Think I'll quit and go back to UO.

[HaemishM]

I refuse to play any game as if it were work, and I like "wasting" my time on goofy shit.  In five years I've never had more than one character, I've never been more than 3xGM, I've never had more than one million gold, and I've never had a house larger than my current 9x12.  Hell, it took me two years to get any house at all, and I never even cast recall for my first six months just because it felt gimpy to me.

I think Alanis Morrisette just called. She wants the rights to that story to add another verse to a remixed MMOG version of "Ironic."

[Jayce]

Agreed, when a game becomes "hard work" to you, you might want to take a break.   The Achiever mindset is a false one in a virtual environment.   Play a game because it's fun, not because you enjoy lording imaginary power around.

Thanks for proving my point.  The Achiever wouldn't be an archetype if it weren't a valid one in a virtual environment.  For some people, hard work with a goal in mind is enjoyable. To wit, I'll remove some of the unnecessary bits from your last sentence:

Play a game ... not because you enjoy[it]

If you're enjoying lording your imaginary power, isn't that fun?

[geldonyetich]

Thanks for proving my point. The Achiever wouldn't be an archetype if it weren't a valid one in a virtual environment.

This doesn't really prove the point so much as indicate that some people (most notably Bartle) have recognized a play style that has been classified as the Achiever.  Merely finding a label for something doesn't make it legitimate.

So what problem do I have with the Achiever?   I call that play style into question because it strikes me as self-deception.   The main difference between a player relatively new to MMORPGs  and a burned out old MMORPG player who wants nothing to do with a traditional treadmill game anymore is that is the veteran no longer falls for that illusion.   The burned out see the a boring repetitive grind as a boring repetitive grind, not as a means to get imaginary power.

I've got a little past that (perhaps thanks to better picks in MMORPGs recently) in that I'm now willing to say that not all repetitive grinds are necessarily boring.   If you're having fun, good: for you, the treadmill need not concern you.   For one disillusioned about the idea of leveling, it seems a natural advantage to savor the journey, not the destination.

On the other hand, maybe I should humor people who want to make believe that their grinding in a MMORPG really matters in the grand scheme of things.    The imagination's not something to be shunned, after all.

[Murgos]

This doesn't really prove the point so much as indicate that some people (most notably Bartle) have recognized a play style that has been classified as the Achiever.  Merely finding a label for something doesn't make it legitimate.

*boggle*

So if playing a game the way you enjoy doesn't make for a valid playstyle what does make a legit playstyle?  If it has the Geldon platinum seal of approval?  Some tech in a white coat conducts tests with calipers, micrometers and a multimeter and proceeds to make tick marks on a check list until he stands up and declairs "This is a legitimate playstyle, it has all the indicators!"

You're a dipshit.

If people play that way, and they certainly do, then that makes is a playstyle and since its a playstyle it is just as 'legitimate' a style as any other.

[Dark Vengeance]

This doesn't really prove the point so much as indicate that some people (most notably Bartle) have recognized a play style that has been classified as the Achiever.  Merely finding a label for something doesn't make it legitimate.

Bartle was the one who created the Achiever archetype, and moreover indicated that nobody is really a pure achiever/socializer/killer/explorer. Even two players that are predominantly achievers are going to have different tastes and playstyles based on how they align with the other archetypes.

So what problem do I have with the Achiever?   I call that play style into question because it strikes me as self-deception.   The main difference between a player relatively new to MMORPGs  and a burned out old MMORPG player who wants nothing to do with a traditional treadmill game anymore is that is the veteran no longer falls for that illusion.   The burned out see the a boring repetitive grind as a boring repetitive grind, not as a means to get imaginary power.

Did it ever occur to you that the jaded, burned out MMOG player might not *BE* much of an Achiever? This would explain why they are burning out on games that are focused so heavily on the achiever.

The flip side to this argument could be that since the endgame leaves everyone on a relatively equal footing, that there is no worthwhile power to be had, as the power differential between players is virtually nil. And this says nothing about the fact that in most of these games, once the endgame is reached, there is nothing left to do but socialize and/or pvp. In short, Achievers can get burned out on the grind if they begin to perceive the goals as insignificant and/or inconsequential relative to the amount of time/effort required to get there.

I've got a little past that (perhaps thanks to better picks in MMORPGs recently) in that I'm now willing to say that not all repetitive grinds are necessarily boring.   If you're having fun, good: for you, the treadmill need not concern you.   For one disillusioned about the idea of leveling, it seems a natural advantage to savor the journey, not the destination.

They aren't all boring FOR YOU. The moral of the story is that the boredom associated with the grind is subjective. Obviously, because otherwise treadmills wouldn't still dominate the genre.

On the other hand, maybe I should humor people who want to make believe that their grinding in a MMORPG really matters in the grand scheme of things.    The imagination's not something to be shunned, after all.

Anyone who believes that anything associated with playing MMOGs "matters in the grand scheme of things" should be shot in the face. Twice. After being beaten mercilessly with a ball peen hammer.

Yknow what matters in the grand scheme of things? Contributions to society as a whole. Life, death, relationships. The impact you have on other people IRL, not some mental masturbation between the player and a set of numbers on a fucking server a few hundred miles away.

Anyone who doesn't grasp that needs to unplug for a few hours and go visit a cancer ward at the nearest children's hospital. That's the grand scheme of things. This shit we're talking about here is just what we do to kill time between work and sleep.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

[stray]

In the "grand scheme of things", I can think of one player archetype that still matters: The EBayer.

But I digress. Back to the Geldon Show.

[geldonyetich]

So if playing a game the way you enjoy doesn't make for a valid play style what does make a legit play style? If it has the Geldon platinum seal of approval?

Bartle has his opinion, I have mine.  Neither changes reality.

You're a dipshit.

Your framing of a compelling argument lacks subtlety.

DV, for the most part you're just elaborating on points I know well but didn't get around to typing.   However:

Anyone who believes that anything associated with playing MMOGs "matters in the grand scheme of things" should be shot in the face. Twice. After being beaten mercilessly with a ball peen hammer.

If this is what you believe, then you dislike the idea of the Achiever mindset in MMORPGs even more than I.   The problem with the Achiever mindset is that, while under it's influence, one would believe that their imaginary achievements matter.   If you've ever wanted to get the next level in a MMORPG, to the point where it does not matter if you're having fun, you've been influenced this way before.   What you're basically saying here is you'd like to mutilate anyone who gets wishy washy over phat lootz or mad xp.  

In the "grand scheme of things", I can think of one player archetype that still matters: The EBayer.

Heh, damn eBayers.  That's another big can of worms, you know, and sort of ties into this discussion is that it is direct proof that there are people who would take real life money and spend it in a purely virtual endeavor, indicating beyond all doubt they feel it matters "in the grand scheme of things".    Project Entropia is built for people who DV would like to see tortured.   (In that particular case, I'd be inclined to agree, for reasons having to do with disliking real money influencing a virtual environment.)

Back to the Geldon Show.

That I'm talking and it automatically becomes the Geldon Show, a show of pratfalling and general mockery, is one of the main reasons F13 isn't the best sounding board for me.   It colors the expectations of what I have to say to the point where many would not to see the value in it.    I sort of appreciate the challenge, but it seems insurmountable at times – the audience seems to get what it expects regardless of what's actually happening.   If Steve Martin were to step up to the comedy club stage and start talking about politics, some people are going to laugh regardless of what he's saying.

[Shockeye]

That I'm talking and it automatically becomes the Geldon Show, a show of pratfalling and general mockery, is one of the main reasons F13 isn't the best sounding board for me.   It colors the expectations of what I have to say to the point where many would not to see the value in it.    I sort of appreciate the challenge, but it seems insurmountable at times – the audience seems to get what it expects regardless of what's actually happening.

Go somewhere else and post your drivel then.

[geldonyetich]

I've certainly been tempted at times.   I do apologize, you're probably just saying that because I'm in total defensive wet blanket mode which totally lacks teh funney and makes reading these boards about as enjoyable as cleaning grout from your bathroom tiles.  (Granted, the grout can put up a pretty good fight sometimes.)

So, lets try to keep the topic here about something other than me for a change, and I promise not to be a self defensive twat in return.  If you want to know that much about me you can always read my blog, where I didn't spare any saucy details of my tremendous struggles with inadequacy.

I know this is on a World of Warcraft forum, so lemme stress right here that a large part of my point is that World of Warcraft is fun on it's own, even when you get past the achiever mechanics.   I particularly like how different the gameplay is for most of the different classes.  (A Mage and a Priest don't play all that differently, but there's a world of difference between one of those and a Rogue, Druid or Warrior.)   The quests provide context to the grind, which is important because it further distances you from simply grinding away.    The streamlined mechanics are the good kind of streamlining, not the "OMG they amputated the game!" kind of streamlining you'll see in Deus Ex: Invisible War.   I'm still somewhat boggled somebody'd be tempted to drop WoW for UO, even factoring in familiarity and dividing by not feeling a part of WoW.

[stray]

That's another big can of worms, you know, and sort of ties into this discussion is that it is direct proof that there are people who would take real life money and spend it in a purely virtual endeavor, indicating beyond all doubt they feel it matters "in the grand scheme of things".

The "buyers" fall into the category of "pathetic", but the "sellers" are doing things that matter quite a bit in the real world. I have a friend who's made thousands from the time he started UO until now. Enough to help buy a new car for his wife, as well as plenty of other nice things.

[Disco Stu]

The "buyers" fall into the category of "pathetic", but the "sellers" are doing things that matter quite a bit in the real world. I have a friend who's made thousands from the time he started UO until now. Enough to help buy a new car for his wife, as well as plenty of other nice things.

Whats pathetic about spending money on something you enjoy? I've never had a reason to do it but I can see why someone would. If you hit level 40 in WoW and only have 50 gold but really want your mount. Maybe its worth 50 bucks to you to get it. For some people thats only an hour of work.

[stray]

Spending 50 bucks to get some credits isn't pathetic, I agree. In some ways, it's probably the wiser thing to do. Spending thousands of dollars (as opposed to making thousands) is a different story.

Details aside, the only point I'm trying to make is that at least one archetype still matters "in the grand scheme of things". Granted, it's not one of Bartle's archetypes, and was only meant as a joke, but still..They are a reality, with their own unique goals and whatnot.

Anyways....

so lemme stress right here that a large part of my point is that World of Warcraft is fun on it's own, even when you get past the achiever mechanics.

I'm still somewhat boggled somebody'd be tempted to drop WoW for UO, even factoring in familiarity and dividing by not feeling a part of WoW.

You give superficial reasons to argue in the favor of WoW (graphics, individual class mechanics, etc.) when we don't favor it for fundamental reasons. In Windup's case, he never liked the EQ/Diku design in the first place, and no matter how many embellishments are made to it, he still won't like it. He likes UO for entirely different reasons beyond the superficial ones. If you want to understand his decision, then you'd have to start there.

Me? I'd welcome a few more UO or AC knockoffs myself. Better yet, something new.

[Margalis]

Time is money.

Sure, instead of buying that mount you could grind for it in-game - but time is money - you could use that in-game time to make money in real life. And, instead of making money online to get your wife a car you could use that time to earn more money doing something else.

If you are a contractor who makes $100 an hour and can bill for whatever hours you want, paying $50 for a WoW mount is more cost effective than playing the game for it, if you would have spent that time working instead.

It's all just balancing opportunity cost. Maybe I want a mount but I only get to play a couple hours a week and also want to read a book from time to time...to each his own.

Both the buying and the selling can make sense in the right situation. (Not that I advocate either)

[WindupAtheist]

I particularly like how different the gameplay is for most of the different classes.  (A Mage and a Priest don't play all that differently, but there's a world of difference between one of those and a Rogue, Druid or Warrior.)

For me, classes are just "blah" by definition.  A simple and artificial mechanic for maintaining character balance.  That's all well and good for keeping things running smoothly in a tabletop game being played in 1979, but in a multi-million dollar MMOG I don't like to be told that a mage can NEVER use a sword, even if he were willing to dedicate his life to it.

I've never had the patience to play more than one character anyway.  I'll admit this is a pretty uncommon quirk on my part, but UO happens to accomodate it by letting me drastically alter my character.  I can drop Chivalry to begin learning Necromancy, and as long as I keep my Swordsmanship and Healing skills, I'll be at least somewhat viable the whole time.

The quests provide context to the grind, which is important because it further distances you from simply grinding away.

The WoW quest system is quite good, and maintained my interest for a while, whereas other games with similar mechanics either repelled me in mere days or didn't compel me to pick up the box at all.

The streamlined mechanics are the good kind of streamlining, not the "OMG they amputated the game!" kind of streamlining you'll see in Deus Ex: Invisible War.

WoW is by far the best and most player-friendly game of it's type, I'll give it that much.

I'm still somewhat boggled somebody'd be tempted to drop WoW for UO, even factoring in familiarity and dividing by not feeling a part of WoW.

When it comes to these games, I'm the antithesis of the acheiver.  I'm the MMOG slacker.  Level games just are not for me.

[Fist]

Why is it always about quiting one game and going on to the next or back to the game you left?   Is there a reason why people can't play and enjoy two different games?   Is $15 all that stands between them and bankruptycy each month?!?  Do you eat the same thing every day and only watch one TV show or movie?

I've been playing UO for a few years and have tried several other MMORPG's.  I quit playing Horizons and Lineage II after a month or two, not to return to UO (which I never left), but because those games really sucked.   I am now playing WoW and while I'm currently playing it more than UO, I still enjoy both games and don't plan on quitting either one.  They actually are different enough that they complement each other fairly well.

UO is very open-ended and is a real persistent world which you become part of.  It has housing, player vendors and a real economy.  Unfortunately the graphics are only slightly better than what you would have found on a Commodore 64 twenty years ago and there isn't much in the way of predefined content or quests for those who like those things.  A total client overhaul would really do wonders for this game.

WoW on the other hand is extremely linear with it's content and quests and really isn't a persistent world at all (you can't even drop something on the ground, let alone build a house), nor does it have much of an economy (how can you when 99% of the items bind to a player).  That doesn't stop it from being an extremely good game though which is worthy of anyones $15 per month.   WoW could really benefit from having player owned housing...as long as the Blizzard dev team doesn't implement a system to make decorations and furniture 'housebound'.

Anyway, for now I'll keep spending my $27.98 per month and I'll continue to enjoy two great games.

[HaemishM]

Is there a reason why people can't play and enjoy two different games?

$15 a fucking month for a game you aren't playing is a silly expense to have to justify.

[Fist]

Is there a reason why people can't play and enjoy two different games?

$15 a fucking month for a game you aren't playing is a silly expense to have to justify.

I never said anyone should pay $15 a fucking month for a game they aren't playing.  In fact, your response has nothing to do with what you quoted.  I asked if there was "a reason why people can't PLAY and enjoy two different games?"...and if they do actively play both games, why not pay for both?

[AlteredOne]

Then there's that little-explored third category...  Those who would like to play a second game casually for less than $15/month.  Such as my wife, who plays about 10% as often as I do.  It's kind of hard to justify spending $30/month for 2 accounts in multiple games, just so that she can hop on for 2 hours per week when the planets align and she suddenly says "Let's play DAOC!".

Could one of these games try a time-limited "casual" subscription option already?  Give me 30 hours for $5/month, and add a little alarm gadget to let me know where my time stands.  Will EQ2 or WoW do it? Of course not, if they have boxes flying off the shelves.  Should some of the second-tier games try this?  Hell yes, if their choice is between $5/month and $0.

[Viin]

I agree with Fist. I see nothing wrong with subscribing to more than one game. Surely you have more than one magazine subscription or subscribe to more than one premium cable channel?

However, I do think people feel compelled to play their current game whenever it's "game time". How many people actually play other games when they are "involved" with their current MMO? (Schild excluded). (And not counting when your freakin' world server is down (damn you, Icecrown!)). I haven't even installed Vampires yet or touched Links! since WoW came out.

Still, if you feel more casual with your MMOs there's no reason whatsoever that you can't spend $30/month on two games. When Guild Wars comes out I probably will play it and WoW - but we'll see.

Of course, if that extra $15 does really break the bank for you, then yes you have a tough decision on which game to play this month. Good luck! :)

[Alkiera]

Is there a reason why people can't play and enjoy two different games?

$15 a fucking month for a game you aren't playing is a silly expense to have to justify.

I never said anyone should pay $15 a fucking month for a game they aren't playing.  In fact, your response has nothing to do with what you quoted.  I asked if there was "a reason why people can't PLAY and enjoy two different games?"...and if they do actively play both games, why not pay for both?

The issue is 'actively play'.  Especially given the timesink nature of many of these games, many people feel... 'bad' about paying for a game that they don't play whenever they have free time.  Look at it this way: If you play an hour every other day, your time in game costs $1/hr.  If you play an hour every day, the game costs you 50 cents/hr.  Since time in-game is directly proportional to power in-game, playing more makes your accomplishments less expensive.

If you play 2 subscription games, time spent not playing an MMOG costs you twice as much, since not only are you now paying 'more' for your achievements in gameA, your paying more for gameB as well.  Thus you feel even More pressured to play an MMOG.  The more 'casual' you are, the worse it is.  If you're already paying $15/mo for a game you play 10 hours a month, or 20 hours a month...  If you want to play a second such game, you're now paying $30/mo, but you still have the same 10-20 hours each month to play.

Thus you're paying the same amount for gameA, when you only play half as much.

Alkiera

[Fist]

Then there's that little-explored third category...  Those who would like to play a second game casually for less than $15/month.  Such as my wife, who plays about 10% as often as I do.  It's kind of hard to justify spending $30/month for 2 accounts in multiple games, just so that she can hop on for the 2 hours per week she feels like it.

Could one of these games try a time-limited "casual" subscription option already?  Give me 30 hours for $5/month, and add a little alarm gadget to let me know where my time stands.  Will EQ2 or WoW do it? Of course not, if they have boxes flying off the shelves.  Should some of the second-tier games try this?  Hell yes, if their choice is between $5/month and $0.

She plays 2 hours per week and that's not worth $15?  That works out to under $2 per hour which isn't bad as far as entertainment costs go.   Would any company think that $5 for 30 hours is reasonable?  For that price you can play an hour a day for 1/3 of what everyone else is paying.

[Fist]

Is there a reason why people can't play and enjoy two different games?

$15 a fucking month for a game you aren't playing is a silly expense to have to justify.

I never said anyone should pay $15 a fucking month for a game they aren't playing.  In fact, your response has nothing to do with what you quoted.  I asked if there was "a reason why people can't PLAY and enjoy two different games?"...and if they do actively play both games, why not pay for both?

The issue is 'actively play'.  Especially given the timesink nature of many of these games, many people feel... 'bad' about paying for a game that they don't play whenever they have free time.  Look at it this way: If you play an hour every other day, your time in game costs $1/hr.  If you play an hour every day, the game costs you 50 cents/hr.  Since time in-game is directly proportional to power in-game, playing more makes your accomplishments less expensive.

If you play 2 subscription games, time spent not playing an MMOG costs you twice as much, since not only are you now paying 'more' for your achievements in gameA, your paying more for gameB as well.  Thus you feel even More pressured to play an MMOG.  The more 'casual' you are, the worse it is.  If you're already paying $15/mo for a game you play 10 hours a month, or 20 hours a month...  If you want to play a second such game, you're now paying $30/mo, but you still have the same 10-20 hours each month to play.

Thus you're paying the same amount for gameA, when you only play half as much.

Alkiera

Good lord, if you have to think of all this to see if your getting your 'moneys worth' out of a game, how can you enjoy it at all?!?  I pay for HBO, Showtime and Cinemax on my cable too and don't calculate every minute I spend watching each channel.  Why should I bother going thru such effort if I want to play a couple MMO's.

[Fist]

However, I do think people feel compelled to play their current game whenever it's "game time". How many people actually play other games when they are "involved" with their current MMO? (Schild excluded). (And not counting when your freakin' world server is down (damn you, Icecrown!)). I haven't even installed Vampires yet or touched Links! since WoW came out.

I guess that's what's sort of nice about UO...you can have a 'finished' character and at that point you can play at your leisure and don't have to worry about leveling or obsessing about whether other players are getting ahead of you.   What happens with WoW remains to be seen, however I hope they keep the level cap at 60 and don't give in to all the whining 'powergamers' who are crying now that they already hit the cap and don't know how to continue enjoying the game if they can't level.   A level 60 char in WoW should be considered the same as a 7x (or 5x) GM char in UO.  You can still tweak the char and have fun questing/adventuring with friends and guildmates and if you become bored with that....start another character.

[AlteredOne]

Would any company think that $5 for 30 hours is reasonable?  For that price you can play an hour a day for 1/3 of what everyone else is paying.

Sure, we could discuss the number of hours and the price.  How about just selling 5-hour chunks for $2?  Whatever floats your marketing boat.  The game provider can figure out the average number of hours per month per player, and establish the average price per hour, then go from there.  The hardcore players would always choose the unlimited option, and the casual players would have a choice.

My wife and I are not unusual.  Most of my gaming friends only subscribe to one game at a time, and most will cite the cost of maintaining multiple subscriptions when mainly playing one game.  What's better from a marketing perspective, a casual gamer, or a customer of your competitor?

[HaemishM]

Then there's that little-explored third category...  Those who would like to play a second game casually for less than $15/month.  Such as my wife, who plays about 10% as often as I do.  It's kind of hard to justify spending $30/month for 2 accounts in multiple games, just so that she can hop on for the 2 hours per week she feels like it.

Could one of these games try a time-limited "casual" subscription option already?  Give me 30 hours for $5/month, and add a little alarm gadget to let me know where my time stands.  Will EQ2 or WoW do it? Of course not, if they have boxes flying off the shelves.  Should some of the second-tier games try this?  Hell yes, if their choice is between $5/month and $0.

She plays 2 hours per week and that's not worth $15?  That works out to under $2 per hour which isn't bad as far as entertainment costs go.   Would any company think that $5 for 30 hours is reasonable?  For that price you can play an hour a day for 1/3 of what everyone else is paying.

Games are not traditionally subscription venues. When you pay your cable bill, you may only watch 1 or 2 hours of TV a night if that. Games, especially MMOG's, require not only more active participation, for some reason, MMOG's have decided that you must spend X amount of time in the game doing repetitive shit just to get the nice tasty cheese. Oh and if you want to play with your friends, you better be able to keep up with them. In a guild? Keep up with the guild achievement curve as well as keeping up with the guild activities. If you don't play, you are at a constant disadvantage, either in competitive activities like PVP or just in being of a level that allows you to group with your friends. Thus, you must play at least as much as your most active social circle's most active member. Now, try to keep up a similar social circle in another MMOG without getting behind on your first MMOG. And pay for the privilege.

Current MMOG's aren't games, they are lifestyle choices. Thus, if you are participating in that lifestyle, it's a bit hard to keep another, separate lifestyle active. And paying $15 a month two times over becomes a hard pill to swallow when you can only really put half the time into each.

If MMOG's didn't expect everyone to put in catass hardcore hours, it might be very easy to stay subbed to two different MMOG's and stay active in both. But that isn't the way things are, and that's why most rational folk will only pay for one at a time.

[Jayce]

Why is it always about quiting one game and going on to the next or back to the game you left?   Is there a reason why people can't play and enjoy two different games?   Is $15 all that stands between them and bankruptycy each month?!?  Do you eat the same thing every day and only watch one TV show or movie?

Good points.  This is a rare glimpse of sanity in this pissing match.  The two games do have their separate strengths.

nor does it have much of an economy (how can you when 99% of the items bind to a player).  

I'd take issue with this assertation though.  99% soulbound is way too high an estimate.  The bind on equip model seems to me as simply a poor man's item degradation.  Sooner or later the item will be useless because you've outleveled it, but it won't break unexpectedly ala Shadowbane.  It also keeps the economy from being flooded with castoff (and free to the recipient) lowbie weapons that people are hoarding for their twinks and guildmates.

UO's economy just feels more "homegrown" given the lack of such facilities as the auction house and city trade channels, but I think UO could take a hint from WoW actually in this regard.  Removing the capability for scams and so forth is a big plus, not to mention the offline game of being able to leave your goods up on auction while you're logged out (though player vendors in UO are similar but without the bidding process).

[Shockeye]

But that isn't the way things are, and that's why most rational folk will only pay for one at a time.

I disagree that anyone rational would pay $15 for a MMOG to begin with.

[HaemishM]

Point conceded.

[Fist]

Current MMOG's aren't games, they are lifestyle choices. Thus, if you are participating in that lifestyle, it's a bit hard to keep another, separate lifestyle active. And paying $15 a month two times over becomes a hard pill to swallow when you can only really put half the time into each.

If MMOG's didn't expect everyone to put in catass hardcore hours, it might be very easy to stay subbed to two different MMOG's and stay active in both. But that isn't the way things are, and that's why most rational folk will only pay for one at a time.

Well, that's true for most of the games, but if you read my other post you'll see that's also one of the reasons that UO works well as a 'second MMO'.  Once you've developed a character or two you can enjoy the game without leveling or worrying that your getting left behind by everyone else if you skip a day or two of playing.   What happens with WoW remains to be seen, but I hope they choose a path of introducing content for finished/developed chars (lev 60) rather than the EQ method of just moving the carrot further away with each expansion.  Right now I'm probably playing WoW about 90% of the time, but I still enjoy logging into UO a couple times a week and doing something other than leveling.

[Pineapple]

Current MMOG's aren't games, they are lifestyle choices.

I think City of Heroes went farther then most on the point of friends outlevelling each other. It didnt go far enough, but at least tried.

All future games need to consider some way to sidekick and exemplar. It CAN be done, just plan for it from the start.

I am tired of my friends outlevelling me, or me outlevelling them, just because we dont have the exact same playtime and quests completed. Dont worry about what is realistic or might spoil content. I'll decide if I want to spoil content for myself. It's a problem, so just fix it.

[Fist]

I'd take issue with this assertation though.  99% soulbound is way too high an estimate.  The bind on equip model seems to me as simply a poor man's item degradation.  Sooner or later the item will be useless because you've outleveled it, but it won't break unexpectedly ala Shadowbane.  It also keeps the economy from being flooded with castoff (and free to the recipient) lowbie weapons that people are hoarding for their twinks and guildmates.

Perhaps a good solution (if one is even needed) would be to offer a service where a soulbound item is unbound.  This could be either thru an NPC or automatic when a soulbound item is put up for auction.  Price could be like 50% or even the same price as an NPC vendor would pay for the item.

[Dren]

I'd take issue with this assertation though.  99% soulbound is way too high an estimate.  The bind on equip model seems to me as simply a poor man's item degradation.  Sooner or later the item will be useless because you've outleveled it, but it won't break unexpectedly ala Shadowbane.  It also keeps the economy from being flooded with castoff (and free to the recipient) lowbie weapons that people are hoarding for their twinks and guildmates.

Perhaps a good solution (if one is even needed) would be to offer a service where a soulbound item is unbound.  This could be either thru an NPC or automatic when a soulbound item is put up for auction.  Price could be like 50% or even the same price as an NPC vendor would pay for the item.

If you look at quest items there is no level requirement, those would have to continue to be soulbound no matter what or you will get the character twinking that was so popular in the early days of EQ.

I like the soulbinding system myself.  It really does cut down on the hoarding and keeps the economy moving well.  At higher levels I suspect the emphasis will be on player generated equipment.  At the lower levels it is all about drops and quest items.  I do not see an issue.

[Dren]

Current MMOG's aren't games, they are lifestyle choices.

I think City of Heroes went farther then most on the point of friends outlevelling each other. It didnt go far enough, but at least tried.

All future games need to consider some way to sidekick and exemplar. It CAN be done, just plan for it from the start.

I am tired of my friends outlevelling me, or me outlevelling them, just because we dont have the exact same playtime and quests completed. Dont worry about what is realistic or might spoil content. I'll decide if I want to spoil content for myself. It's a problem, so just fix it.

I've found that WoW's system isn't as good as CoH in this respect, but it is doable.  You can have higher level characters help lower level characters with quests pretty easily to help them catch up.  Since there isn't much experience (at normal rest condition) for killing creatures, you can breeze through lots of quests to gain levels quickly.

I even go help my higher level friend with quests/instances just to get the experience and nice drops.  If you aren't too worried about levels, exp gain, etc. you can still group up with your friends and have fun.  I've been doing that a lot lately.

[Calantus]

One idea I've been tossing around in my head is for bind on equip items to be bound to an account instead of a character. That way you can build the perfect twink equips for certain levels for multiple characters. I know this wouldn't do much for most, but I personally love making alts and twinking. You can still twink in WoW, it just burns the gear every char.

[Righ]

One idea I've been tossing around in my head is for bind on equip items to be bound to an account instead of a character.

Are you a Blizzard developer? If not, it's really an idea you've been tossing off in your head.