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.
I feel that a lot of people are getting stuck on the word "work". They hear you say "work" and immediately think of whatever job they do and are repulsed by that notion. Here's the thing though, the definition of "work" according to the Oxford English Dictionary is as follows:
Activity involving mental or physical effort done in order to achieve a purpose or result.
That is all it is. It's not a negative thing, but more a thing we do in our daily lives all the time. When you go to the gym or do whatever physical exercise you like to do, you are doing work.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
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.
Perhaps. But the point remains that I don't have to belong to a guild to have guilds and friends who are seriously dedicated to helping me out - whenever I'm online.
Just like I don't have to join a party or join a raid to give aid to a party or a raid or to give aid to the individual members of a party or raid.
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.
That told me nothing about what constitutes deep v shallow with regard to Tolkien's fiction or MMORPG worlds.
And I would probably consider the Tolkien mythos/world to be vast in breadth rather than deep.
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.
Here, what you seem to be referring to is deep lore. I do recognize that as a phrase and concept.
I have never given a thought to how deep or shallow the lore is in an MMORPG. The lore of EQ does not seem greater or lesser to me than the lore of WoW. But since I know more off the top of my head about the lore of WoW than the lore of EQ, I would say the lore of WoW is considerably deeper than the lore of EQ.
I actually felt invested in the lore and stories of WotLK and Cataclysm - considerably more than I've ever felt invested in the lore or stories of EQ. Probably because I could see the changes I made to the world. Especially in Cataclysm, I felt like my role as a Druid impacted the lore and the world.
Even though I hate the story of Battle for Azeroth, I understand the character motivations.
I barely remember anything about EQ lore.
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.
Back when EQ2 and WoW were in beta, I was the only person at Activision interested in playing EQ.
Even though it was my Activision co-workers who turned me on to playing EQ. I felt so invested in the lore - especially since I also played Champions of Norrath - that I couldn't understand why anyone would want to abandon that world for a new franchise. But, World of Warcraft was just a much better world experience all around than EQ2. I felt more like I was living in a world than playing a game.
I suppose EQ lore could be considered to have deeper lore since there are way more expansions for both EQ and EQ2 than there are for WoW. But that isn't at all relevant to what lore will be available in vanilla Ashes.
Also, in Ashes, players will be dynamically creating lore - so there really isn't a decent comparison there.
Since we players will constantly be churning out new lore, I suppose the Ashes lore will inherently become deep - as those changes to lore continue to pile up.
If what you mean by deep world is deep lore - I don't know that Ashes will start with deep lore, but yeah, we should be creating enough changes to lore that the lore will become very, very deep.
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.
I don't agree with that your concept of lore "breadth".
I also don't agree with the above definition of deep world.
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 could possibly agree with your example of interaction between classes during combat as an indicator of mechanical depth. Although, since that adds more complexity, I might also consider that to be an example of adding breadth rather than adding depth.
I do not agree with your example of character collision as an indication of mechanical depth.
I also disagree with your example of mechanical breadth.
https://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/134273/evaluating_game_mechanics_for_depth.php
Dictionary.com defines depth as: "The amount of knowledge, intelligence, wisdom, insight, feeling... evident either in some product of the mind, as a learned paper, argument, work of art, etc." As is evident from the scope of this definition, depth can be an incredibly personal term, and can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people.
To me, it describes a sweet spot -- that point during a game where the player can repeatedly display his mastery of a game mechanic. Challenges never stay the same long enough to be boring and yet they also don't change so fast that the player can't enjoy his mastery over the 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".
Yes. I fully understand that your ignorance was genuine.
But, thanks for taking the time to explain your concepts in more detail so I have a clearer understanding of what you mean by "deep world".
I feel that a lot of people are getting stuck on the word "work".
I'm really lucky, I have a career that *really* enjoy. As such, I don't have any negative connection to the term "work".
To me, work simply means time and effort, as you pointed out above. It has no bearing on enjoy-ability or lack thereof. As such, to me, the notion of "work" in any activity I participate in, whether for enjoyment or for any other potential outcome, is totally natural.
I know having a career I enjoy would change the way I interpret a conversation involving the word work, but I do sometimes wonder enjoying a job/career has any effect on the way people consider needing to put effort in to a game they play for escape/enjoyment.
Just a random thought I had while reading your post.
0
Options
Wandering MistModerator, Member, Founder, Kickstarter, Alpha One
@noaani Having a job/career that you enjoy absolutely impacts your view on the word "work". Related to this is the concept a lot of people have (particularly in mmorpgs it seems) of "I play for fun therefore I shouldn't have to practice to get good at it" which is completely ridiculous. If you look at literally any other hobby, it will involve you practicing it and getting better at it. Then as you get better at it you will be able to get more out of that hobby.
Just as an example I recently took up drawing as a hobby in between my job and gaming. I would love to be able to draw all manner of things (my aim is to be able to draw cartoons for my own enjoyment) but right now I am very very bad at it, so I need to practice. The more I practice the better I get and then one day I will be able to draw the things that really interest me. This is something that could take years, but I'm perfectly fine with that. It would be unreasonable for me to expect to pick up a pencil straight away and draw like a professional.
Unfortunately it seems that gamers don't understand this concept of practicing something to get good at it, and instead want to be able to do everything straight away. Either that or they simply don't want to apply the concept to video games, because games are meant to be "fun". Yes they are, just like [insert random hobby here] is fun, but you still need to practice it to get good at it.
0
Options
DygzMember, 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.
OK. Better to just disregard my discussion with noaani.
I've just watched the Lifestyle Games episode of Extra Credits.
They define "deep" as occupying the player's thoughts outside of the game - either mechanically or narratively. Such that the players delve into reddit threads or watch streamers or check out new builds or pore over wikis or turn on some e-sports to watch the pros play.
Extra Credits says that Lifestyle Games must have robust social interactions, functionally infinite content (often in the form of competition against other people). Another example of functionally infinite content is World of Warcraft having a lot of things that take a lot of time to do.
I think Ashes is trying to focus more on procedural generation and various forms of PvP opportunities.
I'm not aware of any MMORPGs that can be played in 15-minute sessions, so it's a bit odd to also say that today MMORPGs have stepped away from wanting players to consider their game to be a lifestyle game.
I think the vast majority of MMORPGs devs hope their game will become or remain a Lifestyle Game for thousands of players. They do hope to make gameplay easier and more accessible to casual players because many MMORPG players who had hardcore time 20 years ago are now limited to casual time due to having jobs and family responsibilities - raising kids rather than being a kid.
For games like WoW, the devs want to provide easy access to the new content in their expansions so that new brand new players or lapsed players who haven't reached the previous level caps don't have to spend months or years trying to level through the old content.
A 15-minute game session in an MMORPG is unrealistic. Minimum game session is probably going to be 45-60 minutes.
I am first and foremost an explorer. I can't think of any MMORPG I've played in the last 20 years that had uninteresting environments. After playing WoW, EQ and EQ2 became too tedious to have any fun exploring - searching out the time-sink zone access points became too much of a chore. I don't expect that to be an issue for Ashes.
I think in terms of exploration and having a world that is interesting to travel through...
The world of Verra is going to be inherently interesting because it's dynamic world that will constantly change as settlements and metros rise and fall.
Even when we only have 15 minutes to devote to the game, we might do so by watching our friends play via twitch rather than logging in to play. We may want to spend 15 or 20 minutes looking at gameplay on other servers to see how the maps and mobs differ from server to server.
Lots of people might be spending more time theorycrafting, researching and thinking about Ashes than they spend playing the game. I'm not sure the amount of time people have to play per game session necessarily matters (for sure, game sessions will rarely be 15 minutes), but MMORPG devs are going to be striving to provide some form of functionally infinite content so that the players who have hardcore time to invest can do so indefinitely.
That time should still feel more like fun rather than work or grinding - where possible.
0
Options
Wandering MistModerator, Member, Founder, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited June 2019
@noaani and @dygz Just so we're all on the same page, I assume we're talking about this episode:
It's an interesting concept. What stuck out to me the most is the difference between a game that is a "positive" lifestyle game vs a "negative" lifestyle game. As noted in the video, a "negative" lifestyle game feels like a chore, like the game is stealing time from you, whereas a "positive" lifestyle game is a game where you feel the time and effort you put into it allowed you to achieve something worthwhile outside of the game.
I love the fact that they also mention "skinner box techniques" in there, which is very important in today's world. For those who aren't familiar with this concept, here's the extra credits episode on skinner boxes:
Now let's apply what is said in that video to modern mmorpgs. Nearly all of them have a system specifically designed to reward the player for logging in every day. Nearly all of them also have RNG loot features that sometimes reward you more for doing the same meaningless action over and over again. Nearly all of them compel you to do activities in the game purely for the rewards.
As sad as it is to say, making a game compelling using skinner box techniques is far far easier than making a game that is fun or engages the player. And unfortunately for us, most games companies have one goal - to make as much money as possible with as little effort as possible, and skinner box techniques allow them to do that. They don't care if their games aren't fun, as long as people play them.
Players are starting to catch onto these tactics and exposing the more corrupt games companies for what they are, but it is a slow process.
That is something that frustrates me no end - people not willing to put any effort in to their hobby.
When I take an interest in something, I put in a lot of time to learn about that thing. Not just the specific thing I am interested in, but the whole family of activities around the thing I am interested in, the history of it, the people involved in it, literally any information I can find on that topic. I do this partially because I enjoy it in and of itself, but also because it gives me a deeper appreciation for the activity itself, and as such I get even more enjoyment out of it.
While I am a firm believer of "to each their own", I simply can't understand people that have been involved in an activity for years, and don't understand even the very basics of that activity - like someone that has been in to pencil drawing for years, but doesn't even understand that there are different types of pencils.
As for those two videos...
I've said it before, but I despise daily quests. To me, they are nothing more than a means to compel players to log on every day. As I'm sure most of us have, I've been in games where I have seen many players log in daily specifically just to do daily quests - not because they enjoy them, but because they feel they have to do them. They really do become little more than a chore.
I've always said this is bad design, I guess now I can extend that to say this is just a Skinner Box, which is lazy and bad design.
Something else I was thinking about was achievements. I understand that some people like them, but to me, they are nothing more than a way to hide bad game design. An achievement that means nothing other than the achievement literally means nothing other than the achievement (duh). To me, if players achieve something in a game, it should mean something. Of something means nothing, then it isn't even something. Thus, if an achievement means nothing other than the achievement, then it isn't an achievement.
I assume that is as confusing to read as it was to write. I guess I'm saying that if a player is playing a game to get achievements, they aren't really playing the game, they are playing an achievement getter.
I also found myself thinking of a few specific people I've played games with whom I saw (and helped) develop skills that have served them well in life in general. The ability to work as a part of a team and the ability to be an effective leader are both things I have seen people learn in MMO's and then end up putting those skills to real work in jobs.
This is actually one of the major things that keeps me playing MMO's in the manner I play them - seeing (and occasionally helping) real people grow and become better versions of themselves. It's a big part of why I prefer to be in raiding guilds where it is the same group of people week after week, working together and improving together, rather than going out and meeting new people every few days or weeks.
1
Options
Wandering MistModerator, Member, Founder, Kickstarter, Alpha One
@noaani I agree with all you said, although on the topic of achievements, achievement hunting is a valid form of entertainment for some people. I would even go so far as to say that achievements are one of the best things they put into WoW.
When you saw someone with the loremaster achievement in WoW, that really meant something.
@noaani I agree with all you said, although on the topic of achievements, achievement hunting is a valid form of entertainment for some people. I would even go so far as to say that achievements are one of the best things they put into WoW.
When you saw someone with the loremaster achievement in WoW, that really meant something.
They can be put in games well, the developer just need to put achievements in for things that actually mean something, rather than having the bulk of achievements be for just obscure things that people literally only do in order to get that achievement.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I feel that a lot of people are getting stuck on the word "work". They hear you say "work" and immediately think of whatever job they do and are repulsed by that notion. Here's the thing though, the definition of "work" according to the Oxford English Dictionary is as follows:
Activity involving mental or physical effort done in order to achieve a purpose or result.
That is all it is. It's not a negative thing, but more a thing we do in our daily lives all the time. When you go to the gym or do whatever physical exercise you like to do, you are doing work.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure most people do not consider exercising at a gym to be work.
Which is why we don't refer to going to a gym to exercise as going to work. Though we may use the phrase "workout" - a session of vigorous physical exercise or training.
My point is that I don't play MMORPGs because I want to experience effort.
I play MMORPGs because I want to roleplay through a compelling story.
I want my interactions to impact and change the world/story, but I'm a casual challenge player. I'm not really interested in effort. And I care about the narrative aspects; not the game aspects.
Though I expect gamers -especially hardcore gamers - will be enticed by effort.
Lots of different playstyles attracted to MMORPGs that devs have to design for.
Practicing to get better at something doesn't necessarily take effort.
I spend lots of hours in dance class practicing and perfecting skills - but, that is play; not work. Play - engage in activity for enjoyment and recreation rather than a serious or practical purpose.
I quickly chose WoW over EQ2 because even navigating the EQ2 map took more effort than navigating the WoW map. Leveling in WoW took less effort and was more fun than EQ2. I would quit WoW when I hit a hell level. I'd switch back and forth between those games as leveling was nerfed in each.
But, I finally got tired of the themepark treadmill and stopped playing both after Cataclysm.
The story beats weren't enjoyable enough to be worth the effort to reach endgame.
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Now let's apply what is said in that video to modern mmorpgs. Nearly all of them have a system specifically designed to reward the player for logging in every day. Nearly all of them also have RNG loot features that sometimes reward you more for doing the same meaningless action over and over again. Nearly all of them compel you to do activities in the game purely for the rewards.
Yes. These are attempts to keep players playing (and paying) during endgame, while the devs work on creating new content for expansions.
Which is why we need mechanics that do away with endgame - the years we're stuck waiting for devs to implement new content.
Now let's apply what is said in that video to modern mmorpgs. Nearly all of them have a system specifically designed to reward the player for logging in every day. Nearly all of them also have RNG loot features that sometimes reward you more for doing the same meaningless action over and over again. Nearly all of them compel you to do activities in the game purely for the rewards.
Yes. These are attempts to keep players playing (and paying) during endgame, while the devs work on creating new content for expansions.
Which is why we need mechanics that do away with endgame - the years we're stuck waiting for devs to implement new content.
Actually, the vast majority of players playing at the top end don't experience this all that much. It's more of a grind that is forced on to the lower tier casual player that hasn't constructed an in game foundation.
While raids could seem to someone on the outside to be something that could be considered a Skinner box, once you are in a serious, top end raiding guild in a game with a competitive PvE raiding scene, you soon come to realize a few things that disprove this as an idea.
The first is that the vast majority of top end raiders don't actually log in every day. If a guild raids three nights a week, the bulk of that guild will log in either three or four days a week. If there was something - anything - compelling people at this level to log in daily, they would surely log in daily.
The second thing is that even when people in such guilds have every item they want from every target on the schedule for the day, people still show up and participate enthusiastically. If raiding content were a Skinner box, once people had everything they wanted, they would cease to participate in that activity.
I've even been in guilds that have run raids months after everyone in the guild - alts included - had every drop they wanted. We did this because we actually enjoyed the content, and so ran that content for the sake of that content. This is the diametric opposite to a Skinner box. I've even been in guilds that - should we finish all out targets for the night early - turned to lower level targets for the pure fun of raiding.
Any time people do content for the pure enjoyment of the content - not for the rewards offered - you know the developers got something right. That has been my experience in raiding in most games I have participated in that scene in (Archeage is the exception here).
To someone that isn't in to this type of raiding, they won't be able to see it. I fully understand that. I'd also potentially agree that raiding in a game with poorly designed raid content may fit in to that box, however, I've never - and will never - played an MMO with poor quality raid content long enough to get that feeling, and such games are unlikely to have much in the way of a competitive PvE raiding scene.
1
Options
Wandering MistModerator, Member, Founder, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited June 2019
@noaani Mythic raiding in WoW can be split into 2 phases - Progression and Farm. During progression mythic raiders are expected to log on every day to grind out world quests for Azerite Power and M+ dungeons for upgrades. This is where the skinner box elements come in, because in order to do the things they want to do (raiding) they have to do a bunch of meaningless tasks just for the rewards (world quests and dungeons). This is especially true for top 100 guilds that usually require players to have 2-5 characters ready to raid.
When progression has ended and the raid is on farm, there is much less need to grind AP or get more gear so raiders will typically only log in during raid nights. Then once the next raid tier is announced, the raiding guilds go back to progression-mode and start grinding AP again.
You are right though that if a player decides to do something despite not being intrinsically rewarded for it, that is a very good sign. No doubt about that. For me at least, raiding is the only thing in WoW that I actually enjoy, partly because it's the only thing in WoW that encourages meaningful relationships. When you are part of a tight-knit cohesive raiding team, that is a very special thing. Nothing else in Retail WoW can give you that, which is why so many people value raiding so highly.
Regarding the rest of the game, I think it speaks volumes that those who have access to the WoW Classic beta are choosing to play that in between raid nights rather than Retail WoW.
I don't expect you to watch the whole thing, but just watch the first minute and it will give you a glimpse of the mindset. He talks about things he WANTS to do in Classic. He doesn't need to do it and when you consider that his WoW Classic character will be deleted at the end of the beta, there is really no real purpose to playing that character anymore. And yet he does. He chooses to play that character over anything in Retail WoW.
@noaani Mythic raiding in WoW can be split into 2 phases - Progression and Farm. During progression mythic raiders are expected to log on every day to grind out world quests for Azerite Power and M+ dungeons for upgrades. This is where the skinner box elements come in, because in order to do the things they want to do (raiding) they have to do a bunch of meaningless tasks just for the rewards (world quests and dungeons). This is especially true for top 100 guilds that usually require players to have 2-5 characters ready to raid.
I've said it many times before, WoW is the epitome of bad game design.
Some of WoW's encounters are enjoyable, but the game itself is not.
Something I've noticed, Intrepid designers talk about many games. They talk about Lineage, they talk about Archeage, the talk about EQ/EQ2. They very rarely talk about WoW.
I never consider WoW when talking about MMO's unless others bring it up, or I am pointing out how things are done wrong.
I don't expect anything in WoW to apply in the slightest to Ashes.
I personally liked runescapes approach a lot. There are a lot of grindy skills and content but they never feel like a grind. You're never forced to grind, its always your own will that takes you to it. Another important point on that is you can see the end and know how long it will approximately take.
Retail WoW is trying to keep you away from bis gear as much as possible, while trying to keep you logging in as much as possible. All this is done by RNG gating(chests, rng gear from arenas) gear and creating very grindy content (Artifact weps, HoA)
When youre at gym working out, it doesnt feel like a grind even though you work out 3 times a week.
I think in this thread we should be able to locate what the core variables are for accomplishing that in a game.
When I'm at gym Im always theorycrafting, the muscles movement, joint restrictions, requirements for muscle growth and all that. I research these things online on my free time and keep optimizing the maneuvers.
The core components I can see comparing gym to gaming experience is having complex mechanics with depth(combat?+economy?=body?), having the freedom of not doing the activity at all, having difficulty set by urself(reward/difficulty ratio) and breadth(multiple hobbies=multiple ways to progress<-Economy?)
I feel like were only scratching the surface on this topic...
"You're seeking for perfection, but your disillusions are leading to destruction.
You're bleeding for salvation, but you can't see that you are the damnation itself." -Norther
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Actually, the vast majority of players playing at the top end don't experience this all that much. It's more of a grind that is forced on to the lower tier casual player that hasn't constructed an in game foundation.
While raids could seem to someone on the outside to be something that could be considered a Skinner box, once you are in a serious, top end raiding guild in a game with a competitive PvE raiding scene, you soon come to realize a few things that disprove this as an idea.
Any time people do content for the pure enjoyment of the content - not for the rewards offered - you know the developers got something right. That has been my experience in raiding in most games I have participated in that scene in (Archeage is the exception here).
To someone that isn't in to this type of raiding, they won't be able to see it. I fully understand that. I'd also potentially agree that raiding in a game with poorly designed raid content may fit in to that box, however, I've never - and will never - played an MMO with poor quality raid content long enough to get that feeling, and such games are unlikely to have much in the way of a competitive PvE raiding scene.
Yeah, endgame content will be perfect for people who can enjoy repetitive content.
And, people are unlikely to play games that don't satisfy their specific playstyle.
With Ashes, I'm interested to learn whether I will enjoy defense during Monster Coin attacks and participating in caravan raids. I'm expecting to enjoy caravan raids more than world boss raids.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I personally liked runescapes approach a lot. There are a lot of grindy skills and content but they never feel like a grind. You're never forced to grind, its always your own will that takes you to it. Another important point on that is you can see the end and know how long it will approximately take.
Retail WoW is trying to keep you away from bis gear as much as possible, while trying to keep you logging in as much as possible. All this is done by RNG gating(chests, rng gear from arenas) gear and creating very grindy content (Artifact weps, HoA)
When youre at gym working out, it doesnt feel like a grind even though you work out 3 times a week.
I think in this thread we should be able to locate what the core variables are for accomplishing that in a game.
When I'm at gym Im always theorycrafting, the muscles movement, joint restrictions, requirements for muscle growth and all that. I research these things online on my free time and keep optimizing the maneuvers.
The core components I can see comparing gym to gaming experience is having complex mechanics with depth(combat?+economy?=body?), having the freedom of not doing the activity at all, having difficulty set by urself(reward/difficulty ratio) and breadth(multiple hobbies=multiple ways to progress<-Economy?)
I feel like were only scratching the surface on this topic...
Yes. Here's a quote I came across yesterday: https://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/134273/evaluating_game_mechanics_for_depth.php
"So What Does "Deep" Mean, Anyway?
To me, it describes a sweet spot -- that point during a game where the player can repeatedly display his mastery of a game mechanic. Challenges never stay the same long enough to be boring and yet they also don't change so fast that the player can't enjoy his mastery over the game."
I would probably just call that the sweet spot rather than applying labels like deep or work, but...
I certainly agree that is a sweet spot most of us want to hit... and prolong for as long as possible.
Uh. No.
Using min/max to try to figure out whether you were better or worse at defeating the boss really has no meaning when you can't repeat that boss fight.
Ive been thinking of this topic a little and I am now quite sure that the games economy and crafting system are a huge part in creating meaningful work to a game.
When you have a crafting system in game that renders all raw materials useful, you give player the chance to choose the content he enjoys the most as all work has then decent value through economy.
This is how runescape does it and its best Ive come across so far.
So according to gamasutra work doesnt feel tedious when it gives player a challenge, is voluntary by offering enough things to do on global level and completed state is visualizable.
Im not sure how well the topic describes depth anyhow, Ive always felt depth was a matter of how many levels there are from the game topic to the mikro level. What I mean by this is how many times can you ask "what does this consist of?".
I think the vid on op has a lot of content I agree with and one of the most important ones is that runescape is a game to take lessons from. Economy built around well designed crafting is something that lasts forever and gives more meaning to ur work. When there is less change you feel less often that your work has been for nothing. I cant stand WoW anymore because they keep creating expansions so often. When a new exp arrived I always felt like all the gear I worked for in last expansion was for nothing and that I wouldve wanted to play more with the gear I had worked for.
and yet they also don't change so fast that the player can't enjoy his mastery over the game."
"You're seeking for perfection, but your disillusions are leading to destruction.
You're bleeding for salvation, but you can't see that you are the damnation itself." -Norther
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Uh. No.
Using min/max to try to figure out whether you were better or worse at defeating the boss really has no meaning when you can't repeat that boss fight.
I'm just going to leave these here...
Right. Ashes doesn't have an endgame. So that first quote of mine does not refer to Ashes.
The second quote of mine does refer to Ashes.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
[A]ccording to gamasutra, work doesnt feel tedious when it gives player a challenge, is voluntary by offering enough things to do on global level and completed state is visualizable.
Im not sure how well the topic describes depth anyhow, Ive always felt depth was a matter of how many levels there are from the game topic to the mikro level. What I mean by this is how many times can you ask "what does this consist of?"
The gamasutra article does not say that about "work". I would say the above may be true of gameplay and game mechanics in general. But, again, as a casual challenge player, I'm not really interested in a "challenge".
I don't think I want crafting to feel like it's challenging. Nor do I want crafting to feel like work.
I do want crafting to feel meaningful.
That being said...
When I cracked the petnome for pet breeding in Wizard101 - devising a reliable method for discovering the specific set of traits an original pet will have and a system for breeding the traits you want the offspring to inherit - that was a challenge that did not feel like work. Mapping the traits for each new pet type could be somewhat tedious, but the joy of providing the info to the rest of the community outweighed whatever tedium I felt. Probably because it felt like I was a master of those game mechanics... so it was fun; not work.
When I played Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning - I systematically tested the alchemical combos of plants and other resources to determine what kinds of potions could be made and entered my findings into the wiki.
Which, some could label as work, I suppose, but for me was fun play. It didn't feel particularly challenging.
And it didn't feel particularly tedious.
Both of those activities felt like I was piecing together a puzzle. Play; not work.
I think that's the way I like my crafting, too. Putting pieces together like a puzzle, rather than doing work.
I craft because crafting is fun and I like the appearances of the items I craft. Or the unique attributes provided by those items.
I abhor the crafting economy in MMORPGs because gamers are way too greedy for my tastes.
Blizzard putting expansions out too quickly sounds crazy to me. The entire reason I no longer play MMORPGs is because expansions take too long to implement.
My thoughts are : i want my efforts in the game (playing time and time invested in become better at the game) be rewarded. I dont want randomness in my progression but i want it in pve encounters so i feel like playing agains something less scripted and making adjustement necessary. I dont want ppl lees invested in the game having a better progrogression because of the randomness. And i want a real multiplayer content where players own experiences can bring something to the others
Uh. No.
Using min/max to try to figure out whether you were better or worse at defeating the boss really has no meaning when you can't repeat that boss fight.
I'm just going to leave these here...
Right. Ashes doesn't have an endgame. So that first quote of mine does not refer to Ashes.
The second quote of mine does refer to Ashes.
How can you have not been talking about Ashes? We are all talking about Ashes content, and you say the above in the context of Ashes content, and follow it up with the kind of content you want to see in Ashes. Then, when called out on it you say you weren't talking about Ashes?
Why were you not talking about Ashes?
If not Ashes, what future game were you -specifically- talking about?
Just because Ashes will not have one single encounter that is considered the "end" encounter, doesn't mean it won't have raid content - as Intrepid have stated. Raid content at the level cap is considered "end game content" by everyone but you, and my assumption is (and will remain, regardless of how you try to weasel out of this) that this is what you were referring to in the above quote.
Both of those activities felt like I was piecing together a puzzle. Play; not work.
You consider that play, many would consider that work.
That is the point here, what is fun for one will not be fun for all. Stick to what you consider fun, and leave what you don't consider fun to those that do.
I think the best they can do to create meaningful work is to have multiple varying difficulties with reward equal to the effort.
I think a good example of this is with runescapes normal mobs to harder mobs and then bosses and then raids.
Each could land you profit, yet it scaled well with the difficulty.
Im not sure how you can apply this to crafting though...
maybe harder to attain recipes or make reward scale to how well people can use MS excel?
"You're seeking for perfection, but your disillusions are leading to destruction.
You're bleeding for salvation, but you can't see that you are the damnation itself." -Norther
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
How can you have not been talking about Ashes? We are all talking about Ashes content, and you say the above in the context of Ashes content, and follow it up with the kind of content you want to see in Ashes. Then, when called out on it you say you weren't talking about Ashes?
Why were you not talking about Ashes?
If not Ashes, what future game were you -specifically- talking about?
wanderingmist wrote: Now let's apply what is said in that video to modern mmorpgs. Nearly all of them have a system specifically designed to reward the player for logging in every day. Nearly all of them also have RNG loot features that sometimes reward you more for doing the same meaningless action over and over again. Nearly all of them compel you to do activities in the game purely for the rewards.
I wrote: "Yes. These are attempts to keep players playing (and paying) during endgame, while the devs work on creating new content for expansions.
Which is why we need mechanics that do away with endgame - the years we're stuck waiting for devs to implement new content."
"These attempts" was not referring to Ashes because Ashes does not have an endgame.
You replied: "Any time people do content for the pure enjoyment of the content - not for the rewards offered - you know the developers got something right. That has been my experience in raiding in most games I have participated in that scene in (Archeage is the exception here)."
In context as a reply to my comment about endgame in "nearly all modern mmorpgs" - your reply says that if people enjoy the repeatable content which endgame consists of, the devs have done something right.
Thus, I responded "Yeah, endgame content will be perfect for people who can enjoy repetitive content."
That's an acknowledgement that there are people who do enjoy endgame content. And indicates that I understand that type of content might be perfect in your estimation - Archeage being the exception.
I don't think you've participated in endgame raiding in Ashes. So, no, the context of that discussion tangent was not about the endgame content in Ashes - it was about the endgame content we have experienced in most modern MMORPGs.
Because Ashes does not have endgame content.
"Part of the whole experience with nodes is that there is no real end-game, in that the world is constantly shifting every day. Month one is going to be really different from month two; and that's for the level 50s and level 1s."
– Jeffrey Bard
"We don’t really have what I call an ‘endgame.’ Because the storyline can be constantly changing, there are new experiences at those higher levels that people get to participate in."
– Steven Sharif
Just because Ashes will not have one single encounter that is considered the "end" encounter, doesn't mean it won't have raid content - as Intrepid have stated. Raid content at the level cap is considered "end game content" by everyone but you, and my assumption is (and will remain, regardless of how you try to weasel out of this) that this is what you were referring to in the above quote.
I did not state that Ashes will not have raid content.
Raid content at max character level is not considered to be end game content by everyone.
Jeffrey doesn't consider that to be endgame content. Steven doesn't consider that to be endgame content.
It's just overall game content. All content should be relevant at all times - that's a primary design goal for Ashes.
That is the point here, what is fun for one will not be fun for all. Stick to what you consider fun, and leave what you don't consider fun to those that do.
That's actually not the point. The point of this thread is discussing how we feel about the importance of "work" in an MMORPG. Not just about how you feel about the importance of "work" in an MMORPG.
Thus, we are sharing our views.
I'm sharing mine.
You are sharing yours.
We don't have to agree.
Comments
I feel that a lot of people are getting stuck on the word "work". They hear you say "work" and immediately think of whatever job they do and are repulsed by that notion. Here's the thing though, the definition of "work" according to the Oxford English Dictionary is as follows:
Activity involving mental or physical effort done in order to achieve a purpose or result.
That is all it is. It's not a negative thing, but more a thing we do in our daily lives all the time. When you go to the gym or do whatever physical exercise you like to do, you are doing work.
Just like I don't have to join a party or join a raid to give aid to a party or a raid or to give aid to the individual members of a party or raid.
That told me nothing about what constitutes deep v shallow with regard to Tolkien's fiction or MMORPG worlds.
And I would probably consider the Tolkien mythos/world to be vast in breadth rather than deep.
Here, what you seem to be referring to is deep lore. I do recognize that as a phrase and concept.
I have never given a thought to how deep or shallow the lore is in an MMORPG. The lore of EQ does not seem greater or lesser to me than the lore of WoW. But since I know more off the top of my head about the lore of WoW than the lore of EQ, I would say the lore of WoW is considerably deeper than the lore of EQ.
I actually felt invested in the lore and stories of WotLK and Cataclysm - considerably more than I've ever felt invested in the lore or stories of EQ. Probably because I could see the changes I made to the world. Especially in Cataclysm, I felt like my role as a Druid impacted the lore and the world.
Even though I hate the story of Battle for Azeroth, I understand the character motivations.
I barely remember anything about EQ lore.
Back when EQ2 and WoW were in beta, I was the only person at Activision interested in playing EQ.
Even though it was my Activision co-workers who turned me on to playing EQ. I felt so invested in the lore - especially since I also played Champions of Norrath - that I couldn't understand why anyone would want to abandon that world for a new franchise. But, World of Warcraft was just a much better world experience all around than EQ2. I felt more like I was living in a world than playing a game.
I suppose EQ lore could be considered to have deeper lore since there are way more expansions for both EQ and EQ2 than there are for WoW. But that isn't at all relevant to what lore will be available in vanilla Ashes.
Also, in Ashes, players will be dynamically creating lore - so there really isn't a decent comparison there.
Since we players will constantly be churning out new lore, I suppose the Ashes lore will inherently become deep - as those changes to lore continue to pile up.
If what you mean by deep world is deep lore - I don't know that Ashes will start with deep lore, but yeah, we should be creating enough changes to lore that the lore will become very, very deep.
I don't agree with that your concept of lore "breadth".
I also don't agree with the above definition of deep world.
I could possibly agree with your example of interaction between classes during combat as an indicator of mechanical depth. Although, since that adds more complexity, I might also consider that to be an example of adding breadth rather than adding depth.
I do not agree with your example of character collision as an indication of mechanical depth.
I also disagree with your example of mechanical breadth.
https://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/134273/evaluating_game_mechanics_for_depth.php
Dictionary.com defines depth as: "The amount of knowledge, intelligence, wisdom, insight, feeling... evident either in some product of the mind, as a learned paper, argument, work of art, etc." As is evident from the scope of this definition, depth can be an incredibly personal term, and can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people.
To me, it describes a sweet spot -- that point during a game where the player can repeatedly display his mastery of a game mechanic. Challenges never stay the same long enough to be boring and yet they also don't change so fast that the player can't enjoy his mastery over the game.
Yes. I fully understand that your ignorance was genuine.
But, thanks for taking the time to explain your concepts in more detail so I have a clearer understanding of what you mean by "deep world".
To me, work simply means time and effort, as you pointed out above. It has no bearing on enjoy-ability or lack thereof. As such, to me, the notion of "work" in any activity I participate in, whether for enjoyment or for any other potential outcome, is totally natural.
I know having a career I enjoy would change the way I interpret a conversation involving the word work, but I do sometimes wonder enjoying a job/career has any effect on the way people consider needing to put effort in to a game they play for escape/enjoyment.
Just a random thought I had while reading your post.
Just as an example I recently took up drawing as a hobby in between my job and gaming. I would love to be able to draw all manner of things (my aim is to be able to draw cartoons for my own enjoyment) but right now I am very very bad at it, so I need to practice. The more I practice the better I get and then one day I will be able to draw the things that really interest me. This is something that could take years, but I'm perfectly fine with that. It would be unreasonable for me to expect to pick up a pencil straight away and draw like a professional.
Unfortunately it seems that gamers don't understand this concept of practicing something to get good at it, and instead want to be able to do everything straight away. Either that or they simply don't want to apply the concept to video games, because games are meant to be "fun". Yes they are, just like [insert random hobby here] is fun, but you still need to practice it to get good at it.
I've just watched the Lifestyle Games episode of Extra Credits.
They define "deep" as occupying the player's thoughts outside of the game - either mechanically or narratively. Such that the players delve into reddit threads or watch streamers or check out new builds or pore over wikis or turn on some e-sports to watch the pros play.
Extra Credits says that Lifestyle Games must have robust social interactions, functionally infinite content (often in the form of competition against other people). Another example of functionally infinite content is World of Warcraft having a lot of things that take a lot of time to do.
I think Ashes is trying to focus more on procedural generation and various forms of PvP opportunities.
I'm not aware of any MMORPGs that can be played in 15-minute sessions, so it's a bit odd to also say that today MMORPGs have stepped away from wanting players to consider their game to be a lifestyle game.
I think the vast majority of MMORPGs devs hope their game will become or remain a Lifestyle Game for thousands of players. They do hope to make gameplay easier and more accessible to casual players because many MMORPG players who had hardcore time 20 years ago are now limited to casual time due to having jobs and family responsibilities - raising kids rather than being a kid.
For games like WoW, the devs want to provide easy access to the new content in their expansions so that new brand new players or lapsed players who haven't reached the previous level caps don't have to spend months or years trying to level through the old content.
A 15-minute game session in an MMORPG is unrealistic. Minimum game session is probably going to be 45-60 minutes.
I am first and foremost an explorer. I can't think of any MMORPG I've played in the last 20 years that had uninteresting environments. After playing WoW, EQ and EQ2 became too tedious to have any fun exploring - searching out the time-sink zone access points became too much of a chore. I don't expect that to be an issue for Ashes.
I think in terms of exploration and having a world that is interesting to travel through...
The world of Verra is going to be inherently interesting because it's dynamic world that will constantly change as settlements and metros rise and fall.
Even when we only have 15 minutes to devote to the game, we might do so by watching our friends play via twitch rather than logging in to play. We may want to spend 15 or 20 minutes looking at gameplay on other servers to see how the maps and mobs differ from server to server.
Lots of people might be spending more time theorycrafting, researching and thinking about Ashes than they spend playing the game. I'm not sure the amount of time people have to play per game session necessarily matters (for sure, game sessions will rarely be 15 minutes), but MMORPG devs are going to be striving to provide some form of functionally infinite content so that the players who have hardcore time to invest can do so indefinitely.
That time should still feel more like fun rather than work or grinding - where possible.
It's an interesting concept. What stuck out to me the most is the difference between a game that is a "positive" lifestyle game vs a "negative" lifestyle game. As noted in the video, a "negative" lifestyle game feels like a chore, like the game is stealing time from you, whereas a "positive" lifestyle game is a game where you feel the time and effort you put into it allowed you to achieve something worthwhile outside of the game.
I love the fact that they also mention "skinner box techniques" in there, which is very important in today's world. For those who aren't familiar with this concept, here's the extra credits episode on skinner boxes:
Now let's apply what is said in that video to modern mmorpgs. Nearly all of them have a system specifically designed to reward the player for logging in every day. Nearly all of them also have RNG loot features that sometimes reward you more for doing the same meaningless action over and over again. Nearly all of them compel you to do activities in the game purely for the rewards.
As sad as it is to say, making a game compelling using skinner box techniques is far far easier than making a game that is fun or engages the player. And unfortunately for us, most games companies have one goal - to make as much money as possible with as little effort as possible, and skinner box techniques allow them to do that. They don't care if their games aren't fun, as long as people play them.
Players are starting to catch onto these tactics and exposing the more corrupt games companies for what they are, but it is a slow process.
Absolutely.
That is something that frustrates me no end - people not willing to put any effort in to their hobby.
When I take an interest in something, I put in a lot of time to learn about that thing. Not just the specific thing I am interested in, but the whole family of activities around the thing I am interested in, the history of it, the people involved in it, literally any information I can find on that topic. I do this partially because I enjoy it in and of itself, but also because it gives me a deeper appreciation for the activity itself, and as such I get even more enjoyment out of it.
While I am a firm believer of "to each their own", I simply can't understand people that have been involved in an activity for years, and don't understand even the very basics of that activity - like someone that has been in to pencil drawing for years, but doesn't even understand that there are different types of pencils.
As for those two videos...
I've said it before, but I despise daily quests. To me, they are nothing more than a means to compel players to log on every day. As I'm sure most of us have, I've been in games where I have seen many players log in daily specifically just to do daily quests - not because they enjoy them, but because they feel they have to do them. They really do become little more than a chore.
I've always said this is bad design, I guess now I can extend that to say this is just a Skinner Box, which is lazy and bad design.
Something else I was thinking about was achievements. I understand that some people like them, but to me, they are nothing more than a way to hide bad game design. An achievement that means nothing other than the achievement literally means nothing other than the achievement (duh). To me, if players achieve something in a game, it should mean something. Of something means nothing, then it isn't even something. Thus, if an achievement means nothing other than the achievement, then it isn't an achievement.
I assume that is as confusing to read as it was to write. I guess I'm saying that if a player is playing a game to get achievements, they aren't really playing the game, they are playing an achievement getter.
I also found myself thinking of a few specific people I've played games with whom I saw (and helped) develop skills that have served them well in life in general. The ability to work as a part of a team and the ability to be an effective leader are both things I have seen people learn in MMO's and then end up putting those skills to real work in jobs.
This is actually one of the major things that keeps me playing MMO's in the manner I play them - seeing (and occasionally helping) real people grow and become better versions of themselves. It's a big part of why I prefer to be in raiding guilds where it is the same group of people week after week, working together and improving together, rather than going out and meeting new people every few days or weeks.
When you saw someone with the loremaster achievement in WoW, that really meant something.
They can be put in games well, the developer just need to put achievements in for things that actually mean something, rather than having the bulk of achievements be for just obscure things that people literally only do in order to get that achievement.
Which is why we don't refer to going to a gym to exercise as going to work. Though we may use the phrase "workout" - a session of vigorous physical exercise or training.
My point is that I don't play MMORPGs because I want to experience effort.
I play MMORPGs because I want to roleplay through a compelling story.
I want my interactions to impact and change the world/story, but I'm a casual challenge player. I'm not really interested in effort. And I care about the narrative aspects; not the game aspects.
Though I expect gamers -especially hardcore gamers - will be enticed by effort.
Lots of different playstyles attracted to MMORPGs that devs have to design for.
Practicing to get better at something doesn't necessarily take effort.
I spend lots of hours in dance class practicing and perfecting skills - but, that is play; not work.
Play - engage in activity for enjoyment and recreation rather than a serious or practical purpose.
I quickly chose WoW over EQ2 because even navigating the EQ2 map took more effort than navigating the WoW map. Leveling in WoW took less effort and was more fun than EQ2. I would quit WoW when I hit a hell level. I'd switch back and forth between those games as leveling was nerfed in each.
But, I finally got tired of the themepark treadmill and stopped playing both after Cataclysm.
The story beats weren't enjoyable enough to be worth the effort to reach endgame.
Which is why we need mechanics that do away with endgame - the years we're stuck waiting for devs to implement new content.
While raids could seem to someone on the outside to be something that could be considered a Skinner box, once you are in a serious, top end raiding guild in a game with a competitive PvE raiding scene, you soon come to realize a few things that disprove this as an idea.
The first is that the vast majority of top end raiders don't actually log in every day. If a guild raids three nights a week, the bulk of that guild will log in either three or four days a week. If there was something - anything - compelling people at this level to log in daily, they would surely log in daily.
The second thing is that even when people in such guilds have every item they want from every target on the schedule for the day, people still show up and participate enthusiastically. If raiding content were a Skinner box, once people had everything they wanted, they would cease to participate in that activity.
I've even been in guilds that have run raids months after everyone in the guild - alts included - had every drop they wanted. We did this because we actually enjoyed the content, and so ran that content for the sake of that content. This is the diametric opposite to a Skinner box. I've even been in guilds that - should we finish all out targets for the night early - turned to lower level targets for the pure fun of raiding.
Any time people do content for the pure enjoyment of the content - not for the rewards offered - you know the developers got something right. That has been my experience in raiding in most games I have participated in that scene in (Archeage is the exception here).
To someone that isn't in to this type of raiding, they won't be able to see it. I fully understand that. I'd also potentially agree that raiding in a game with poorly designed raid content may fit in to that box, however, I've never - and will never - played an MMO with poor quality raid content long enough to get that feeling, and such games are unlikely to have much in the way of a competitive PvE raiding scene.
When progression has ended and the raid is on farm, there is much less need to grind AP or get more gear so raiders will typically only log in during raid nights. Then once the next raid tier is announced, the raiding guilds go back to progression-mode and start grinding AP again.
You are right though that if a player decides to do something despite not being intrinsically rewarded for it, that is a very good sign. No doubt about that. For me at least, raiding is the only thing in WoW that I actually enjoy, partly because it's the only thing in WoW that encourages meaningful relationships. When you are part of a tight-knit cohesive raiding team, that is a very special thing. Nothing else in Retail WoW can give you that, which is why so many people value raiding so highly.
Regarding the rest of the game, I think it speaks volumes that those who have access to the WoW Classic beta are choosing to play that in between raid nights rather than Retail WoW.
This video describes it perfectly:
I don't expect you to watch the whole thing, but just watch the first minute and it will give you a glimpse of the mindset. He talks about things he WANTS to do in Classic. He doesn't need to do it and when you consider that his WoW Classic character will be deleted at the end of the beta, there is really no real purpose to playing that character anymore. And yet he does. He chooses to play that character over anything in Retail WoW.
I've said it many times before, WoW is the epitome of bad game design.
Some of WoW's encounters are enjoyable, but the game itself is not.
Something I've noticed, Intrepid designers talk about many games. They talk about Lineage, they talk about Archeage, the talk about EQ/EQ2. They very rarely talk about WoW.
I never consider WoW when talking about MMO's unless others bring it up, or I am pointing out how things are done wrong.
I don't expect anything in WoW to apply in the slightest to Ashes.
Retail WoW is trying to keep you away from bis gear as much as possible, while trying to keep you logging in as much as possible. All this is done by RNG gating(chests, rng gear from arenas) gear and creating very grindy content (Artifact weps, HoA)
When youre at gym working out, it doesnt feel like a grind even though you work out 3 times a week.
I think in this thread we should be able to locate what the core variables are for accomplishing that in a game.
When I'm at gym Im always theorycrafting, the muscles movement, joint restrictions, requirements for muscle growth and all that. I research these things online on my free time and keep optimizing the maneuvers.
The core components I can see comparing gym to gaming experience is having complex mechanics with depth(combat?+economy?=body?), having the freedom of not doing the activity at all, having difficulty set by urself(reward/difficulty ratio) and breadth(multiple hobbies=multiple ways to progress<-Economy?)
I feel like were only scratching the surface on this topic...
You're bleeding for salvation, but you can't see that you are the damnation itself." -Norther
Mmmm. Kinda. It's not really anything, though.
It has to be a something that is compelling for the player's specific playstyle.
Yeah, endgame content will be perfect for people who can enjoy repetitive content.
And, people are unlikely to play games that don't satisfy their specific playstyle.
With Ashes, I'm interested to learn whether I will enjoy defense during Monster Coin attacks and participating in caravan raids. I'm expecting to enjoy caravan raids more than world boss raids.
https://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/134273/evaluating_game_mechanics_for_depth.php
"So What Does "Deep" Mean, Anyway?
To me, it describes a sweet spot -- that point during a game where the player can repeatedly display his mastery of a game mechanic. Challenges never stay the same long enough to be boring and yet they also don't change so fast that the player can't enjoy his mastery over the game."
I would probably just call that the sweet spot rather than applying labels like deep or work, but...
I certainly agree that is a sweet spot most of us want to hit... and prolong for as long as possible.
I'm just going to leave these here...
When you have a crafting system in game that renders all raw materials useful, you give player the chance to choose the content he enjoys the most as all work has then decent value through economy.
This is how runescape does it and its best Ive come across so far.
So according to gamasutra work doesnt feel tedious when it gives player a challenge, is voluntary by offering enough things to do on global level and completed state is visualizable.
Im not sure how well the topic describes depth anyhow, Ive always felt depth was a matter of how many levels there are from the game topic to the mikro level. What I mean by this is how many times can you ask "what does this consist of?".
I think the vid on op has a lot of content I agree with and one of the most important ones is that runescape is a game to take lessons from. Economy built around well designed crafting is something that lasts forever and gives more meaning to ur work. When there is less change you feel less often that your work has been for nothing. I cant stand WoW anymore because they keep creating expansions so often. When a new exp arrived I always felt like all the gear I worked for in last expansion was for nothing and that I wouldve wanted to play more with the gear I had worked for.
You're bleeding for salvation, but you can't see that you are the damnation itself." -Norther
The second quote of mine does refer to Ashes.
I don't think I want crafting to feel like it's challenging. Nor do I want crafting to feel like work.
I do want crafting to feel meaningful.
That being said...
When I cracked the petnome for pet breeding in Wizard101 - devising a reliable method for discovering the specific set of traits an original pet will have and a system for breeding the traits you want the offspring to inherit - that was a challenge that did not feel like work. Mapping the traits for each new pet type could be somewhat tedious, but the joy of providing the info to the rest of the community outweighed whatever tedium I felt. Probably because it felt like I was a master of those game mechanics... so it was fun; not work.
When I played Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning - I systematically tested the alchemical combos of plants and other resources to determine what kinds of potions could be made and entered my findings into the wiki.
Which, some could label as work, I suppose, but for me was fun play. It didn't feel particularly challenging.
And it didn't feel particularly tedious.
Both of those activities felt like I was piecing together a puzzle. Play; not work.
I think that's the way I like my crafting, too. Putting pieces together like a puzzle, rather than doing work.
I craft because crafting is fun and I like the appearances of the items I craft. Or the unique attributes provided by those items.
I abhor the crafting economy in MMORPGs because gamers are way too greedy for my tastes.
Blizzard putting expansions out too quickly sounds crazy to me. The entire reason I no longer play MMORPGs is because expansions take too long to implement.
Why were you not talking about Ashes?
If not Ashes, what future game were you -specifically- talking about?
Just because Ashes will not have one single encounter that is considered the "end" encounter, doesn't mean it won't have raid content - as Intrepid have stated. Raid content at the level cap is considered "end game content" by everyone but you, and my assumption is (and will remain, regardless of how you try to weasel out of this) that this is what you were referring to in the above quote.
You consider that play, many would consider that work.
That is the point here, what is fun for one will not be fun for all. Stick to what you consider fun, and leave what you don't consider fun to those that do.
I think a good example of this is with runescapes normal mobs to harder mobs and then bosses and then raids.
Each could land you profit, yet it scaled well with the difficulty.
Im not sure how you can apply this to crafting though...
maybe harder to attain recipes or make reward scale to how well people can use MS excel?
You're bleeding for salvation, but you can't see that you are the damnation itself." -Norther
I wrote: "Yes. These are attempts to keep players playing (and paying) during endgame, while the devs work on creating new content for expansions.
Which is why we need mechanics that do away with endgame - the years we're stuck waiting for devs to implement new content."
"These attempts" was not referring to Ashes because Ashes does not have an endgame.
You replied: "Any time people do content for the pure enjoyment of the content - not for the rewards offered - you know the developers got something right. That has been my experience in raiding in most games I have participated in that scene in (Archeage is the exception here)."
In context as a reply to my comment about endgame in "nearly all modern mmorpgs" - your reply says that if people enjoy the repeatable content which endgame consists of, the devs have done something right.
Thus, I responded "Yeah, endgame content will be perfect for people who can enjoy repetitive content."
That's an acknowledgement that there are people who do enjoy endgame content. And indicates that I understand that type of content might be perfect in your estimation - Archeage being the exception.
I don't think you've participated in endgame raiding in Ashes. So, no, the context of that discussion tangent was not about the endgame content in Ashes - it was about the endgame content we have experienced in most modern MMORPGs.
Because Ashes does not have endgame content.
"Part of the whole experience with nodes is that there is no real end-game, in that the world is constantly shifting every day. Month one is going to be really different from month two; and that's for the level 50s and level 1s."
– Jeffrey Bard
"We don’t really have what I call an ‘endgame.’ Because the storyline can be constantly changing, there are new experiences at those higher levels that people get to participate in."
– Steven Sharif
I did not state that Ashes will not have raid content.
Raid content at max character level is not considered to be end game content by everyone.
Jeffrey doesn't consider that to be endgame content. Steven doesn't consider that to be endgame content.
It's just overall game content. All content should be relevant at all times - that's a primary design goal for Ashes.
That's actually not the point. The point of this thread is discussing how we feel about the importance of "work" in an MMORPG. Not just about how you feel about the importance of "work" in an MMORPG.
Thus, we are sharing our views.
I'm sharing mine.
You are sharing yours.
We don't have to agree.