. For Ashes, the "one epic quest" is probably the story of a Metropolis, and that's spread out over many players and a lot of activities. So Ashes probably leans more into breadth when it comes to quests/story. I'm hoping the depth gets made up for in the combat, crafting, and economic systems.
I don't agree that the standard RPG formula is one epic quest and a couple of diverse side-quests.
I would not call Ashes character progression shallow. Shallow would be a Level cap of 20-30 for an MMORPG.
But it's also not particularly deep.
The combat is going to be made compelling by the breadth of the various combos that are possible along with the diverse types of progression available - adventurer progression, crafting progression, Node progression, racial progression, religious progression, social progression, weapon progression, etc.
A broad/deep and static/dynamic are not inherently related to each other.
You can have a world that is broad and static (WoW), broad and dynamic (Skyrim), deep and static (EQ2) as well as deep and dynamic (Ashes, hopefully).
While I agree with the first statement, I disagree with your examples.
WoW and EQ are equally deep and static.
Ashes will be broad and dynamic. If Ashes reaches a Level cap of 90-100, it might be broad, dynamic and also deep.
Among (many) other things, I think you are getting mixed up between a broad vs deep progression path, and a broad vs deep world. These are absolutely not the same thing, are not interchangeable, and should never be confused with each other. It is possible to have a game with a deep progression path or a broad progression path in any of the 4 practical world types outlined above.
I suppose I would have to agree with you that I am conflating the two spectra you posit, since I don't even have a concept of a deep world for an MMORPG other than vertical progression. So would have to explain your vision of broad v deep world that is not related to vertical progression.
While there is no trial system, people will see you and just kill you because of your attitude. Hell, if you and I were on the same server, I'd offer a perpetual gold reward for every kill of you with a time stamped screenshot posted to the forums for proof. While corruption is absolutely a thing, a little bit of corruption isn't too big of a deal, and people are usually happy to take a small hit for the chance to kill that one player.
yeah, yeah. uh hunh, uh, hunh.
I'm shaking in my boots.
I don't see how any of that is relevant to this discussion.
So far, Dygz, we all know that you don't want to have to form an in game social network. We know you would rather meet people through Twitch/Discord and such than meet them in game. We know you don't want an overly deep progression path (not world though, as you don't know the difference between a deep and broad world). We know you would rather have several small tasks to perform than one larger task. We know you don't want your progression to be hampered by not grouping up. You also seem to want a meaningful crafting system.
This is an exceedingly strange perspective - couldn't be farther from the truth.
My Bartles score is: Explorer 87%; Socializer 73% ; Achiever 47%; Killer 0%
I always form social networks in MMORPGs - I just don't do so via combat parties and raids.
Which should be obvious since I'm a carebear with a Killer rating of 0%.
A primary appeal of Ashes is the breadth of the types of social networks that are possible to forge besides just combat parties and raids.
Where did you see me state that I would rather meet people through twitch and discord??
What I said is that I primarily use twitch chat/discord and twitter to communicate with the people I have already met... both in-game and out-of-game. When I first meet people in-game, I use local chat or /whisper.
I don't know that I have ever stated that I don't want my progression hampered by not grouping up. It's fascinating that you know that when I don't know that. I would say something more like I don't want my game session goals to be hampered by feeling an obligation to remain indefinitely in a party or raid. My game session goals could involve a variety of activities besides progression.
But, it's certainly true that I would prefer damage and health to be comparatively shallow rather than having them in the thousands and thousands. And I would rather have max level content involve fighting hordes of Level 20-30 foes than fighting one Level 80-100 boss.
I want all systems to be meaningful. Well, I don't really care if the player economy is meaningful, but I expect the devs to try to make player economy meaningful.
While some of the above will mesh well with Ashes, much of it won't. There is, however, a game out there that meshes well with every single one of the things you claim to want - Path of Exile.
That is hysterical!
"Path of Exile is an online Action RPG set in the dark fantasy world of Wraeclast. It is designed around a strong online item economy, deep character customisation, competitive PvP and ladder races."
Everyone should know that I pretty much loathe competitive PvP combat. I sometimes enjoy objective-based city defense PvP.
And, I probably care less about economy than I do about combat of any kind.
So, it's absurd for to think I would be interested in Path of Exile.
The kinds of games that pique my interest have designs similar to EQNext, Revival, Ashes of Creation and, perhaps, Chronicles of Elyria.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
The combination of the way he communicates and the fact that he isn't really interested in a guild in the sense most of us know a guild to function kind of tells me exactly how I can see things going.
I guess we are on a tangent here, but...
It's fascinating to me that you presume I have to join a guild in order to have contacts with guilds and social communities willing to aid me in battle.
It's fascinating to me that you presume I have to join a guild in order to have contacts with guilds and social communities willing to aid me in battle.
To help you our once or twice, sure.
To help you out every 20 minutes every time you are online? That needs a guild or some friends with some serious dedication.
I suppose I would have to agree with you that I am conflating the two spectra you posit, since I don't even have a concept of a deep world for an MMORPG other than progression. So would have to explain your vision of broad v deep world that is not related to progression.
Literally everything I have said in this thread is about the world, not about progression.
I'm going to give you a few examples of deep vs shallow.
First of all, just as a world, Lord of the Rings. The world is about as deep as you can get. There are two main stories set in that world, Lord of the Rings itself, which is fairly deep, and The Hobbit, which is a fairly shallow story set in a very deep world. If you read the Hobbit in isolation, you would have no real idea of how deep the world itself is.
WoW's world is shallow. There is a fair amount of lore in the universe that WoW is set in, but it is not presented in the game - making the game world shallow. Game play wise, WoW is also shallow, there are very few choices for players to make in terms of build, and there is little interaction between different classes. Further, what happens in terms of mechanics in one expansions is almost always cast aside for the next expansion, stories have a tenuous connect at best, but usually no connection.
EQ2 is deep as a game world. The world itself has less over all lore than Warcraft, but it is presented in a MUCH better way in game. The stories also all tie in to each other in ways that are unexpected. The mechanics of EQ2 are also much deeper than that of WoW, there is a lot of interaction between classes, to the point where the specific way you play your class changes based on what other classes are in your group.
It's worth noting that just because a universe has a deep world, doesn't mean a game based on that universe has a deep world - no one is arguing that Age of Conan had the depth in it's world as the novels the game was based on.
Archeage is another example of a game based on a world with more lore than players would imagine. Ask most AA players about the lore of the game and they won't be able to tell you anything other than Dahuta is related to water, somehow. Yet that game is based off of an entire series of novels. Despite this, the game itself is still deep in terms of mechanics.
So really, there are three types of depth a game can have. It can be deep in terms of story, it can be deep in terms of it's games mechanics and it can be deep in terms of character progression.
In terms of lore, a world with breadth is one where each character has their own story. A deep world is one where the stories of all of those people are interconnected. In order for lore that deep to be delivered, there is a need for either long quests, or long quest chains (usually chains). This means that games with deep lore almost always have more longer quests and quest chains than games with shallower lore.
A game with mechanical depth is one where players specific actions have specific meaning outside of the action itself. A game with no interaction between classes in combat or a game with no character collision are both good indicators that a given game has very little mechanical depth. If I cast a buff, and that buff alters an aspect of how you play for character for it's duration, that is a sign of a mechanically deep game. A game with mechanical breadth is one where there are many independent systems that have little or no impact on each other.
I don't feel a need to go in to character progression.
That is hysterical!
"Path of Exile is an online Action RPG set in the dark fantasy world of Wraeclast. It is designed around a strong online item economy, deep character customisation, competitive PvP and ladder races."
Everyone should know that I pretty much loathe competitive PvP combat. I sometimes enjoy objective-based city defense PvP.
According to Steam, I"ve played 1,500 hours of Path of Exile. In that time, I have not been involved in - nor even seen - PvP combat.
This is because the core game of PoE has exactly zero PvP. There are PvP arenas, which GGG refer to as "competitive" rather than saying "no real rewards". There is the occasional PvP tournament, but again, that is distinct and separate from the game itself. There are a few other PvP types that PoE has (including capture the flag, iirc), but literally none of it is in the core game.
When I said I think it would be a better game for you, I was genuine. Not genuine in terms of "your Bartles score says this is the right game for you", genuine in terms of "the things you say you want in a game, and the way you conduct yourself both combine to tell me that this is the best game for you".
A Bartles score, by the way, is the MMO players equivalent of an "is your man right for you" quiz in the back of a womans magazine. They are both only worth what the person that takes the test wants them to be worth.
PoE is a fantastic game (hence 1,500 hours played), it has none of the pitfalls you will find in Ashes, it is designed to be played 100% solo if you wish, but with the option of inviting others to your group - though with no real benefit past having company.
Hell, the game is so dedicated to not needing other players for your progression, they even have the option to go "solo self found", where trading with other players is turned off, so you have to pick up or craft literally every item you equip.
On top of that, it is the only game I know of that is truly F2P with a non P2W cash shop.
Working for what you have is what I loved about MMOs personalty I hated WoW when it came out because it seemed so much easier than other MMOs and still haven't really gotten into it to this day. Ive been saying it for years that the market sucks now because companies keep pandering to the minority of players who complain about games being "too hard" or "too grindy" and totally forget about the silent majority and this is why the crapshoot that is FFXIV is the best MMO on the market, the game is nothing more than a fantasy dress up game with a bunch of people hanging out in towns comparing their glamour items to other people's glamour items
also off topic hear, why are there people constantly posting on threads without keeping to the topic of why the thread was created, no one cares if you lack a basic normal attention span to watch a short video. it's no reason to hijack a thread with childish posts.
lol, I would not call it minority of players. Blizzard did not make drastic changes because only 2 people complained about it. Make something way too difficult and annoying and it will affect the majority of players, because the majority of players are casual and are not that great at the game. Only appealing to the top 1% of the game will kill your game as you alienate the rest of the players....
League of legends balances heroes by taking into account different rank brackets. This also includes champions that are only too strong in the very low ranks or average ranks. They make up the majority of the player base so what do you think would happen if they completely ignored that player base?
[/quote]For example, one of the reasons why Blizzard keeps putting in mechanics to speed up the levelling process in WoW is because levelling in that game is so utterly pointless and unenjoyable that literally nobody wants to deal with it.[/quote]
Or maybe it's because there are way too many levels. Now going up to 120. The grind became way too long and veteran players don't want it to take too long because we already have multiple alts already and have seen all the content multiple times.
It's why they're visiting a level squish. Don't think anyone wants to make a new class/race in the next expansion and having to look at the "max level 130, 140, 150 etc" it's just too much.
[Editted cause giant quotes are annoying.] [Edit2: Gosh formatting is hard.]
@noaani I'm gonna put your quotes in italics and my responses in plaintext because I don't want a bunch of quote boxes. If I leave something un-responded to, it's probably cause I just agree. If anyone thinks this long-form reply thing is dumb, well I'm doing it cause I think he made a lot of good points, but I have some specific clarifications or rebuttals that I want to add. Read however much you want to.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Spamming chat for a group is never fun, but that is what friends lists are for.
In my experience, past the first 20 levels (or one week, what ever takes longest) people that spam chat looking for groups are the people I have grouped with in the past when things went poorly.
People that are constantly in groups that go well don't spam chat looking for groups, they whisper people in their friends lists.
You don't ever see a good tank or healer spamming for a group.
This is that whole social connections thing.
- These's are good points, but I still would prefer if those bad players always looking for new groups did so in a party-finder than in chat. I'd rather save region chat and LFG chat, for regular conversation and time-sensitive distress calls (like for world events or PvP gankers), respectively.
That is soooo 20th century.
I tend to disregard in-game chat for the most part.
Instead, I find groups via twitch, twitter and discord.
In Ashes, I hope to be able to find groups simply by visiting the homes of the players in my Node who like to play the way I play and are who are online when I'm online.
I wouldn't be surprised to find that we end up conducting the bulk of our communication through twitch or discord.
Seems like distress calls won't be very helpful with limited fast travel.
Yeah, discord would be a big part to finding groups and is a big part for any game in the present. Also I find their point funny, "You don't ever see a good tank or healer spamming for a group" lol. You don't see any tank or healer, good OR bad spamming for a group because those 2 classes are always in demand lol. It's the DPS that have to worry about finding groups.
0
Options
Wandering MistModerator, Member, Founder, Kickstarter, Alpha One
The ridiculous number of levels to grind through is certainly a factor, but even if there were just 60 levels it would still be pointless. In my opinion a good levelling experience has 3 core aims:
1. Story progression
2. Character progression
3. teaching players how to play
Right now, WoW has none of that. The story is non-existant and all over the place as you go through each expansion, there is very little visible character progression thanks to the world scaling to your level, so the only things you get are talents and new abilities. Even that is short lived and there is literally nothing between level 100 and 120. In fact, the scaling is so badly implemented that often times your character feels weaker as it levels up. How the hell is that possible?????
Finally the levelling is so easy that it in no way prepares players for end-game content, so WoW fails in that area too. That is why I believe WoW's levelling system needs a complete and total overhaul because right now it serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever.
Compare, if you will, the levelling of GW2 to WoW Classic. The current level cap in GW2 is 80, and level cap in WoW Classic is 60, and yet levelling in WoW Classic feels like a chore, whereas in GW2 it doesn't. Why? Because GW2 does it so much better. The story in GW2 is really solid, with good pacing and a very satisfying climax. There is decent character progression as well, both in terms of RP and mechanical value. The only thing it doesn't do so well is teaching players how to play the game. There are a few mechanics that I had no idea existed that are crucial to end-game content. But even with this it's still leaps and bounds above WoW's levelling system.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
WoW needs to be overhauled WoW 2.0 -similar in scope to an EQNext- instead of more 1.x expansions.
My problem with current WoW quests is that the leveling treadmill formula is too transparent - the story beats aren't compelling enough to obfuscate the underlying mechanics.
Bringing all this back a little closer to the OP topic...
I think rather than "work" - what I hope will captivate us players is meaningful impact on the world and meaningful investment in the world-building via the various forms of progression - especially Node progression and how that evolves the environments and mobs.
I don't necessarily want building our cities and metros to feel like work or feel like a grind, but we should feel invested in wanting to maintain and protect the homes and governments we've created. Hopefully, we will be equally invested not only in the characters we've created but also will become invested in the religions and social organizations we support.
Comments
Hahaha those bimbos have probably never worked a day in their lives.
Solid storytelling of a solid story.
Believable world.
Interesting and diverse content.
Enjoyable combat system.
Deep and meaningful crafting system.
Pushing technological barriers as hard as is possible.
Systems that encourage positive interaction with other players.
That is a list of what I consider key for a good MMO today. It is essentially a list from 20 years ago.
The fundamentals of a good MMO are the same. The only thing that has moved forward is the technical side - and this is a good thing.
The problem is, too many developers have shifted from the focus of what makes a good MMO, and moved to place their game to compete with the likes of online FPS games at first, then MOBA's, and now Battle Royale games.
Rather than making a good MMO for the sake of having the best MMO they can have, they are trying to compete for a 15 minute window people may have before school, or after dinner. They were competing for minutes, rather than competing for hours.
This is the point I am trying to make. An MMO should expect players to spend at least 10 hours a week in game, and should be focusing development efforts around that. Trying to compete for 15 minute blocks of player time runs count to that.
When you compete for 15 minutes of peoples time, you can't deliver a story at all, let alone a good story that is also well written.
With a 15 minute focus, you need to have instant travel to dungeons from literally anywhere in the games world. This is a fairly major step in destroying any suspension of disbelief in terms of the world feeling plausible.
You are also unable to produce diverse content, as diverse content requires players to learn it, and learning new content takes time. Same can be said with the combat system - if you focus on 15 minutes of gameplay, you will find yourself dumbing down combat itself, so people can just press 1, 1, 1, 2 and repeat ad infinitum.
In the scheme of 15 minute play focus, you also have to drop the need for any form of social interaction, as social interaction takes time.
While I have used the dungeon finder in the past as an example of what is wrong with many modern MMO's - and that older games got right - I am using it as one example to illustrate the entire change in focus to smaller content blocks that are easier to complete, and thus offer players less of a rewarding feeling (the in game reward is immaterial in this discussion).
Fortunately, due simply to the near total lack of fast travel in Ashes, the notion of catering to that 15 minute block will simply not work. Intrepid are essentially forcing themselves to cater to the player that wants to spend that 10 hours or more a week in game.
I mean, technology is always moving, and developers can do much more now than they could 15 years ago. There is talk now of 1,000 player characters in a siege - when EQ2 released getting even 50 in one fight was a technological challenge.
The notion of actual destructible environments was totally unthinkable 10 years ago, but these days it is freely talked about as being in development.
Graphics have improved immeasurably as well over the last 15 years, to the point where even I consider some older games unplayable due solely to their graphics.
Thing is, developers could put every player in the game in one fight, they could make the whole world totally destructible, they could use ray tracing to trace all their rays (because it "just works" or whatever), but if that game doesn't have it's fundamentals right, it will still be a shit game.
---
Will quickly also touch on flying and multi-mode dungeons.
WoW's game design is bad. Almost everything about it. If WoW were handed in to be graded in a game design course, it would get a D at best (vanilla WoW would have received a solid B- ).
The reason people that debate these things think that flying mounts and multi-mode dungeons destroyed WoW is because WoW did them in the worst way possible - and for most of the people in said debate, it is the only MMO experience they have. They identify flying mounts as the issue, rather than identifying Blizzard as the issue.
If the issue is that flying mounts allow people to skip over content in a literal sense, then add content to that Z-axis and it is no longer and issue. Suddenly, flying mounts go from being something clueless people point to as a reason WoW sucks, to being most important addition to MMO content since the advent of the instance.
Multi-mode dungeons I still don't have a working theory on, other than knowing there has to be a really good way to do it.
Yeah, I mean a lot of core design philosophies are just different between old and retail WoW, the game isn't made for you or me anymore so we perceive it to be bad. It's hard to judge the success of MMOs, usually it's through number of players and there are much larger demographics to target than the old MMORPG players that enjoyed games like classic WoW. I think a lot of design philosophies are just targeted at a different demographic now but we expect them to still be targeting us because this is a genre we enjoy. I suspect what ends up happening is that the target demographics are not interested in MMOs so they don't buy into it, and the demographic that enjoys MMOs (us) is not being catered to so we don't buy into the new MMOs either so it ends up feeling like a failure. Like what the video says about competing with these other games like fortnight is only true if you are competing for the same demographic right? Anyways I'm also getting vague in my thoughts now and have no expertise in game marketing so I'll just stop.
I guess the question we have to ask is, can you put quality meaningful gameplay into a short timeframe that doesn't rely on extrinsic reward systems? I believe you can. Monster Hunter World does this quite well, with the story broken up into bite-sized missions that can be completed quite quickly either solo or with teammates. And if you are really short on time, there are arena battles which cut out the tracking/stalking element of the missions and just puts you in a room with a big monster to kill.
When it comes to combat, the trick is designing a combat system that can be picked up fairly quickly by a new player, but still offers depth for someone willing to put lots of hours into mastering it. Fighting games are great at doing this.
The point is, just because you are restricted on playtime, doesn't mean you can't still make a good product.
To me, the question isn't "can you", but rather "should you".
There are a number of games that do this well - but none of the games that do it well are MMORPG's. Even more specifically, none of them are MMORPG's with limited fast travel.
Sure, an MMO could do that. You could make an MMO that focuses on just dropping players in on content without all the stuff around it so that players could do something in 15 minutes. It wouldn't be a good MMO, but it would be an MMO. If you went out and developed an MMO based around this notion, what you then have, whether you intended to or not, is a WoW clone.
Because of that, I'm not debating what is and is not possible, I am debating what is and isn't a good fit for this specific game.
Sure, this game almost definitely will have encounters that take less 15 minutes - but they would be sitting at the bottom of a dungeon that takes a good hour to fight down to.
That is what this game is about.
I have no doubt there will also be node attacks that take less than 15 minutes to play through. Thing is, it won't be content on demand - if you are 15 minutes travel away from something that takes 15 minutes to do, you will miss out.
I don't see any real way to make meaningfully good content in Ashes specifically targeted for players to be able to complete in 15 minutes after logging in - I would expect it to usually take that long to just get to the content you want to do, let alone do it. There will always be something to do, but players would be more likely to expect to do things like harvesting, or killing enemies near their node - things to help level your character or your node, or perhaps a small contribution to a construction project.
Basically, if you log in with 15 minutes to kill, you would expect to do base level content rather than boss level content.
It seems like today, a lot MMOs have stepped away from that idea. They want to be accessible to players without requiring that level of commitment.
Lifestyle games aren't just limited to the MMO genre, either. Competitive games (MOBAs and fighting games in particular) can also offer a level of depth that players can devote half of their life to.
To me, that's what it comes down to: depth. MMOs put most of their depth in the world. The environment, the stories, the character progression, the world systems, the communities, and the choices that we can make to interact with all those. And there's just no way to access that depth in 15-minute play sessions.
Conversely, time-investment is closely tied to depth, but it's not enough on it's own. 10-hour quests or grinding sessions are pointless if there's no depth to them. Spending time to travel on foot isn't good design if the world you're travelling through is shallow and uninteresting.
But in the end you're exactly right; AoC is supposed to be a game that is deep and meaningful, and the only way for it to work is if the game (and by extension, the devs) expect players to spend a looot of time in the game.
Hopefully the community has the same expectations. The people on these forums obviously do (talking on the forums about an unreleased game is clearly a sign that we have time to spare), but I wonder about the wider audience that will arrive after Intrepid makes their final marketing push before launch.
You can't have depth if players don't put time in to a game, and players won't put time in to a game if you don't have depth.
Developers need to set the expectation early in development, and clearly communicate that expectation to players before release.
For all intent and purposes it could have been a stickman. You just wont notice.
On the other hand you have a game like Vindictus(aka. Mabinogi heroes) same principle hack and slash, but stuff lived for a while and especially bosses were more aking to Monster Hunter bosses were you learned the tells and attack paterns and fought for quite some time. It was work to down a boss, but it felt really good.(Not anymore tho, now the leveling phase at least is just a fast slaugther like Kritika) I loved Vindictus but I can't bring myself to play it anymore, it just feels so bad now.
I can be a life devouring nightmare. - Grisu#1819
Breadth > depth.
Certainly, the world has to remain interesting.
Grinding inherently means doing something uninteresting for a long period of time.
Not specifically directed at you, just a general observation.
So...
Breadth is great, but it is no substitute for depth, and it never will be.
Lets imagine the game has five main paths, solo adventuring, group based, raiding, a crafting path, and a sailing path.
Imagine all five are equal in terms of content, reward, time investment etc.
Now, some people absolutely will take advantage of all five. This is a given. Some people, however, just don't like crafting and so won't use it. Some people will ONLY like crafting, and so only use that. Some people will love solo adventuring, but rarely want to group and never raid, and if the sailing path requires a number of people, that player that enjoys solo adventuring may find that the only things they enjoy from the above list are soloing and crafting. This means they only really play two fifths of the games breadth.
If none of these paths are particularly deep, a player that only enjoys a few of the above paths will quickly find themselves out of things to do. Most players simply won't partake in an activity in an MMO if they don't enjoy that specific activity.
If each of these paths are deep though, a player that only really cares about one will still find there is plenty to do.
I agree the world has to remain interesting, but it remains interesting by being deep.
A deep world has a story that is interconnected. The story from one area is inherently connected to the story from another area, which is tied to a thing you did 20 levels ago and will be referenced again a number of times in the future. This is a world that is deep.
A world that only has breadth though, that is where you go to a quest hub (or node in Ashes), and the story is totally disconnected from anything else in the game. Then you go to the next hub, and again, a story that is totally disconnected from the game.
It's like reading a multitude of haiku rather than reading a single epic. Sure, a haiku can be well constructed and amusing in and of itself, but once you read it and move on to the next, you're done with that first one. On the other hand a good epic can influence language and pop culture several millennia after the fact.
Breadth trumps depth.
Right. These five paths are precisely why breadth trumps depth.
If the game is focused on depth for group adventuring and raiding, it's probably going to lose a lot of players.
Nope. Each of those paths could have broad horizontal progression that is captivating rather than deep vertical progression. The progression in each of those paths does not have to be deep and vertical in order to be enjoyable.
But, really, there needs to be more paths to fun than just those five.
Same if each of those paths are broad. But, having plenty to do is more about breadth - not vertical strength.
Nope. It remains interesting by being diverse - breadth v depth.
That is actually an example of breadth; not depth.
A broad world has a story that is interconnected. And continues to have a variety of new stories, regardless of level - even when you're capped at level 20 for months and years.
Nope. A broad world is one that changes dynamically regardless of level. Rather than being static, with players moving from one hub to another as the their levels increase - culminating in an endgame at level cap.
A broad world continues to have new stories even at level cap - regardless of what the level cap is.
Haiku also influence language and pop culture for millennia.
But, haiku is an exceedingly poor reference for this discussion.
Still, I would rather have a multitude of abilities rather than one strong ability.
And I would much rather have a multitude of diverse quests than one epic quest.
I would also much rather fight an army of vampires, werewolves and witches for two hours than fight one epic dragon for one hour... and then fight the same epic dragon again for the second hour.
With regards to the game world, one of the biggest complaints about Skyrim (as an example) is that it's a world as big as an ocean with the depth of a pond. This is another trap that a lot of developers fall into. They think that just having the biggest world possible is going to satisfy the players. This is definitely NOT the case. In fact, it's usually better to have a smaller game world that has a lot more in it, rather than relying on copy-pasting elements to give the illusion of depth. If you were to compare the world of Skyrim to the world of Bloodborne you will see this clearly. Bloodborne's world is a lot small than Skyrim but there is a lot more diversity and interest to it. In Skyrim you can walk for 10 minutes straight without encountering anything interesting, whereas in Bloodborne there is always something around every corner, whether it be an item that you need, a savepoint or just a group of mobs that require you to do something.
@wanderingmist Yeah semantics are the worst thing to argue over in any setting, but sometimes you just gotta clear up some miscommunications before you move on.)
I only said the word "grind" once. And I don't even agree with your definition of it. So you kinda twisted my words.
You can have good, fun grinding and boring grinding. Grinding just means you're doing the the same thing (or very similar thing) over and over. Let's say 5 times or more. If it's something you enjoy every time you do it, then it's still grinding, but it's fun and I don't have a problem with it.
I put over 1000 hours into TF2 when I was in high school. Mostly on 6-8 maps and 4 (of 9) classes. And that game only had a few weapons for each class. So I'd say I easily put 50 hours on the Medic in the Turbine map alone. That's grinding. And there weren't even any appreciable rewards for the grind (maybe achievements, but those don't really matter). I just did it because the game was fun. And deep.
And oh look at that, a nice segue into my definition of depth. Vertical progression often has nothing to do with depth. Depth is all about the number of interacting systems in the game/activity (vertical progression can be one of those systems, but not the only one). The complexity of the activity and the sheer amount of small variations and nuances is what allows an activity to be deep and fun for a very long time. If an activity is deep, some people (not me) might not consider it to be a "grind" at all, because every time you do it, it's a little bit different.
Breadth is very similar in this regard, but not as interesting or compelling. Breadth is just having more options on the same level. Depth is having more levels. So a game can have 20 activities with 20 variations on each, and I'd call that breadth. Or a game can have 5 activities with 5 variations each, and you can do them with 5 different classes, and the 4 different types of nodes/region/biome might affect the activity in different ways, and the outputs/rewards for the activity may tie into several other game systems. That's what I call depth.
Basically, if I wanted breadth, I would just go play a bunch of different games. But personally (you are free to feel differently) I would prefer to play only a few games that are very deep.
Of course MMOs do benefit a ton from breadth. Having little mini-games and events spread around the world is super nice as a break from all the other content. And people always like having tons of class options, which I'd consider to be breadth. But I think depth is more important.
To me, the one epic quest sounds a lot more engaging and satisfying. I think the standard RPG formula with one epic quest and a couple diverse side-quests mixed in, is probably ideal. For Ashes, the "one epic quest" is probably the story of a Metropolis, and that's spread out over many players and a lot of activities. So Ashes probably leans more into breadth when it comes to quests/story. I'm hoping the depth gets made up for in the combat, crafting, and economic systems.
A board/deep and static/dynamic are not inherently related to each other.
You can have a world that is broad and static (WoW), broad and dynamic (Skyrim), deep and static (EQ2) as well as deep and dynamic (Ashes, hopefully).
Strangely, you can also technically have broad and deep together, along with either static or dynamic (static and dynamic are mutually exclusive), though the development cost of such a game is so prohibitive that such a world is only possible in theory. So much so, the only example I can think of is The Oasis from the movie Ready Player One.
So essentially, you are talking about 4 different properties a world could have, and confusing them to mean only two different things.
Among (many) other things, I think you are getting mixed up between a broad vs deep progression path, and a broad vs deep world. These are absolutely not the same thing, are not interchangeable, and should never be confused with each other. It is possible to have a game with a deep progression path or a broad progression path in any of the 4 practical world types outlined above.
I am very quickly remembering why you are the only person I have ever blocked on any forum, ever. However, I am going to do the single best thing I can do for you, and point out to you that Ashes is probably not the game for you.
I don't know if you ever played Archeage (I doubt it), but on almost every server I played on, there was that one player. Without exception, that player was a loudmouth in chat that thought he knew what he was saying, contradicted everyone else and was argumentative yet lacked the ability to put together a coherent argument. If someone went to trial, and in the list of crimes they had committed there was a murder of that one player, the jury would laugh, say thanks for killing him and let the accused player off.
In Ashes, that is going to be you.
While there is no trial system, people will see you and just kill you because of your attitude. Hell, if you and I were on the same server, I'd offer a perpetual gold reward for every kill of you with a time stamped screenshot posted to the forums for proof. While corruption is absolutely a thing, a little bit of corruption isn't too big of a deal, and people are usually happy to take a small hit for the chance to kill that one player.
So far, Dygz, we all know that you don't want to have to form an in game social network. We know you would rather meet people through Twitch/Discord and such than meet them in game. We know you don't want an overly deep progression path (not world though, as you don't know the difference between a deep and broad world). We know you would rather have several small tasks to perform than one larger task. We know you don't want your progression to be hampered by not grouping up. You also seem to want a meaningful crafting system.
While some of the above will mesh well with Ashes, much of it won't. There is, however, a game out there that meshes well with every single one of the things you claim to want - Path of Exile.
@dygz There's nothing wrong with your presence or contributions on these forums or in-game. The only thing I agree with noaani about is the definition of breadth and depth. But like I said in my post, it's fine for people to have different definitions and different opinions. We're all on these forums so we can talk shit out, not because we want everyone to completely agree with us.
The part about how I see his time in Ashes going, as well as the suggestion of a game that may be more to his liking (I game I play quite often, to be fair - it's actually a really good game) is all genuine. I saw dozens of players leave Archeage over time I played it for that exact reason. In every situation, it was obvious there were games out there better suited to what they wanted.
Obviously, I can't (and wouldn't, even if I could) make him leave the game or forum. Thing is, if something looks to me like it isn't going to be a good fit, if I can see someone (even someone I perpetually disagree with) is about to unknowingly get themselves in to a situation they would rather not be in, I'm the kind of person that has to say something.
I've told him I what *I* think about the type of game he want's. What he does with that info is up to him.
I've played quite a few games that have threads with player bounty posts, some are one off, some are perpetual. There was discussion of that on the old forums for this game as well. Being able to attack and kill a player in game that you just don't like is (as far as we can tell) a part of the games design.
The thing with any game in which players are free to attack and kill others in game - and this is something I've been saying for over a year - is that if there is someone on a server that people don't like, people will attack and kill them at any opportunity. If the game doesn't have large PvP-free areas, and that player doesn't have a strong guild around them, such opportunities will be very frequent.
The combination of the way he communicates and the fact that he isn't really interested in a guild in the sense most of us know a guild to function kind of tells me exactly how I can see things going.
I totally agree with @wanderingmist that this thread was probably not the best place to pass on what I can see happening. However, passing it on was, in my mind, essential.
It's not possible to have fun grinding - because the entire reason it's called grinding is because you're doing something over and over that's not fun and wears you down.
If you enjoy doing whatever repeatedly - it's not a grind.
Vertical progression is a measure of shallowness and depth.
You can have shallow progression like a Level cap of 20 or deep progression like a Level cap of 80-100.
Ashes falls somewhere in the middle in terms of depth.
But, with 64 sub-classes and a plethora of augments -secondary, archetypes, racial, religious, social, etc - Ashes is extremely broad.
The horizontal progression is huge.
Ashes vertical progression with a level cap of 50 is low for an MMORPG - not deep.
Even for Nodes:
There are only 6 Stages of Node progression. That is shallow.
But what can be accomplished with a city or metro - especially with combos of type and racial influence is extremely broad.
Um. If you have to play a bunch of different games to get breadth, that means that each of those games has very narrow breadth.
It's like saying you want to play a bunch of different games if you want depth because each of those games has a Level cap of 20 instead of 50-100.
I would prefer to play one game that is shallow in depth but is extremely broad.
I don't agree that the standard RPG formula is one epic quest and a couple of diverse side-quests.
I would not call Ashes character progression shallow. Shallow would be a Level cap of 20-30 for an MMORPG.
But it's also not particularly deep.
The combat is going to be made compelling by the breadth of the various combos that are possible along with the diverse types of progression available - adventurer progression, crafting progression, Node progression, racial progression, religious progression, social progression, weapon progression, etc.
While I agree with the first statement, I disagree with your examples.
WoW and EQ are equally deep and static.
Ashes will be broad and dynamic. If Ashes reaches a Level cap of 90-100, it might be broad, dynamic and also deep.
I suppose I would have to agree with you that I am conflating the two spectra you posit, since I don't even have a concept of a deep world for an MMORPG other than vertical progression. So would have to explain your vision of broad v deep world that is not related to vertical progression.
yeah, yeah. uh hunh, uh, hunh.
I'm shaking in my boots.
I don't see how any of that is relevant to this discussion.
This is an exceedingly strange perspective - couldn't be farther from the truth.
My Bartles score is: Explorer 87%; Socializer 73% ; Achiever 47%; Killer 0%
I always form social networks in MMORPGs - I just don't do so via combat parties and raids.
Which should be obvious since I'm a carebear with a Killer rating of 0%.
A primary appeal of Ashes is the breadth of the types of social networks that are possible to forge besides just combat parties and raids.
Where did you see me state that I would rather meet people through twitch and discord??
What I said is that I primarily use twitch chat/discord and twitter to communicate with the people I have already met... both in-game and out-of-game. When I first meet people in-game, I use local chat or /whisper.
I don't know that I have ever stated that I don't want my progression hampered by not grouping up. It's fascinating that you know that when I don't know that. I would say something more like I don't want my game session goals to be hampered by feeling an obligation to remain indefinitely in a party or raid. My game session goals could involve a variety of activities besides progression.
But, it's certainly true that I would prefer damage and health to be comparatively shallow rather than having them in the thousands and thousands. And I would rather have max level content involve fighting hordes of Level 20-30 foes than fighting one Level 80-100 boss.
I want all systems to be meaningful. Well, I don't really care if the player economy is meaningful, but I expect the devs to try to make player economy meaningful.
That is hysterical!
"Path of Exile is an online Action RPG set in the dark fantasy world of Wraeclast. It is designed around a strong online item economy, deep character customisation, competitive PvP and ladder races."
Everyone should know that I pretty much loathe competitive PvP combat. I sometimes enjoy objective-based city defense PvP.
And, I probably care less about economy than I do about combat of any kind.
So, it's absurd for to think I would be interested in Path of Exile.
The kinds of games that pique my interest have designs similar to EQNext, Revival, Ashes of Creation and, perhaps, Chronicles of Elyria.
It's fascinating to me that you presume I have to join a guild in order to have contacts with guilds and social communities willing to aid me in battle.
To help you out every 20 minutes every time you are online? That needs a guild or some friends with some serious dedication.
Literally everything I have said in this thread is about the world, not about progression.
I'm going to give you a few examples of deep vs shallow.
First of all, just as a world, Lord of the Rings. The world is about as deep as you can get. There are two main stories set in that world, Lord of the Rings itself, which is fairly deep, and The Hobbit, which is a fairly shallow story set in a very deep world. If you read the Hobbit in isolation, you would have no real idea of how deep the world itself is.
WoW's world is shallow. There is a fair amount of lore in the universe that WoW is set in, but it is not presented in the game - making the game world shallow. Game play wise, WoW is also shallow, there are very few choices for players to make in terms of build, and there is little interaction between different classes. Further, what happens in terms of mechanics in one expansions is almost always cast aside for the next expansion, stories have a tenuous connect at best, but usually no connection.
EQ2 is deep as a game world. The world itself has less over all lore than Warcraft, but it is presented in a MUCH better way in game. The stories also all tie in to each other in ways that are unexpected. The mechanics of EQ2 are also much deeper than that of WoW, there is a lot of interaction between classes, to the point where the specific way you play your class changes based on what other classes are in your group.
It's worth noting that just because a universe has a deep world, doesn't mean a game based on that universe has a deep world - no one is arguing that Age of Conan had the depth in it's world as the novels the game was based on.
Archeage is another example of a game based on a world with more lore than players would imagine. Ask most AA players about the lore of the game and they won't be able to tell you anything other than Dahuta is related to water, somehow. Yet that game is based off of an entire series of novels. Despite this, the game itself is still deep in terms of mechanics.
So really, there are three types of depth a game can have. It can be deep in terms of story, it can be deep in terms of it's games mechanics and it can be deep in terms of character progression.
In terms of lore, a world with breadth is one where each character has their own story. A deep world is one where the stories of all of those people are interconnected. In order for lore that deep to be delivered, there is a need for either long quests, or long quest chains (usually chains). This means that games with deep lore almost always have more longer quests and quest chains than games with shallower lore.
A game with mechanical depth is one where players specific actions have specific meaning outside of the action itself. A game with no interaction between classes in combat or a game with no character collision are both good indicators that a given game has very little mechanical depth. If I cast a buff, and that buff alters an aspect of how you play for character for it's duration, that is a sign of a mechanically deep game. A game with mechanical breadth is one where there are many independent systems that have little or no impact on each other.
I don't feel a need to go in to character progression.
According to Steam, I"ve played 1,500 hours of Path of Exile. In that time, I have not been involved in - nor even seen - PvP combat.
This is because the core game of PoE has exactly zero PvP. There are PvP arenas, which GGG refer to as "competitive" rather than saying "no real rewards". There is the occasional PvP tournament, but again, that is distinct and separate from the game itself. There are a few other PvP types that PoE has (including capture the flag, iirc), but literally none of it is in the core game.
When I said I think it would be a better game for you, I was genuine. Not genuine in terms of "your Bartles score says this is the right game for you", genuine in terms of "the things you say you want in a game, and the way you conduct yourself both combine to tell me that this is the best game for you".
A Bartles score, by the way, is the MMO players equivalent of an "is your man right for you" quiz in the back of a womans magazine. They are both only worth what the person that takes the test wants them to be worth.
PoE is a fantastic game (hence 1,500 hours played), it has none of the pitfalls you will find in Ashes, it is designed to be played 100% solo if you wish, but with the option of inviting others to your group - though with no real benefit past having company.
Hell, the game is so dedicated to not needing other players for your progression, they even have the option to go "solo self found", where trading with other players is turned off, so you have to pick up or craft literally every item you equip.
On top of that, it is the only game I know of that is truly F2P with a non P2W cash shop.
lol, I would not call it minority of players. Blizzard did not make drastic changes because only 2 people complained about it. Make something way too difficult and annoying and it will affect the majority of players, because the majority of players are casual and are not that great at the game. Only appealing to the top 1% of the game will kill your game as you alienate the rest of the players....
League of legends balances heroes by taking into account different rank brackets. This also includes champions that are only too strong in the very low ranks or average ranks. They make up the majority of the player base so what do you think would happen if they completely ignored that player base?
Or maybe it's because there are way too many levels. Now going up to 120. The grind became way too long and veteran players don't want it to take too long because we already have multiple alts already and have seen all the content multiple times.
It's why they're visiting a level squish. Don't think anyone wants to make a new class/race in the next expansion and having to look at the "max level 130, 140, 150 etc" it's just too much.
Yeah, discord would be a big part to finding groups and is a big part for any game in the present. Also I find their point funny, "You don't ever see a good tank or healer spamming for a group" lol. You don't see any tank or healer, good OR bad spamming for a group because those 2 classes are always in demand lol. It's the DPS that have to worry about finding groups.
The ridiculous number of levels to grind through is certainly a factor, but even if there were just 60 levels it would still be pointless. In my opinion a good levelling experience has 3 core aims:
1. Story progression
2. Character progression
3. teaching players how to play
Right now, WoW has none of that. The story is non-existant and all over the place as you go through each expansion, there is very little visible character progression thanks to the world scaling to your level, so the only things you get are talents and new abilities. Even that is short lived and there is literally nothing between level 100 and 120. In fact, the scaling is so badly implemented that often times your character feels weaker as it levels up. How the hell is that possible?????
Finally the levelling is so easy that it in no way prepares players for end-game content, so WoW fails in that area too. That is why I believe WoW's levelling system needs a complete and total overhaul because right now it serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever.
Compare, if you will, the levelling of GW2 to WoW Classic. The current level cap in GW2 is 80, and level cap in WoW Classic is 60, and yet levelling in WoW Classic feels like a chore, whereas in GW2 it doesn't. Why? Because GW2 does it so much better. The story in GW2 is really solid, with good pacing and a very satisfying climax. There is decent character progression as well, both in terms of RP and mechanical value. The only thing it doesn't do so well is teaching players how to play the game. There are a few mechanics that I had no idea existed that are crucial to end-game content. But even with this it's still leaps and bounds above WoW's levelling system.
My problem with current WoW quests is that the leveling treadmill formula is too transparent - the story beats aren't compelling enough to obfuscate the underlying mechanics.
Bringing all this back a little closer to the OP topic...
I think rather than "work" - what I hope will captivate us players is meaningful impact on the world and meaningful investment in the world-building via the various forms of progression - especially Node progression and how that evolves the environments and mobs.
I don't necessarily want building our cities and metros to feel like work or feel like a grind, but we should feel invested in wanting to maintain and protect the homes and governments we've created. Hopefully, we will be equally invested not only in the characters we've created but also will become invested in the religions and social organizations we support.