Crowfall aka Play2Crush aka Shadowbane II aka Nostalgia Online

[Kageru]

Scaling encounters tend to focus on "everyone DPS" because that's a simple mechanism. But for GW2 it's as much about them deciding having actual classes was old-school and uncool. There are synergies and support abilities but they're so weak no one bothers much with them and everyone is in max-DPS configurations and gear. City of Heroes did this better with definite class identities including crowd-control and buffs being very group roles.

No roles also damages group content. Though I still think the soft-grouping of events is a valid approach if you build around it and iterate on it. If they'd used their living story to generate repeating world events and more complex sequences rather than one off content the game would have gotten richer over time rather than just leaving zones with inert wreckage.

Closed little groups are a good thing though. The more tight knit your group, the more you likely you're going to keep playing after you get bored.

It's a trade off.. good for longevity and the dedicated and bad for attracting new players and the casuals.

[Draegan]

Closed little groups are a good thing though. The more tight knit your group, the more you likely you're going to keep playing after you get bored.

It's a trade off.. good for longevity and the dedicated and bad for attracting new players and the casuals.

Not in the least. You just have to design content around more than raids. The Level>Dungeon>Raid Paradigm in games is incredibly insular because there is no mingling. However, the nature of those games in burnout and boredom so players become transient and guilds are constantly recruiting. So there's that too.

[Sophismata]

Levelling is never going away, for better or for worse.  Too many people tie into that number for achievement that it's staggering (it's amazing how many people complained about getting to max level in GW1 right away, even though by that time you've still only saw 10-15% of the content).

This is an interesting point, and possibly bears repeating. I've mentioned this before, but one of the things tried early on in Guild Wars was to remove levelling entirely. Most players didn't like it.

[Malakili]

Levelling is never going away, for better or for worse.  Too many people tie into that number for achievement that it's staggering (it's amazing how many people complained about getting to max level in GW1 right away, even though by that time you've still only saw 10-15% of the content).

This is an interesting point, and possibly bears repeating. I've mentioned this before, but one of the things tried early on in Guild Wars was to remove levelling entirely. Most players didn't like it.

[Sophismata]

Exactly. The addictive effects of levelling are very real.

[Draegan]

I'm glad your imagination is that shallow.

[Lantyssa]

I loved GW's shallow leveling curve.  I don't need dings to keep me interested, I need good game play.

[Draegan]

Players need progression. They need to be shown that after X hours of playtime they got somewhere. Whether that is getting more powerful, whether it's getting a new title, whether it's progressing a storyline; it's something. It's a basic principle of gaming. Levels are just the easiest path to do it.

[Malakili]

Players need progression. They need to be shown that after X hours of playtime they got somewhere. Whether that is getting more powerful, whether it's getting a new title, whether it's progressing a storyline; it's something. It's a basic principle of gaming. Levels are just the easiest path to do it.

Counter Strike was the most popular multiplayer game in the world for a decade and it had no progression to speak of.  Sure, you have the "progression" of your personal skill, but you have that with any game by default.

[Draegan]

Players need progression. They need to be shown that after X hours of playtime they got somewhere. Whether that is getting more powerful, whether it's getting a new title, whether it's progressing a storyline; it's something. It's a basic principle of gaming. Levels are just the easiest path to do it.

Counter Strike was the most popular multiplayer game in the world for a decade and it had no progression to speak of.  Sure, you have the "progression" of your personal skill, but you have that with any game by default.

Yeah and? Your comparing two different types of games. In any case, doesn't CS:GO have a progression system now?

[Malakili]

Players need progression. They need to be shown that after X hours of playtime they got somewhere. Whether that is getting more powerful, whether it's getting a new title, whether it's progressing a storyline; it's something. It's a basic principle of gaming. Levels are just the easiest path to do it.

Counter Strike was the most popular multiplayer game in the world for a decade and it had no progression to speak of.  Sure, you have the "progression" of your personal skill, but you have that with any game by default.

Yeah and? Your comparing two different types of games. In any case, doesn't CS:GO have a progression system now?

CS GO has competitive ranking, but it doesn't have progression or unlocks.  It does have random gun skins, but they aren't progression related. 

But the point is, progression isn't necessary for a game to be popular.  Progression is an RPG thing.  But MMO is not the same thing as RPG.  Unfortunately the two were so related for so long that it seems like every MMO has to include RPG style progression.

[Draegan]

Players need progression. They need to be shown that after X hours of playtime they got somewhere. Whether that is getting more powerful, whether it's getting a new title, whether it's progressing a storyline; it's something. It's a basic principle of gaming. Levels are just the easiest path to do it.

Counter Strike was the most popular multiplayer game in the world for a decade and it had no progression to speak of.  Sure, you have the "progression" of your personal skill, but you have that with any game by default.

Yeah and? Your comparing two different types of games. In any case, doesn't CS:GO have a progression system now?

CS GO has competitive ranking, but it doesn't have progression or unlocks.  It does have random gun skins, but they aren't progression related. 

But the point is, progression isn't necessary for a game to be popular.  Progression is an RPG thing.  But MMO is not the same thing as RPG.  Unfortunately the two were so related for so long that it seems like every MMO has to include RPG style progression.

Eh?

1) Never said progression is required to be popular. But getting better at a game is progression in itself.
2) Progression is not just an RPG thing. A shit load of shooters have that shit these days.
3) Competitive ranking is progression for players. Collecting skins is a form of progression by "collecting things".
4) All MMOS are RPGs for the most part, the only different is the level of persistence. Name me an MMO that doesn't have RPG elements in some fashion.

Maybe you shouldn't reply at all, your splitting hairs and this smells like a game of semantics.
So nevermind.

[Malakili]

You literally called progression a "basic principle of gaming."  If you're counting individual player skill as "progression" then fine I guess, but that isn't what we were talking about so it seems like a stretch.  I've been pretty upset about the introduction of those kind of mechanics into other genres (like the shooters you mention).  I think it has no place there.  But then you're saying the practically everything is progression, so at that point why even bother talking about it.  Every mechanic is progression!

We were talking about the leveling as progression in RPGs and how alternative systems might make for more interesting games.  But I guess your reductive way of looking at things means nothing matters, because progression is progression is progression. 

So let's be specific: What I want is games that have far less emphasis on my character increasing arbitrarily in power based on how long I've played the game.

[tazelbain]

I wish the debates around here would have some progression. 

[Lantyssa]

Progression isn't necessary for something to be a game.

[Triforcer]

You literally called progression a "basic principle of gaming."  If you're counting individual player skill as "progression" then fine I guess, but that isn't what we were talking about so it seems like a stretch.  I've been pretty upset about the introduction of those kind of mechanics into other genres (like the shooters you mention).  I think it has no place there.  But then you're saying the practically everything is progression, so at that point why even bother talking about it.  Every mechanic is progression!

We were talking about the leveling as progression in RPGs and how alternative systems might make for more interesting games.  But I guess your reductive way of looking at things means nothing matters, because progression is progression is progression.  

So let's be specific: What I want is games that have far less emphasis on my character increasing arbitrarily in power based on how long I've played the game.

I've always wondered why you couldn't have more Zelda-esque  MMO "progression"- i.e., not really based on levels or even skill-ups, but based on soft gating factors (you need the boomerang to open the next dungeon, etc.).  The dream MMO in my head is a steampunk/fantasy pirate airship MMO inspired by Skies of Arcadia and Wind Waker.  Have a very low amount of NPC difficulty scale-up, but gate some of the air islands (or some of the content on every otherwise explorable island) with gadgets, etc. that you can only get on the other side of the universe.   Expand characters sideways in a TF2 or Battlefield sort of way, but even a starting character could see (and fight) a lot of the universe without a need for hundreds of hours of levelups or skillups.

[Pennilenko]

I've always wondered why you couldn't have more Zelda-esque  MMO "progression"- i.e., not really based on levels or even skill-ups, but based on soft gating factors (you need the boomerang to open the next dungeon, etc.).  The dream MMO in my head is a steampunk/fantasy pirate airship MMO inspired by Skies of Arcadia and Wind Waker.  Have a very low amount of NPC difficulty scale-up, but gate some of the air islands (or some of the content on every otherwise explorable island) with gadgets, etc. that you can only get on the other side of the universe.   Expand characters sideways in a TF2 or Battlefield sort of way, but even a starting character could see (and fight) a lot of the universe without a need for hundreds of hours of levelups or skillups.

I would play that.

[Fordel]

We don't get anywhere near enough Zelda like single-player games and you want the chucklefucks to make a Zelda like MMO. Yea 

[Soulflame]

No one wants to run the discussion raid anymore.

[KallDrexx]

You literally called progression a "basic principle of gaming."  If you're counting individual player skill as "progression" then fine I guess, but that isn't what we were talking about so it seems like a stretch.  I've been pretty upset about the introduction of those kind of mechanics into other genres (like the shooters you mention).  I think it has no place there.  But then you're saying the practically everything is progression, so at that point why even bother talking about it.  Every mechanic is progression!

We were talking about the leveling as progression in RPGs and how alternative systems might make for more interesting games.  But I guess your reductive way of looking at things means nothing matters, because progression is progression is progression.  

So let's be specific: What I want is games that have far less emphasis on my character increasing arbitrarily in power based on how long I've played the game.

I've always wondered why you couldn't have more Zelda-esque  MMO "progression"- i.e., not really based on levels or even skill-ups, but based on soft gating factors (you need the boomerang to open the next dungeon, etc.).  The dream MMO in my head is a steampunk/fantasy pirate airship MMO inspired by Skies of Arcadia and Wind Waker.  Have a very low amount of NPC difficulty scale-up, but gate some of the air islands (or some of the content on every otherwise explorable island) with gadgets, etc. that you can only get on the other side of the universe.   Expand characters sideways in a TF2 or Battlefield sort of way, but even a starting character could see (and fight) a lot of the universe without a need for hundreds of hours of levelups or skillups.

Sooooo

You want a whole game based around attunements?

[Rendakor]

I think it's cute that people still have "dream MMOs."

[Triforcer]

You literally called progression a "basic principle of gaming."  If you're counting individual player skill as "progression" then fine I guess, but that isn't what we were talking about so it seems like a stretch.  I've been pretty upset about the introduction of those kind of mechanics into other genres (like the shooters you mention).  I think it has no place there.  But then you're saying the practically everything is progression, so at that point why even bother talking about it.  Every mechanic is progression!

We were talking about the leveling as progression in RPGs and how alternative systems might make for more interesting games.  But I guess your reductive way of looking at things means nothing matters, because progression is progression is progression.  

So let's be specific: What I want is games that have far less emphasis on my character increasing arbitrarily in power based on how long I've played the game.

I've always wondered why you couldn't have more Zelda-esque  MMO "progression"- i.e., not really based on levels or even skill-ups, but based on soft gating factors (you need the boomerang to open the next dungeon, etc.).  The dream MMO in my head is a steampunk/fantasy pirate airship MMO inspired by Skies of Arcadia and Wind Waker.  Have a very low amount of NPC difficulty scale-up, but gate some of the air islands (or some of the content on every otherwise explorable island) with gadgets, etc. that you can only get on the other side of the universe.   Expand characters sideways in a TF2 or Battlefield sort of way, but even a starting character could see (and fight) a lot of the universe without a need for hundreds of hours of levelups or skillups.

Sooooo

You want a whole game based around attunements?

Yes, but not in a linear progression sense.  More of a situation where there are fifty possible attunements, but they all unlock oddments here or there on otherwise explorable areas.  Again, think zelda hammer or boomerang type stuff.

[Venkman]

Or like Far Cry? 

FPS, RTS and MOBAs have since proved that the most important persistence for gamers is the account, not an always-on virtual room.

That's obviously true, but that just means gamers don't actually turn out to like what we used to call MMOs, not that MMO now includes everything with persistence.  Which is, like, every game in the world.

Right. We agree. Except I think you missed the reason i said that.

"MMO" used to be something that was different But in retrospect, MMOs were just unique in what they combined: persistence with agency wrapped in themes.

Welp, we have that in spades now. Even the simples match 3 thing has it.

Try to get better
See a metric that says you're getting better
Have a goal that comes when you've gotten measurably better
Do so in the presence of others

That's core "MMO" 15 years ago. Or, most modern games  now.

[Malakili]

See, I never looked at MMOs that way.  The important thing about MMOs, to me, was always that the world was always going on.  I could miss something that I was not logged in for.  There is something intriguing about that in a game. Maybe that's why EVE and WW2 Online are/were my favorite MMOs. 

[tmp]

I wish the debates around here would have some progression.  

Whaddya mean "would", don't you see the pages counter increase as they continue?

[Lantyssa]

This level 6 thread dreams of one day becoming the level 200 juggernaut that SWG threads can spawn.

[KallDrexx]

Yes, but not in a linear progression sense.  More of a situation where there are fifty possible attunements, but they all unlock oddments here or there on otherwise explorable areas.  Again, think zelda hammer or boomerang type stuff.

Except the idea of attunements work great in a game like Zelda where you are only restricted by your own progress.  Attunements in MMOs are usually not very well received because it adds another restriction of what you can do with other people, because not only do *you* need the attunement, everyone you want to play with needs that attunement.

Levels already add a huge barrier to entry for friends trying to play together but at least it's somewhat of an expected barrier (and it's easier to keep track of, you are level X I'm level Y, if it's a difference of Z we should be able to group without wasting time).  What you are talking about means that in order for us to determine if we can play together without one of us wasting time we have to spend time comparing quests and figure out which attunement I need to help you out with (which will most likely add zero progression for myself).

It's a flawed system in a multiplayer game

[Malakili]

I mean, you can always help the person do the attunement if they are your friend or guildmate.  God knows how many times I did jailbreak over the years.

[Rendakor]

Some attunements only require one person in the group/raid to have completed it.

[Draegan]

All mmos have attunement. Attunements are just hard points in progression. You need level x before heroic dungeons. You need some ilevel for a raid or dungeon. I never understood why people disliked attunments as a general rule.

I mean sure, some attunments are stupid and a pain in the ass, but so is a really steep leveling curve or shitty kill 10 rat quests.

[Malakili]

All mmos have attunement. Attunements are just hard points in progression. You need level x before heroic dungeons. You need some ilevel for a raid or dungeon. I never understood why people disliked attunments as a general rule.

I mean sure, some attunments are stupid and a pain in the ass, but so is a really steep leveling curve or shitty kill 10 rat quests.

Because people associate it with long seemingly unrelated quest chains that they had to complete in vanilla WoW so they could do the raids.

[Draegan]

All mmos have attunement. Attunements are just hard points in progression. You need level x before heroic dungeons. You need some ilevel for a raid or dungeon. I never understood why people disliked attunments as a general rule.

I mean sure, some attunments are stupid and a pain in the ass, but so is a really steep leveling curve or shitty kill 10 rat quests.

Because people associate it with long seemingly unrelated quest chains that they had to complete in vanilla WoW so they could do the raids.

Oh, I wasn't aware that every single player playing MMOs or wants to has experience that singular even from 10 years ago.

[Malakili]

Most of the people around here likely do.  Think about where this conversation is happening.

[Threash]

I wonder how far this thread will go before the countdown is done and they announce their crowdfunding pitch.

[Hutch]

You can't enter the Vaults of Kickstarter unless your thread is at least level 12.