Question about mmo vs singleplayer rpg questing

VekoCrnogorac wrote: »

Are there ways to make mmo questing similar to singleplayer quests, specificly Skyrim. I didnt play singleplayer games a lot (Skyrim 5h, assasins creed odyssey 10h and little bit of witcher 3).

Recently I started Skyrim and for 5hours I have been surprised for 5 times st least by game design. I play 1h daily and every playtrough Ive been surprised at least once.

Today I was on quest about temple of Mirak (of I pronounced that name right) and I took quest and I didnt go for it immediately, so I went roaming in this area to search side quests since they are hidden (no npc pointers above their heads) andI stumbled upon some elf miner, when I finished speaking to him I found bed near him, so I went to rest to regain magicka (I am playing on survival mode), then when I woke up I found myself in temple of Mirak with some other nord femaleand we got ambushed. I saved game and quit because I want to play Skyrim daily for longer period of time.

I am asking this out of curiocity,can something similar be done in MMO games? Is it too complex to codeand if it is not, why are devs not stealing ideas from this masterpiece of game?

There are many MMOs with quests on the level of Skyrim.

You probably don't hear as much about them because they are old, or other strangeness.

I'll give you an example from a game that is otherwise generally 'quite bad' and doesn't even HAVE a lot of decent quests.

Black Desert Online, for whatever reason, concluded that players care about sidequests SO LITTLE, that they have an option to turn off EVERY quest but the mainline story quests.

Not turn off the MARKERS... Turn off the QUESTS. If you talk to the NPC for the quest the Quest will not be available.

And for reasons that are probably related to the metrics of player styles... this option is ON BY DEFAULT.

Someone out there has concluded 'MMO players just don't care, so don't bother unless you have to'.

Noaani

Azherae wrote: »

Someone out there has concluded 'MMO players just don't care, so don't bother unless you have to'.

The audience that BDO attracts doesnt care, but I wouldn't want to tarnish the entire MMO playerbase with that brush.

Ashes is pulling largely from that same subsection of the MMO playerbase as BDO is, however.

Taleof2Cities

The focus of MMOs is group content, @VekoCrnogorac ... not questing.

Certainly, some MMOs are better than others in terms of questing content (e.g. Final Fantasy XIV, Elder Scrolls Online).

But at the end of the day, they're still MMOs.

Intrepid has been in a habit of under-promising and over-delivering on game systems lately, however. We'll see how the questing plays out in Alpha-2.

i think it's a philosophy and principle concept.

for me, when i hear MMORPG
I hear a world filled with players and a game where I must be A PART of a society.
I don't think of Lone wolf, so I usually HATE seeing solo players and not a big fan of players acting as lone wolf in a social game, in a team work based game.

I would assume, devs when making a mmorpg would be coming from a design to encourage and create group content. Not just a mega lobby for you to interact as a single player able to see other single players.

MMOs has changed vastly, principles and philosophies has evolved and agenda. (cough corporations focus on $/Subs)

UO - you can attempt to be a lone wolf, lots of solo content but because of the open world PVP with FULL LOOT - almost no-one ever wandered alone. This forced, encouraged groups to hit up dungeons. Dungeons eventually were controlled by guilds. Groups of 2-4 were gated out, now they join a guild and able to do dungeons. But everything revolved around PvP threat constantly.

EverQuest - During it's prime - there were very little solo players. Nowadays people figured out everything, and learned to truly min/max that some classes are capable of soloing to max level on specific routes. But during it's prime this wasn't the case.
Killing mobs were slow, even as a group. XP was slow and you gained more as a group vs a solo player. Dungeons were impossible for solo players. All big item drops from named mobs were also impossible for solo players. A lot of things would consistently funnel solo players to groups in order to progress.

The pacing was another thing that added layers. Downtime is a real thing in EQ and honestly a important mechanics IMHO. People conversated in EQ. So now, you are slowly learning and record your experience and interaction with players. Learning who is who. Performance matters, because DYING IS VERY VERY BAD. Almost everyone began to remember everyone name. Imagine playing in a 3k server and knowing 1900 players. REPUTATION mattered and holy hell it was a game career ender if you were listed as a asshole, ninja looter, griefer, BAD Healer, BAD Tank. Everyone held everyone accountable and changed how we played.

That to me is an MMORPG - we are a unit, a team, a society that works together and holds each other accountable.
MMORPG is like moving to a new neighborhood, one that we seen in the movies, in the 60s, where you introduce yourself or your neighbors introduce themselves to you. Everyone in the gated community knows each other, trust each other, watches out for all kids. It is moving to a 30 unit apt complex and getting to know and have all your neighbors phone numbers. Everyone watching out for one another. We are a society, working together. That is an MMORPG to me.

Not the loner who moves in, keeps to himself.

Ludullu

novercalis wrote: »

That to me is an MMORPG - we are a unit, a team, a society that works together and holds each other accountable.
MMORPG is like moving to a new neighborhood, one that we seen in the movies, in the 60s, where you introduce yourself or your neighbors introduce themselves to you. Everyone in the gated community knows each other, trust each other, watches out for all kids. It is moving to a 30 unit apt complex and getting to know and have all your neighbors phone numbers. Everyone watching out for one another. We are a society, working together. That is an MMORPG to me.

Not the loner who moves in, keeps to himself.

While I do like lone wolfing the hell out of multiplayer games, I want the game to push me towards grouping up. This is exactly why I loved L2, because it was exactly the same way you described, it made its players group up and become a community.

@novercalis
EQ 99 is a game that fits for me and I wanted to try it out for so long, since I am not computer guh, I couldnt join servers.

I want game like that but so far what ive seen AoC wont be like EQ 99... we cannot change that, they want millions, mainstream always sucked...i know...

VekoCrnogorac wrote: »

@novercalis
EQ 99 is a game that fits for me and I wanted to try it out for so long, since I am not computer guh, I couldnt join servers.

I want game like that but so far what ive seen AoC wont be like EQ 99... we cannot change that, they want millions, mainstream always sucked...i know...

I don't know why you think that AoC won't be like that?

Do you mean that it won't be 'efficient enough' so you won't be able to find other people who also want to play that way?

It's true that most games will not FORCE people to slow down or pay attention to complex quests, but AoC has a lot of the required bases.

MMOs are also trying to capture more of the market of players who play Single Player games. They're not GOOD at it yet, but they are learning, so maybe in a few years you will see something from one of the upcoming MMOs?

VekoCrnogorac wrote: »

@novercalis
EQ 99 is a game that fits for me and I wanted to try it out for so long, since I am not computer guh, I couldnt join servers.

I want game like that but so far what ive seen AoC wont be like EQ 99... we cannot change that, they want millions, mainstream always sucked...i know...

there is a setup guide on the p99 forums. The Green Server is still active, peaking 1800-2200 during peak hours. Lots of Low level activites still and depending where you start, ppl will give you decent loot to hold you off until mid 20s if you accept it.
It is not very hard to get p99 going, there are YT vids too.

Azherae wrote: »

VekoCrnogorac wrote: »

@novercalis
EQ 99 is a game that fits for me and I wanted to try it out for so long, since I am not computer guh, I couldnt join servers.

I want game like that but so far what ive seen AoC wont be like EQ 99... we cannot change that, they want millions, mainstream always sucked...i know...

I don't know why you think that AoC won't be like that?

I mean that it wont have strong mobs like EQ99. Not even like Vanilla WoW where you can die if you pull 2 mobs. I have seen videos in open world leveling, it will be soft compared to these games.

@novercalis thanks, didnt think of that. I will look at it.

VekoCrnogorac wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

VekoCrnogorac wrote: »

@novercalis
EQ 99 is a game that fits for me and I wanted to try it out for so long, since I am not computer guh, I couldnt join servers.

I want game like that but so far what ive seen AoC wont be like EQ 99... we cannot change that, they want millions, mainstream always sucked...i know...

I don't know why you think that AoC won't be like that?

I mean that it wont have strong mobs like EQ99. Not even like Vanilla WoW where you can die if you pull 2 mobs. I have seen videos in open world leveling, it will be soft compared to these games.

@novercalis thanks, didnt think of that. I will look at it.

Oh. No, it has those.

As of Alpha-1, it has those.

It also uses the system where you get additional exp rewards for the gap between your level and the enemy, rather than getting some base exp value.

So in Alpha-1 I would kill Crabs 6-7 levels above me so that I could get 500 xp per kill instead of 100.

They also don't spawn in 'packs' as often, and they use decent abilities. The PvE design is not the part of Ashes I would be concerned about, if I were in your position.

EDIT: You probably just saw a lot of players who are more used to fighting weaker enemies. Perhaps we should have made Alpha-1 content after all...

just wanting to share this info

https://wiki.project1999.com/Experience_table

https://wiki.project1999.com/Experience

Would also be nice to see Zone experience Modifier errrr Node experience modifiers...interacting with leveling the nodes themselves up.

Say 3 nodes next to each other. Their levels are 5,4,3

it will be a lot harder / slower for 5 to hit 6 obvious, but node 4 will get a XP bonus, giving a boost for it to hit 5 and begin a conflict with node 5.
Same is true for node 3, even greater boost of xp thus in turn allowing it to hit node 4 quicker.

Players action on where they decide to level affects a node, and players needs to dictate do I want to level node 5 to 6 or get the better XP for selfish needs at Node 3, thus slowing or preventing node 5 to ever becoming 6. Maybe Node 3 ends up leveling to 6 - but because of player migration - at some point, they need to coordinate to push a node to leveling up.

It encourages catch up mechanics for new players and even vets/alts to play / assist a lower level node. Content all around.

I suppose I should similarly give the FFXI/previous Ashes data but it's simpler to just explain that than link it.

This is also how it worked in Ashes Alpha-1:

The Baseline exp for defeating an enemy of equal level to yourself and 'normal' was 100.

For every level the enemy was above you, there was a multiplier, which scaled slightly differently than just '1x, 2x, etc'. Same for enemies below you.

So if you are level 10 and you defeat a level 6 enemy, you still get something (either 23 or 33 exp as I remember it).

If you are level 10 and defeat a level 14 enemy, you get either 300 or 325 (I'd have to dig up video to check).

I think the cap was something like 550, which I got from defeating level 15 enemies at level 8, I think. I distinctly remember going 'oh, there's a cap? sad', because I accidentally pulled something stronger than that and barely managed to beat it but still got the same exp, but I don't remember which test that was on.

So the system is 'defeat enemies that are stronger relative to yourself, to get more exp'. It also has the 'standard' multipliers for group that the Lineage II people know.

Best of both worlds if you ask me, but my bias is obvious.

I dont believe in the concept of, defeating something stronger than you as a solo player.

EQ system used a color system

Grey = no XP, so eazy to kill
Light Blue = 4-6 levels below you
Dark Blue 1-3 levels below you
White = equal level
Yellow = 1-2 levels above
Red = 3+ level above

Trying to kill an equal level npc for most classes was near fatal.
Almost everyone killed light blues solo wise, some classes risking dark blues.

Groups would pull yellows. Never a red. Whomever is the highest level player in the group, if it cons red to them, it was a no go.
The only exception to that rule is, if you know 100% sure the mobs level (another EQ thing, you dont know what level they are!) and the avg level of the group is very close, then the risk is worth. But if not, you risk players unable to beat it's AC to deal dmg other than your highest lvl player, whom hopefully better be a DPS at this point.

novercalis wrote: »

I dont believe in the concept of, defeating something stronger than you as a solo player.

EQ system used a color system

Grey = no XP, so eazy to kill
Light Blue = 4-6 levels below you
Dark Blue 1-3 levels below you
White = equal level
Yellow = 1-2 levels above
Red = 3+ level above

Trying to kill an equal level npc for most classes was near fatal.
Almost everyone killed light blues solo wise, some classes risking dark blues.

Groups would pull yellows. Never a red. Whomever is the highest level player in the group, if it cons red to them, it was a no go.
The only exception to that rule is, if you know 100% sure the mobs level (another EQ thing, you dont know what level they are!) and the avg level of the group is very close, then the risk is worth. But if not, you risk players unable to beat it's AC to deal dmg other than your highest lvl player, whom hopefully better be a DPS at this point.

No matter what you do, short of 'basically making them instantly kill you for no reason' there will always be players who do this.

You're not SUPPOSED to be able to fight them efficiently, you should always group.

But some people set out to challenge themselves to do things alone or in smaller groups, that are supposed to take large groups. They might just take very long to do so, and that's the balance for it.

Just don't give them any additional rewards other than personal satisfaction, and it's fine.

You can't make mobs that the average group can fight, but the highest grade of player can't solo, without basically giving them a 'delete this person because they are not in a group' button.

@Azherae you really dont understand how old school games were made, ashes will be soft compared to these games where you can barely kill enemy 2levels above you 3lvls would mean you are dead in vanilla wow (exception would be if you are warlock with tank pet or hunter with pet) In vanilla you would often find yourself questing in areas where you are overleveled - that means mobs are green, just because how easy you would level, if zone was yellow - same lvl as you or 1 higher, it means you will have hard time pulling 2 mobs at once, but its doable, but you lose mana + a lot of HP, 3 mobs would mean you are dead, no chance except if you are hunter/warlock again. Things like this only impact immersion and give you sense of danger in open world. I have seen alpha 1 ashes of creation mobs, people pulled 6-7 mobs same level and aoe them in matter of seconds... you are wrong when you say it will be as hard core as old school games. This game will have great systems that are RPG, but open world mobs are not nearly as strong as oldschool games. @novercalis just explained you how hard EQ99 was. Vanilla was similar, but in vanilla fights lasted less time and it was more casual friendly, Vanilla was the best to give solo/casual friendly leveling, but keep it hard enough, so that you have to be focused on what you are doing, or else you are dead.

this is reason (at least in vanilla) because you will resist/miss your spells as well as spells will hit a lot less on mobs that are red (3lvls above you), with every level mob gets harder, so if you are fighting mob 4levels above you, even if its red, its impossible to kill it, just because of your low dmg and his bigger dmg on you since you are lower level, he also can crit a lot often then you do. Vanilla wow combat was made so that if you are level 20 and you hit 50 per basic attack, mobs will hit you same and they have equal if not more hp/armor depending on mob (if its beast/demon/human..etc), but you will only win because you have spells that deal basic dmg+some 10-15 dmg more and are not impacted by global attack of basic attack, so you can throw basic attack+spell then 1sec delay then again do the same, this is reason why you would always win 1v1, its slow, but it gives sense of danger. Aoc wont have this traditional table top RPG combat, we seen that, those that know what I am talking will agree 100%. Old school games had tradition to design combat similar to first RPG games on internet which were table top RPG combat where you take turns to do attack then wait for enemy to do attack.

Ludullu

VekoCrnogorac wrote: »

Azherae you really dont understand how old school games were made

Calling this presumptuous would be an understatement

he literally spoke why AOC and oldschool games are same...

NiKr wrote: »

VekoCrnogorac wrote: »

Azherae you really dont understand how old school games were made

Calling this presumptuous would be an understatement

Not necessarily, they gave an example, I probably just haven't seen the video they are referring to for Ashes.

@VekoCrnogorac I would appreciate a link to that video when you have time. If you don't want to go looking for it, maybe you can just tell me which content creator made it, and I'll probably find it myself.

If you're referring to recent videos from Intrepid themselves, I agree with you, I've seen multiple movements toward the other style since I played in Alpha-1. This is why I believe that Ashes may be losing its FFXI/EQ influence and moving more toward Lineage/BDO in terms of how it handles mobs.

I'm saying that in Alpha-1, it worked like that. If I was confusing in my example, that's a slight difference between EQ and FFXI/Ashes difficulty.

In EQ I guess you can't go even 4 levels over. In FFXI you can probably figure out how to go up to 6 levels over on a 'favored enemy' after practicing a lot and getting good gear, because mobs are not usually split by 'solo/raid' or anything like that.

But this applies to all games, I think, if you understand your build well enough. So I just offer this to consider, only in the example I gave. If average players in average gear can take on Blue enemies in EQ, then I would expect that average players in good gear can take on Dark Blue enemies, and very skilled players can take on White and maybe Yellow enemies.

Is that not how it works? I'm glad to learn about the differences between the oldschool game that I DID play and the one that I didn't. I've never thought to ask the EQ players I know about stuff like this, it wouldn't have come up. So I'm taking that chance now.

I consider a mob 'hard' when 'it will kill you in 10-15 seconds or so if your keyboard/mouse/whatever stop working mid-fight. Is that a fair definition to use, when discussing this with you?