I just saw a brief interview, well question/answer session, with EAMythic interview
and one of the questions was on the monthly fee.

Q: Will the game require a monthly fee to play WAR?

A: Yes, and EA Mythic's President Mark Jacobs has stated that the subscription fee will quite possibly be more than the standard $14.99 that most MMOG's charge.

For me, I think that it would have to be pure gold to be able to charge more than WoW (even though I have ... issues ... with it), and the rumours from beta don't inspire.

For the MMO players out there, what do you think; would you pay US$20 a month for a MMO? What do you think the maximum you'd pay would be?

To answer my own questions:

I'd pay $20 a month if it was "OMGOMGOMG ... I came" awesome, but if it was =< the quality of WoW I'd probably f*** it off. For the latter, I think it's dependant on the quality, fun and the expandability. For more than $20 dollars a month, I'd expect a massive increase in the rapidity of additional (free) content, and amazing customer service.

no one complained when wow came out with an above average monthly fee...

no one complained when wow came out with an above average monthly fee...

WoW also was polished gold compared to the rest of the market at the time.

EQ2 forever!

WoW also was polished gold

I only remembered the well polished queues that were hours long at release

WoW also was polished gold compared to the rest of the market at the time.

lol!

wow had the names warcraft and blizzard. thats all.


last edited by ravn0s at 09:40:44 22/Jan/08

I only remembered the well polished queues that were hours long at release

What he said

WOW had issues at release, but the game at it's core was polished - it was really just the infrastructure that needed help.

I'd probably play it at least for the free month and decide from there if it is worth the money.

I think they want to charge more just because it's money-hungry EA, and EA doesn't deserve more lewts than other MMO's so no I wouldn't pay it for this game.

If they charge $20/mth then the game should be free to download. In fact all MMOs should take a page out of CCP's book and run their payment method like that.

I'd take a look at the game, but as you say, it would have to offer something better than wow (which, all complaints aside, it is a polished game), for me to pay more than wow.

But that said, i don't think $7.50 a month more would be the deciding factor on whether or not i play it or not.

It's a bit of a monopoly though - if you want to play the game, you have to pay the price. USD8.95/month would be a much more reasonable price for WoW (and in fact if it were this price I'd probably still have an active account which I'd kept running since it was released, even if I only played it a few days every quater).

But at USD14.95, I can't even be bothered reactivating it just so I can play it for a single day when I'm bored.

However with a few million other subscribers, what do they care. They're still making their mint.

Didn't EQ bump it's charge upto $14.99 prior to WoW's release? or am I thinking of Star Wars Galaxies?

Looks like it might be on ok game but with the new expansion for WoW coming out this year there's no way I'd be trying to play two different MMO's. And if the subscription was more than $20 AUS I wouldn't touch it either.

WAR just looks like a pov version of wow. And wow is pov.

what if you're not willing to pay anything to play a game each month

Honestly I'd have to say eq2 is a better game then wow currently. Lotro is even a good game but lacks and end game.
AoC and WAR seem a bit pov. War in particular looks like DAOC2.

Playing eq2 made me want to gouge my eyes out.

no one complained when wow came out with an above average monthly fee...

Two things.

1) Thing was it wasn't first to that well. At the very least City of Heroes, Lineage II, EVE and Star Wars Galaxies all released with close to the same fee(ranging between $14.95 and $15). (DAOC, EQ and Planetside were all $12.95 afaict) My memory of the time is that after conversion rates it ended up being ballpark the same price.

2) More importantly, before WoW most people considered anything about $0 to be a complete rip-off. The complaints that occured(and they were copious, piteous and tear-filled) weren't that "the monthly fee is a bit higher than average" but "the game shouldn't have a monthly fee". To which everyone use to the(at the time) small niche said "get over it, the fee is necessary".

The difference in #2 now is that it's no-longer a small niche and everyone is used to paying _A_ charge, and that charge is US$15.

If WAR goes higher, then we'll see piteous whines yet again and if the game is good it'll succeed and if it's not it'll die. Oh and plenty of trolly responses to the whines along the lines of "good don't play", "get a job loser", "wait till you get out of school mammas boy" etc...

I'm gonna wait and see whats actually new about the game. If it ends up being the same ol same ol fantasy game with some theoretical world pvp i couldn't give a rats ass. If it's actually fun I might even hang around.

eq2 is s***

Didn't EQ bump it's charge upto $14.99 prior to WoW's release? or am I thinking of Star Wars Galaxies?

You might be thinking of planetside but that was definately post WoW's release(middle of last year). I didn't find a reference for EQ but it's possible.

AFAICT, SWG was always $14.99.

I love it more when people who make, say... lets just start with $30k a year, get $2500 a month, and then they tear up over $20 for a game that they probably spend more time playing than actually going to work to make that money.

I love it more when people who make, say... lets just start with $30k a year, get $2500 a month, and then they tear up over $20 for a game that they probably spend more time playing than actually going to work to make that money.

I've bought games where i've spent more time travelling home from the games store than playing the game. I think thats way worse than any MMO.

$20/month == about 2 movies(assuming cheap ass rates and no foodstuffs).

ergo if you get the same amount of entertainment as you'd get from 2 movies from your MMO fee then you're doing ok.

Playing eq2 made me want to gouge my eyes out.

I'd agree when it was released, I lasted exactly 1 day.

Tried it again now and they have made so many improvements in so many areas.

thought i would post a quote from the ceo of mythic about subscription fees:

Folks,

Few not-so quick (I thought they were going to be quick when I started) things:

1) The development cost of all MMORPGs is going up, up and up thanks mostly to Blizzard. They raised the spending bar with WoW to a level that nobody thought they (or anyone else) would. This means that all major publishers need to raise their planned spending as well. The unfortunate result of this is that I expect MMO subscription prices to either go up over the next few years and/or be replaced/supplemented by lots and lots of RMTs. It's a simple fact of life that in most cases, when the cost of developing a product goes up, so does it's price, especially when that price needs to cover high monthly operations costs as well. For example, Mythic has always believed that it is necessary to keep its CS in-house and embedded along with the dev. team. That means our CS costs are higher but it also means better quality of CS and better feedback for the team. While certain things about running MMOs are cheaper than in the past (bandwidth, servers), almost everything else is more expensive. Some of the posters here have described some of the costs that go into developing and operating one of these beasts. The choice that EA has made with Mythic and with Warhammer is to build, host and deploy a 'AAA' game backed by a 'AAA' operation. We are not cutting corners, looking for the cheapest deal on bandwidth, outsourcing overseas, under-powering our servers, etc. and that all comes with a hefty price-tag.

2) We truly, serious, unconditionally and without any reservation whatsoever, are not targeting WoW's subscription numbers. As I've said over and over again in interviews, panels, etc., they are the "Kings of the Hill" right now and only someone who is a) a moron; b) delusional; c) a liar; d) some combination of the above, thinks that they can meet or beat WoW's numbers in the short-term (next few years) with a monthly subscription game of the same type. Thankfully, EA shares my views so there is no pressure on us to tilt at that windmill. While I can't say what our target is (all those public company rules in the US), I can say that they are modest in comparison. Since other games with big name licenses have failed (and some have failed miserably), I wanted to be quite conservative.

3) In terms of value, well, we think we will offer a lot of value to the user. As much as I enjoy any IP (Star Wars for example is one of my favorites), if the game wasn't great then it didn't matter if they were charging $5 per month, I still wouldn't play. I expect it will be the same here. If you love the IP and the game, then we are offering a great value. As to what that value is, being a Warhammer-based game is not enough, we have to be a great Warhammer-based game. I don't want nor expect people to believe the hype but simply to judge the game for themselves over the remainder of its development and when it goes LIVE. I'm actually one of the least hype-believing guys in the industry and that's why I stay away from that kind of talk myself. See, play and judge for yourself and then decide what it's worth to you to play this kind of game. All things considered, MMOs are one of the best (if not the best) entertainment values around if you play a reasonable amount of hours. I know that I buy fewer games a year when I'm deep in an MMO so in my case, they save me money. This has seemed to be a pretty standard trend based on studies that have been done on the effect of MMOs on PC sales.

Oh, and just so we're clear on things, I really don't want to price our game at a level that makes people run screaming into the woods.

Finally, if you look at the current 'market price' for MMORPGs and compare them to what they were 10 years ago (UO's launch), factor in inflation, the monthly subscription price hasn't really kept up well with inflation. If you then factor in the additional cost of developing, hosting, etc. these games, then the price really hasn't kept up. Heck, if the MMO industry was like the cable/satellite industry, we would be raising our prices every year and so far, nobody in our industry has done that thankfully (and I know that we won't do so).

So, like I said, see, play and judge for yourself and then come on down and decide if our price is right.

Mark

I love it more when people who make, say... lets just start with $30k a year, get $2500 a month, and then they tear up over $20 for a game that they probably spend more time playing than actually going to work to make that money.

So far, nobody is spending any time on this game. Which leads to the direct comparison, if there is cheaper entertainment, that is the same (or potentially greater) quality, would you pay more? That’s my point by the way.

1) The development cost of all MMORPGs is going up, up and up thanks mostly to Blizzard. They raised the spending bar with WoW to a level that nobody thought they (or anyone else) would. This means that all major publishers need to raise their planned spending as well.

Increased quality and increased manpower are two strong cost impacts. However, this ignores that the market is now 20 times larger than it was prior to WoW’s release. Additionally they minimise the impacts of hardware, bandwidth and power have (effectively) been reduced since WoW’s release. Lastly, they don’t factor in the improvements in this kind of development, nor the improvements in administration tools and techniques.

2) We truly, serious, unconditionally and without any reservation whatsoever, are not targeting WoW's subscription numbers

Besides the point, the entire market is, at the very least, 20 times larger than it was before. Without WoW, the market would still be tiny.

3) In terms of value, well, we think we will offer a lot of value to the user.

If they release “OMGOMG … I came!” quality game then sure, they can charge more. However, beta testers don’t seem to share their faith in their offer, at least so far.

Finally, if you look at the current 'market price' for MMORPGs and compare them to what they were 10 years ago (UO's launch), factor in inflation, the monthly subscription price hasn't really kept up well with inflation.

Because player markets has increased dramatically (from an expected 2 or 3 thousand players to more than 12 million active* accounts) in the last 10 years, while the costs of hardware, bandwidth has gone down, and an increased understanding of how to design and engineer MMOGs all reducing the costs, (power is effectively negated because of hardware improvements).

However, beta testers don’t seem to share their faith in their offer, at least so far.

where are you getting this info from? are some naughty people breaking the NDA?

hopefully these beta testers that dislike the game are providing some good feedback to make the game better instead of whinging about it.

last edited by ravn0s at 15:03:03 22/Jan/08

I'd agree when it was released, I lasted exactly 1 day.

Tried it again now and they have made so many improvements in so many areas.

Out of interest Obes, (and i mean that truthfully, i'm actually interested) whats the funnest thing you can do in EQ2 atm? I'm assuming its fun factor still revolves around N man "end game" raids?

We are in our 20s atm

The most fun recently ...

We were running around in Thundering Steepes (old Plains of Karanas etc) fighting gnolls for some random quest and all of a sudden a named gnoll (ambusher or something) kidnapped one of our group members, and we had to go rescue him from the cave they took him back too. Very cool.

They added movable object and explosive ones so you have to blow up secret walls and move objects around to get to areas... So we had to stack boxes so we could get him out of his cell then explode a wall for some random reason.


The end game looks to be still very eq ie. no DBM and bigwigs to trivialise the encounters, its 2 or 3 months after the last expansion pack and it looks like they still haven't cleared the last zone.

If you seriously want a diatribe on what they have thats cool it would take me a ]-[itman style super post.

haha mobs kidnapping you, thats awsome!

Regarding what mark Jacobs said in that press release, I say bulls***. I always thought it was the purchase of the game that covered development costs and the monthly fees were for the running and maintenance of servers and development of new content. Saying the monthly fee is to cover the initial development is bullocks imo.

Saying the monthly fee is to cover the initial development is bullocks imo.

Thats probably my main issue with Mythic ATM. Every time they say something there's always that one point that just leads me to scream shenanigans.

Of course from a bean counter perspective, EA probably sees the extra $N/month as "miscellaneous profit" when it comes to financing the latest funding proposal. So basically by charging $N/Month extra they can say that under their proposed sale/ongoing subscription rates they'll break even at point X. The interesting question then is when they've reached point X and they've covered the initial development costs are they going to lower the subscription charge back down to $15.

it wouldnt surprise me if aoc ended up being more than $15

The interesting question then is when they've reached point X and they've covered the initial development costs are they going to lower the subscription charge back down to $15.

Servers etc can also fall under the development cost, which is an on going expense.

So what if they are charging more, I see no problem with it as long as theres a good reason for the average joe to fork over the higher-than-average-monthly-cost.

I think the question they should be asking themselves is 'Will the higher monthly cost detract people from buying the game?'. Chances are the answer is no because theres enough support from non-WoW players who are huge fans Warhammer univerise, who wouldn't mind forking over the monthly fee. I was like that with WoW, so I'm sure others exist.

it wouldnt surprise me if aoc ended up being more grind less fun

I fixed that for you.

well that too. but thats kinda hard to avoid in an mmo

Servers etc can also fall under the development cost, which is an on going expense.

From my perspective the ongoing expense part isn't "development" but "maintenance" with the exception of what happened at Blizzard where some douchbag bought a whole swag of servers that were incompatible with the old ones(apparantly). You can argue that setting up the first server is a development expense(and maybe the second server) but afterwards the process should be a check list and some system tests.

Buying new machines because you need to run another shard isn't a "development cost" it's "monthly operations costs"(to quote the message).

So what if they are charging more, I see no problem with it as long as theres a good reason for the average joe to fork over the higher-than-average-monthly-cost.

I more or less agree with this. However the statement from the mythic CEO makes me wonder if the price hike is just to ensure that they get continued funding from EA. And if so then that would fall under your "no good reason" clause above.

I think the question they should be asking themselves is 'Will the higher monthly cost detract people from buying the game?'. Chances are the answer is no because theres enough support from non-WoW players who are huge fans Warhammer univerise, who wouldn't mind forking over the monthly fee. I was like that with WoW, so I'm sure others exist.

I tend to agree with you. 6 months after release the game will be doing swimming ly or sunk on its gameplay. Only the most hardened sadist is going to say at the post-mortem "yeah you know the reason this project failed is because we didn't charge $15/month". There'll be whine and cheese for 3 months (2 months before release, 1 month after) which will be thoroughly flamed and then everyone will be whining about how overpowered paladins are. I mean they have heals and they can smash things with their hammers and they wear plate and so you basically have to kill them 10 times.

well that too. but thats kinda hard to avoid in an mmo

I personally disagree but won't push the point until I create a mmo that is otherwise. :P

However, i definately disagree that the only model that can be successful goes from WoW level grinds to EQ levels and beyond. WoW was progress, i'd rather not have to say "Brad Mcquaid called from 1990, he wants his s***ty designs back".

I like how the Mythic guy blames Blizzard for spending too much money on an MMO and raising the bar for what people expect. Damn game developers raising the bar and pushing the genre forward! How dare they!

Lord of the Rings online was a good looking MMO, pretty solid, and a big license, and hell I only play $10 US a month for that when I was playing it. $20 a month just sounds like a pure grab for cash to me. And trying to claim they're not competing with WoW when they're making a fantasy MMO that even has the same graphica style as WoW, is pretty rich.

even has the same graphica style as WoW, is pretty rich.

yer it certainly does have the same graphical style

yeah, pay a monthly fee to waste your own life by making a fake life.. sounds like a plan

yeah, pay a monthly fee to waste your own life by making a fake life.. sounds like a plan

Get back under your bridge.

yer it certainly does have the same graphical style

If thats an attempted ownage of Khel...

I think what he's saying is that it's going for a cartoony stylised fantasy look. So yeah, they kind of have the same graphical style. Its hard to see how they could be too much closer and not have someone caling lawyers(Though that would be an interesting case... Assuming WAR is following the established look of the warhammer fantasy world they would have prior art).

That being said i don't think thats a bad decision on the part of WAR... it just leads to unfortunate comparisons.

And trying to claim they're not competing with WoW when they're making a fantasy MMO that even has the same graphica style as WoW, is pretty rich.

Maybe this is an extension of my lack of care about the pretties but i don't see the connection between "we're competing" and "we have the same graphical style". Genre i'll give you but so long as they do something different enough there should be a niche that doesn't directly compete with WoW.

Direcly competing head to head with WoW right now is not one of the smarter business decisions you could make. The chance of falling off the wagon is just too great. Better to find a niche that gives you enough customers to survive until the inevitable fall.

Heh some of the stuff in this thread is pretty bizarre... I have really mixed feelings about full on gaming like this. I haven't played games in years, but still feel like I waste a lot of time sitting at my PC but will do it anyway. I really can't see myself paying to play games each month.

i 2 have just gotten into everquest, i didnt bother with it at release because i didnt like EQ and from what i read atm eq2 was much of the same, however after someone at work telling me about some of the changes i started reading into it, after careful though i decided to give it ago, and f*** me it blew my mind away, the game is rad fun, they noobified the f*** out of it, made it very solo friendly along with addining enough content to make it group friendly, they have some of teh coolest scripted sequences ive ever seen, the graphics are still top quality considering the age of the game, very glad i gave it a go.

also now i know why this s*** is so addictive, the game world and lore is f***ing epicly huge and interesting if you get into it.

they better hope they can even get close to matching WoWs client base before they try over-charging and making sure their game is polished..

hopefully it isn't over-hyped like fury is, there's so much riding on it being a good game and i just got another bad feeling it will flop, and if they charge higher.. that will be another reason.

yer it certainly does have the same graphical style

Well apart from the fact that they're comparing dwarf females to males and night elves to goblins in the first two screenshots, the last two look pretty similar to me. Sure Warhammer looks better, because its coming 4 years after wow did, but if you pushed WoW's graphics 4 years in the future, you'd get what Warhammer is doing. The Orc and the dwarven city look remarkly in the same style.

But yeah, I'm not saying its a bad thing, all I'm saying is it reminds me a lot of WoW and the few gameplay movies I've seen looked like it played the same as WoW. Which is why it just struck me as odd when the guy was saying they're not trying to compete with WoW, when the first thing I think when I look at Warhammer is how much like WoW it is.

if you're going to charge $15USD a month for it, why not just sell the game/installer for $0 and charge JUST for the monthly subscription?

such wow hating :(

if you're going to charge $15USD a month for it, why not just sell the game/installer for $0 and charge JUST for the monthly subscription?

Thats one distribution model. But generally speaking if you're only charging a monthly subscription you'll probably end up paying more than US$15. The problem is that historically the subscription distribution model works well in asia but poorly in the western world. Some games do so but more often than not it comes about as a "we need more people subscribed or we lose money on a monthly basis" type thing.

You know... usually a few months before the MMO closes doors.

but whats a once off of $30 or so (what the actual game company MIGHT receive) compared to having 10x more people paying $15/month directly to them?

$100 game, the developer wouldn't see anywhere near that figure ..

but whats a once off of $30 or so (what the actual game company MIGHT receive) compared to having 10x more people paying $15/month directly to them?

$100 game, the developer wouldn't see anywhere near that figure ..

You seem to be operating under the misunderstanding that i mean "western developers don't like the model". What i'm actually saying is "western consumers don't like that model". There's no problem making the numbers work in a subscription model, the problem is in essence customer approval.

Having said that, it may be worth trying again. See how mass market acceptance of WoW has changed consumer opinion.

fair enough, isn't this what we're seeing at the moment with that game which Auran released?
s*** I can't even remember the name, fire/flood/something?

Fury.

You know if it stopped 50%, 60% or more of the Wow players from playing War I would gladly pay $30 per month or even more. I hate the Wow community with a f***ing passion and wow is the MMO version of CS. s*** now that I think of it I would pay $40 or $50 a month if I was garenteed that no one under the age of say 21 would be allowed on the servers.

but whats a once off of $30 or so (what the actual game company MIGHT receive) compared to having 10x more people paying $15/month directly to them?

The other thing I guess is without a box on the shelf, you lose a lot of that casual gamer market who might not ever know your game even exists. If you're just distributing your client online, you might lose a lot of that casual "walk-in" market, the people who just walk into an EB and go "Oooo a new Warcraft game" and buy it on a whim.

Aye, fear the power of the child saying, 'Mummy, I wan dat one!'

fair enough, isn't this what we're seeing at the moment with that game which Auran released?

The basic idea of the model that fury was using was "Pay for extra s***". The idea is that you can quite happily play the game without paying a cent but to get the interesting content you have to pay a fee. However Fury's implementation is apparantly somewhat dodge.

"Secondly, the whole "no monthly subscription" thing. That's true, to the extent that you can play Fury without paying a subscription - but there's an eyebrow-raising system in place which means that players have to pay a monthly fee in order to do basic things like selling items on the Auction House. Those paying a fee also get better loot after battles, and are given free in-game gold."
http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=87880

This is kind of my problem with the model. What value are you giving for the cash? Storyline is ok. Interesting model effects is fine. The problem comes when the paid for loot is functionally better than the free stuff. Then what you're really saying is that your game has a monthly subscription with an indefinite trial. Not that there's anything wrong with that as an idea... but lets call a spade a spade.

Aye, fear the power of the child saying, 'Mummy, I wan dat one!'

My first thought was "a kid saying that wouldn't be playing WoW". Then i thought of the forums... you're probably right.

under the age of say 21 would be allowed on the servers.

Douchebaggery isn't restricted to those under 21. More common perhaps but not restricted.

My first thought was "a kid saying that wouldn't be playing WoW". Then i thought of the forums... you're probably right.

Just look at all the Night Elf Hunters called "Legolazz" or "Leagooolas" or "Legilasis".

Xyzzy you are absolutely correct but in my experience the number of morons falls considerably after a certain age. Also the possibility of reasoning with older morons increases the older they get.

One of the thngs I found amazing with wow is how you could have 20,000 people on a server yet find it so damn hard to meet anyone decent.

Another huge plug for eq2 ... The mentoring system

A high level can /mentor a noob, they become that level. They earn exp as if they were that level and can complete quests and earn Achievement experience for the quests. Means you never out level content or friends.

However, i definately disagree that the only model that can be successful goes from WoW level grinds to EQ levels and beyond.

What differentiates these games from fantasy real time combat/fps is the concept of levelling. Now if they remove the "experience" based levels. They'll just add "gear" or "faction" based levelling. Because with out some form of levelling it is not a persistent world. It is just a fantasy hack and slash / fps.

So I contend that in fact these games need levels. And that with out them they are in fact a different genre that has no need for subscriptions or servers due to there lack of persistence.

However the levelling should not be a grind. LOTRO did a very good job of making levelling a consequence of just following a story. EQ2 even has that feel to it atm.

WoW levels 1-20 and 60-70 do, just 20-60 is a disjointed grind as is the "end game" pvp honor grind and pve raid epic progression.

What differentiates these games from fantasy real time combat/fps is the concept of levelling. Now if they remove the "experience" based levels. They'll just add "gear" or "faction" based levelling. Because with out some form of levelling it is not a persistent world. It is just a fantasy hack and slash / fps.

So I contend that in fact these games need levels. And that with out them they are in fact a different genre that has no need for subscriptions or servers due to there lack of persistence.

I want to replace your use of "leveling" with a more generic "progression". That is to say that in some way, shape or form your character progresses(changes in a way that improves performance?) through the game in a persistant fashion that interacts with potentially millions(or thousands) of people. This i agree with.

However i don't agree that progression requires you to do a set of actions to acquire N points to reach the next level. We do that because most RPGs have done that since the days of DnD. It's a friendly mechanic, but at the end of the day it's just a mechanic. Also as a case in point, MMOs tend to do it in a way that emphasises grind(increasing distance between levels as well as scaling xp return as an example).

Of course changing it would require some pretty heavy expectation managment, which to date MMO's have peaked at "woeful" and gone as low as "catastrophicly bad". So i'd worry that any MMO that announced that would go down the tubes due to scared players.

Oh and in case someone is going to read this as "XP is a broken system and can't work", thats not what i'm saying. What i'm saying is XP shouldn't be a sacred cow. It's far too bland a mechanic to be that important.

So I contend that in fact these games need levels.

At the end of the day you're saying that MMOs need continual progression. Xyzzy isn't disgareeing with you, he's just saying that XP and levels are designed to simplify the life of a real life DM (like DnD), a simplification that isn't needed by a computer.

At the end of the day, levels (and xp) do three things:

1) Give a meaningless sense of achievement :- "DING!"
2) A Cockblock :- You can't enter this zone until you're level 70.
3) Give players a vague understanding of someone's power relative to them :- "run he's level 70!!!!"

It's more than possible to provide all of that, and more, with a system that is much more rich and entertaining.

I thought Eve onlines system of training skills over time rather than gaining XP was a decent idea. There was still a crap load of farming to be done which was painful as per any MMO. I don't think it would be to hard to make a system that toned down the usual grind.

It's more than possible to provide all of that, and more, with a system that is much more rich and entertaining.

So give us an example

Xyzzy, I agree it shouldn't be a grind, but I want my games to have lots of content so it should not be trivial, it should take time. Also if the progression is easy and quick it becomes valueless, and MMOs appeal to people with addictive personalities that can value something with little real value (ie. a large percentage of the people playing at uber levels are doing so purely for e-peen).

So give us an example

You noted earlier the LotRO did "a very good job of making levelling a consequence of just following a story". Thats a pretty good place to start there. Instead of levelling being an indirect consequence of following the story how about making it a direct consequence of following the story.

Xyzzy, I agree it shouldn't be a grind, but I want my games to have lots of content so it should not be trivial, it should take time. Also if the progression is easy and quick it becomes valueless, and MMOs appeal to people with addictive personalities that can value something with little real value (ie. a large percentage of the people playing at uber levels are doing so purely for e-peen).

The thing is that leveling as it stands is one of two things, trivial or frustrating.

It's trivial when you know people who can PL you past 20 levels in a day.(and i don't think i'm being unreasonable by throwing around 20 levels as a ballpark number)

It's frustrating when to try to make it less trivial for the PLers it becomes hard to see that you're actually making progress towards your next increase.

The simple truth is that there's nothing that "uber" about getting to max level. It doesn't mean you're awesome. At best it means you have some dedication.
Doing it in 3 days is awesome but then thats not recognised. You don't get 70 for e-peen. You get 70 because until you hit 70 you can't start working on your BC E-Peen.

70 is an accomplishment, but if thats your only e-peen then bragging about that is just going to get a "so?" response. If we were on the WoW forums it'd probably be called welfare peen.

Nah, you wouldn't even be welfare if you just hit 70, gotta run some heroics and afk some battlegrounds and get some welfare epics first.

So give us an example

I don't mean this as a flame, nor am I doubting your intelligence, but I'm not sure you'd understand examples until you understand that artificial rankings are exactly that, artificial.

Some of us actually played BG's to get our gear Khel, I know it's a shock but it's true :)

Xyzzy, you missed the point typo was saying that levels and experience, which he re-termed to "progression" be it gear skills/levels/faction, are a mechanic and can be replaced by better options, I am asking what are they ?

You are saying the mechanic is fine so long as the content supports it in an enjoyable manner. ie. no grinds.
So you are quoting me then replying as if arguing but agree.

And typo I am not flaming either, I am just saying for reasons other then simply gameplay there are reasons they do these things.

eg.
1. If the progression is trivial, there is no need for servers or even really persistance... forgetting your point of view, for 1 second, because honestly I get your point of view, and largely support it (hence why I liked LOTRO and the fact they made levelling an accident of following a good storyline with cut scenes!!!). Look at it as a big marketing exec at blizzard who are pulling a gazillion dollars in subscription fees a year. Are the major game houses likely to produce it when it will remove the need for 10,000,000 people a month to give them a tribute ?

2a. If the progression is trivial, the games become less about "character" development and more about players skill. Part of what attracts some people to these games is that "hard work" can achieve more then good reflexes.
2b. It also would lead to it becoming more a fantasy FPS, s*** people barely RPG in these games anyways, most people don't even know what the quests they are doing are about. Now I think that would in its own right be cool. I'd love a version of DAOC/WoW where you got x poitns to spend on gear and then you ran into the BGs earnt points to get upgrades accross the weekend type deal ... true WoW/Daoc PVP lans... no PVE gear, no grinding ... but not many $$$s for the big companies.

3. If the progression is trivial and the e-peen factor is removed it reduces the potential customer base. See earlier comment about making jazillions.

4. If progression becomes meaningless and everyone has the blinding sword of electron viagra, it has no value (even tho it had none to begin with). For some people, and in part everyone likes to look a bit different, its about standing out about having the cool glowing do-hickey. Slightly different to 3 in that its about looking different not all being cookie cutter min maxers.

I am sure there is a solution ... just I'd like a specific example instead of a general statement.

Similar note... but different diatribe

WoW vs EQ the main differences. And the effect the solutions had.

Soloing, instances, making items trivial and limitless to get.
EQ you needed a group, soloing except for a few classes in a few spots was mostly inefficient, particularly in the original 1-50 game. Dungeons were not instanced, items were rare (like you can not imagine) there was 1 week respawns with rare drops. The bosses needed for content were all world spawns usually on long timers, and in some cases dropping 1 item for progression and the whole raid needed it.
1. People were in direct competition for spawns.
2. People needed people to help them level, you needed to get groups.
3. Good places and items were limited by the number of people trying to get in the group camping that spot.

It actually meant EQ had more of a community. It had villains and champions, guilds that'd steam roll you and cock block you, and others that'd help. You had to make deals to be next at a camp, or to be next to get the quest spawn or to get the next raid progression.You had to interact with people, and your reputation as a person and a player mattered. You actually knew a lot of players/characters and it was actually a far more social game, ooc in zones like Guk and SolB were lively places. Min maxing while a goal, wasn't easily achievable, so even small upgrades "had value".

WoW made everything instanced, camps didn't exist, items weren't really rare. Soloing meant people never had to talk to anyone. And if you instanced it was guildies or pugs. Then cross realm bgs ... and the your rep means nothing, people put no effort in and a lot of people have a glorified single player game.

So my comment would be, instancing everything and making soloing more efficient then groups and trivialising 1-70 (it is trivial because you can do it solo and in a week or so) actually hurt the multiplayer/community aspect of the game.

Xyzzy, you missed the point typo was saying that levels and experience, which he re-termed to "progression" be it gear skills/levels/faction, are a mechanic and can be replaced by better options, I am asking what are they ?

You are saying the mechanic is fine so long as the content supports it in an enjoyable manner. ie. no grinds.
So you are quoting me then replying as if arguing but agree.

Actually i was the one who re-termed to "progression" because to me the term "leveling" is too limiting. I think in the abstract, some form of progression is useful so if when you say "So I contend that in fact these games need levels" you mean levels in a very very abstract kind of way whereby getting that new sword/spell/armour counts as a "level" then we're probably not far from one another. If however you meant levels as in the standard "i need 10000 XP to reach the next level" kind of level then I completely and utterly disagree with that statement.

Personally i don't think that progression is a requirement so much as there is a more generic requirement that progression satisfies. However i need to think on this idea more.

I have a good idea i am going to put into practice.

QUIT wow. It just sucks your life away.

QUIT wow. It just sucks your life away.

Interestingly the data that Nick Yee has gotten through the Daedalus Project says that on average people aren't sinking their lives into WoW but rather converting TV time into WoW time.

Make of that what you will.

Interestingly the data that Nick Yee has gotten through the Daedalus Project says that on average people aren't sinking their lives into WoW but rather converting TV time into WoW time.

I agree completely. I have played it on and off for a number of years now and during those off periods I just started watching alot more TV during the evenings, or I'd buy some other game to amuse me for a couple of months.

I have no trouble playing WoW, and even raiding, and still enjoying a social life, going drinking with mates, going to movies, going to the gym, etc. If WoW sucks your life away, its your fault, not WoW's fault, everything in moderation.

Well Khel share with us your average time spent playing each day??

I know for a fact that raiding takes at least 4 hours of committed time in an evening.

The question is do you just login to raid or do you hit the bg's n stuff. How much time do you spend playing???

Leb, i think you're missing the point here.

You stated that WoW "sucks your life away". You didn't give any qualifiers to this so we are forced to assume that you mean that there are none. That if you play WoW then the only way you can be successful is if all you do is play WoW (and perhaps go to work/study so you can pay to play WoW).

However research indicates that _on_average_ people spend less time per week(a much better indicator than per day) than the average American spends watching TV. So basically the research indicates that your stereotyped assumption is less likely to be true than has been previously supposed.

Do some people spend "too much time" on WoW? Sure. Just like some people spend "too much time" sitting in front of the TV.

Why is it everyone feels the need to provoke argument on this forum?

I will rephrase to suit your thinking more. I agree with you that some people can play wow in moderation. Myself i have a level 70 and a level 50. I feel as though it sucked my social time away a fair bit. Thats my opinion. Perhaps the question i was trying to raise was do others feel the same way.

I am not getting angry at people who play wow I am just saying after a while it gets boring and drawn out. One day I woke up and realised how much time i had wasted playing the game.

I agree also that TV can be just as bad. It does not justify however playing 6 hours a day of wow. Thats what i perceive the problem to be. It is interesting all the pro wow players become Anti-wow when they quit. It opens your eyes a bit.

Why is it everyone feels the need to provoke argument on this forum?

Because thats what the collective culture of the forum is? Argumentative and disparaging are the watchwords here.

I will rephrase to suit your thinking more. I agree with you that some people can play wow in moderation. Myself i have a level 70 and a level 50. I feel as though it sucked my social time away a fair bit. Thats my opinion. Perhaps the question i was trying to raise was do others feel the same way.

Thats a much better way of phrasing it, but thats only related by implication to what you posted. You posted the traditional "WAAA WoW sucks because it destroys your life" post which i took the opportunity to point out is full of s***.

I am not getting angry at people who play wow I am just saying after a while it gets boring and drawn out. One day I woke up and realised how much time i had wasted playing the game.

I agree also that TV can be just as bad. It does not justify however playing 6 hours a day of wow. Thats what i perceive the problem to be. It is interesting all the pro wow players become Anti-wow when they quit. It opens your eyes a bit.

I wouldn't say i thought you were getting angry. Personally i felt you were being whiney. As Khel pointed out, there's no point blaming WoW when the person at fault here is you. Just like i don't blame TV because someone's a couch potato. I call them a lazy f***ing couch potato.

And actually case in point, at least half of the ex-wow players that i know have become current wow players a few months later.

But for those people who can limit themselves without an issue. WoW is great value for money.

Well Khel share with us your average time spent playing each day??

Well, for starters, I don't play it every day. My guild raids 3 nights a week, mondays, wednesdays and thursdays, so I play it for 4 - 5 hours those nights. Raids don't start till about 9:30 so it gives me enough time to get home from work, have dinner, do any odd jobs that need doing and unwind, then raid, go to bed, and (since I live ridiculously close to work) wake up at 8 the next morning. Usually don't get to bed till 2am or so on a raid night, but I'd only be kidding myself if I thought I'd get to bed earlier if I didn't raid, I'm just a late night person. Its not really that hard to get money anymore with dailies, log on an hour earlier and do some dailies before the raid if I have to and theres 70 - 80g. Do a bit of farming or mining on the weekend while I watch episodes of Boston Legal or a movie on my second monitor and theres a few hundred gold.

If something else is on one of those nights, I'll happily go do that instead of raiding, its just like someone else said before, instead of spending a few hours in front of the tv I spend a few hours in front of WoW. I usually end up playing it a bit on friday nights if I'm staying at home, and on the weekend if I got nothing else on. If theres other stuff that I'm playing at the time (like at the end of last year when I had Assassin's Creed, Mass Effect, Metroid Prime 2 and Mario Galaxy all on the go) I'll most likely play those instead. Games are what I fill my spare time with, I like games.

Why is it everyone feels the need to provoke argument on this forum?

Because you’re wrong ... or perhaps because it’s fun.

No, it’s because you’re wrong.

It does not justify however playing 6 hours a day of wow

The point is that you don’t have to play it for 6 hours a day. Sure, to complete some content you might need to spend 4 hours to do it, but who’s to say that you do it every night?

1. If the progression is trivial, there is no need for servers or even really persistance...

I never claimed that the effect of progression needs to be made trivial. I stated that the process of levelling (level levels) is a broken metaphor that was only introduced into PnP games to simplify the job for the DM and players. In a computer assisted world we don’t need that. Instead make progression about everything that traditionally comes with levelling.
What do you get from simply getting a level? In WoW we get a few things:
1 - We arbitrarily get better at beating up people.
2 – We suddenly, for no apparent reason, can improve our skills.
3 – We suddenly, for no apparent reason, can learn a new talent in the middle of nowhere.
4 – We get the ability to learn new abilities, but only at our trainer.
5 – We may have the opportunity to learn new abilities/skills that have been limited for no logical reason.
6 – We gain some statistics that innately improve our character, even if we haven’t been using them (Healthpoints, stam, str, int and such).
7 – We get access to better equipment.
So, why do we need a ‘level’ to limit our progression? Why can’t prowess, abilities, talents, attributes and such be the focus of progression? IMO, the reason why we still have XP is for one of two reasons, A) Expectation/Change Management and B) They haven’t explored the meanings of the metaphors that they use.
Want to get the ability to “Smashf***” your opponents? Well, you don’t need to get to level N to have it magically become accessable, rather it’s at the end of a long, and complicated quest chain with a finale that’s in the back end of some huge arse ninja dungeon. What makes it better, is that you achieve some (Co* like) badges, some titles, better gear, the ability to open up, or close off, other skills, and maybe get a title or two on the way. In fact, it might require months of traditional gaming to achieve “smashf***”, except the process isn’t a mindless drive bound around primitive metaphors.

e-peen factor is removed it reduces the potential customer base

I never said that e-peen should be removed, in fact, I would state that there’s so many ways to electronically inflate your e-peen using non-standard progression that it would boggle your eyes. Most MMOs take the ‘traditional’ route of marking peen as an equipment check. I.E. when you collect all 15 T6 items your peen is officially “huge!”. That’s a dumb mechanic.

4. If progression becomes meaningless

But it isn’t. In fact, it’s reverse. Progression at the moment is simple and easily definable “to become uber I need “Jim's Mighty Shaft +5” and “Stinky’s Cockinmouf +13”. When you open up progression to include all of the things that makes levelling worth it, it becomes more dynamic and meaningful.

It actually meant EQ had more of a community.

I keep hearing this, but I don’t believe it’s true in general. Sure, if you reached the upper levels of raiding it might have been that way. However, for the other 90% of the people playing, it was about small groups of friends doing s*** together. That still happens in WoW, in fact more so because of the larger groups of players.

So ... About the other ways of doing it ...

So, why do we need a ‘level’ to limit our progression? Why can’t prowess, abilities, talents, attributes and such be the focus of progression? IMO, the reason why we still have XP is for one of two reasons, A) Expectation/Change Management and B) They haven’t explored the meanings of the metaphors that they use.

What a vague response. How do you "earn" the abilities, talents & attributes ? How does the game determine that you have progressed? If you are suggesting a skill based system, mmogs with it exist, UO, AC, even CoH sort of. UO and its macro'd skill grinding was a prime example of why perhaps that mechanic has its own issues. And levelling a skill, earning points to buy a talent ... that is just a way of disguising the normal forms of progression. I am not trying to win an argument I want to hear the mechanic.

I keep hearing this, but I don’t believe it’s true in general.

Apart from the fact that you keep hearing it might suggest something to you. I think the fact that for example realpoor an eq server forum is still in existence today says otherwise. wow server forums ? ... lol

But ask other ex long term eq players that played wow as well like keato, shad, buba. I still remember the names of a lot of toons in EQ and I haven't played it in 3 years ? People I wasn't guilded with, and rarely even grouped with... The good and the bad and the stupid. I don't remember any randoms from wow. So from my experience I would say EQ had a community.

What a vague response. How do you "earn" the abilities, talents & attributes ?

Want to get the ability to “Smashf***” your opponents? Well, you don’t need to get to level N to have it magically become accessable, rather it’s at the end of a long, and complicated quest chain with a finale that’s in the back end of some huge arse ninja dungeon.

wow server forums ? ... lol

To this day i don't really know where the EQ server forums are/were.
I heard there was lots of drama about end game on the tarew marr ones but that was after i'd left the game.

last edited by Xyzzy at 18:29:38 25/Jan/08

in the uo days when you could level 7 skills in 2 days or less (7skills being the most you could have GM/max leveled) leveling wasnt an aspect of the game, you would creat 7 characters generally a couple of crafting ones a mage and a warrior.

so once you had your skills all maxed on each character *which took about 2 hours a character thanks to marcoing*, the quest for experience ended. you then started to collect good armour, buy a house, decorate your house, help new players, start a business. the reason i started playing uo was so that i could play a game and spend alot of time with my friends that lived in cairns while i lived in brisbane. so we would go and discover dungeons together and explore the wilderness.

the fact that it was pvp and you could get killed and loose all your s*** at any moment wasnt a problem, it was a fact of life *life within the game that is*. pvp wasnt a skill thing, since just about everyone had the same skills, and you would never go out in decent armor or with good weapons because you would get owned and have that s*** taken from you by a group of 10, so everyone wore the same basic s***.i spent months and months playing uo because it was a social thing, it wasnt a point scoring game, it was about giving you a world to play in, giving you the bare basics and using it to have fun.

nothing felt more rewarding then going out chopping down trees and mining ore then smelting it to make the metal to build a house, then going out to find a location for your new house, then once the house was built filling it up with furniture and rare s*** you have collected. then putting a merchant at the front of your house and selling items you have created from your trade skills. or heading into brit bank with your pack mule and selling off armor you had made with rare ore.

wow lacks that community feeling and the sense of creation and worth within the game, which is probably one of the reasons that i give up on playing each time i get to level 30.

ive started playing eq2 and whilst its no uo replacement it sure has a better community vibe then wow does, its built around pve and economics, leveling is part of the game but it feels more like a way of preventing you from taking on something you are not reading for too quickly and also giving you something to look forward to through hours played.
in know way do i feel like i have to play it, i can quite easily get on play for a few hours either solo or in a group and logoff and go to bed at a reasonable hour. i dont feel like im ever missing something by not being there. which is exactly what im looking for in an mmo atm. i do wish the pve servers had some pvp element to them though cause i enjoy the aspect and drama that pvp brings to a game.

uo pvpers became villians that we would at first fear and then try and defeat like we were some kind of hero, sure they res'd and they would be back 20minutes later but it was good to act out on revenge. pvp was a living for some players, its how they made money, but it wasnt the easiest thing todo. either way ea f***ed up uo and i never played it again, but still had great great times and will compare every mmo i play to it because i personally found it was one of the best gaming experiences ive ever had.

Want to get the ability to “Smashf***” your opponents? Well, you don’t need to get to level N to have it magically become accessable, rather it’s at the end of a long, and complicated quest chain with a finale that’s in the back end of some huge arse ninja dungeon.

EQ did that to a degree the skill was attached to a weapon. Wow had it for warlock pets. Wasn't overly fun... If every skill upgrade is via long quests and ninja dungeons that need raids, you have created a game I have no interest in. I don't want to organise 50 people to get my "level 2" kick.

EQ2 you get a base skill by leveling, can buy simple upgrades off merchant, better off player crafters with common ingredients, better again as drops, better again as player crafted with rares, better again as quest results and as AA rewards (AA is earnt via quests and exploration) or as drops of heroic encounters (which frequently have long quest chains to enable you getting to them.

EQ did that to a degree the skill was attached to a weapon. Wow had it for warlock pets. Wasn't overly fun... If every skill upgrade is via long quests and ninja dungeons that need raids, you have created a game I have no interest in. I don't want to organise 50 people to get my "level 2" kick.

If you knew anything about Typo's feelings about MMO's you'd know that he believes anything more than 20 people is lame and pointless. However i don't see any mention in Typo's example of "raid" or "50 people". And he's not talking about "level 2 kick". I'd say that by most sane definitions, "Smashf***" would be more likely to be talking about an epic ability.

I'd say that effort vs reward would put "level 2 kick" at (using WoW as an example point) a quest reward from a mission in duskwood(well thematically i'd probably put it in redridge but keeping WoW's progression path it'd be in duskwood) but to get it requires the 3rd tier "i've become uberer" inherent ability which you got from completing redridge (and westfall and goldshire before it). Or alternatively you could have gotten the 3rd tier "i've become uberer" inherent from doing nelf missions of around the same level. ditto with dwarf missions. (also note that for dwarven warriors there'd probably be an identical varient of the mission in their area. Elven warriors may have the same ability or a different one, and of course they could wander to human lands and get their kick even if it is a different one though that may require a faction grind... they're not human afterall)

The point here though is that you're not getting the skill as a side effect of doing something completely trivial(grinding xp). As a games designer you also have options for signposting people into different directions. ALSO you can show off people peen in different ways. Would it be interesting for the "ubers" to know that this person made the equivalent of 70 by doing every single possible raid quest chain rather than the solo quest chains? That would give him a certain kind of e-peen right there.

Is he inherently tougher than the casual guy? No. The bonuses are the same. But "obviously" the casual guy is some kind of welfare player because he didn't want to organise 20 people for the raid on the bandit lair in westfall. Instead he did the sneak in solo and go straight for the throat version.

N.B. I don't in any way think the welfare player argument has any validity. But you know people will say it. And good luck to them.

last edited by Xyzzy at 09:47:32 26/Jan/08

You've not really come up with a new leveling system, or a new, progression system, you've just taken out XP. You still do "xyz" to get to the next "level". whether level here is defined as a tangible figure, or a status of new skill set.

The problem with just relabeling it progression, your still defining it as an earned status. And to get the good stuff, you need to EARN it. Whether you do it by practicing alot to get inherently good (think COD4 fps leveling, ET:Qw), time invested (think Alterac Valley), or quests done, or xp earnt (traditional leveling).

None of the ideas proposed have solved the fact that an MMO is designed to consume time. But i don't think you're trying to. You just all seem sick of saying "ding, level, grats".

You've not really come up with a new leveling system, or a new, progression system, you've just taken out XP. You still do "xyz" to get to the next "level". whether level here is defined as a tangible figure, or a status of new skill set.

The problem with just relabeling it progression, your still defining it as an earned status. And to get the good stuff, you need to EARN it. Whether you do it by practicing alot to get inherently good (think COD4 fps leveling, ET:Qw), time invested (think Alterac Valley), or quests done, or xp earnt (traditional leveling).

I don't disagree, however i'm of the opinion that the place you're going to is where Obes is talking about. If you just get stuff and you don't need to do something for it then it will have no perceived value.

My goal isn't generally to give players everything and a stick for logging in and in truth very few games do so(bearing in mind that most games leave back some abilities/weapons/upgrades until the end of the game, multiplayer pvp being the exception not the rule).

Having said that, if someone released a game where there was precisely zero ability progression(you got everything at the start of the game the only changes were cosmetic and statistical/ranking) i wouldn't immediately say it'd never work. However it would definately be appealing to a different crowd than the traditional MMO crowd(which isn't necessarily a bad thing).

None of the ideas proposed have solved the fact that an MMO is designed to consume time. But i don't think you're trying to. You just all seem sick of saying "ding, level, grats".

What i'd like to see is less time spent doing something that a monkey could do for you. I don't consider consuming time a problem if the player isn't bored(which is why i don't say XP is the ultimate evil... some players _LIKE_ repetitive grind).

Ultimately my point is that XP isn't the only potential option and that saying that XP is the only option is just crippling progress.

What a vague response.

That's because by invoking specific examples of how such a system could be implemented it would be simple to forget the essence of what I'm debating and talk about the pros and cons of some specific, off the cuff example. Which defeats the purpose of talking about theoretical concepts.

How do you "earn" the abilities, talents & attributes ?

Essentially by doing quests, but not necessarily invoked/requested quests. It could very well be implied or reactive quests. It's really about logical development of a character, not arbitrar, and meaningless rewards.

If you are suggesting a skill based system

The fact that you translate what I said above into "a skill based system" shows to me that you still don't get what I'm talking about. There's no need to implement some sort of 'ranking' system outside of the actual rewards. Sure, there might be some similarity of skill like progression (pre-requisite abilities to use more powerful abilities; which could also include incrementing skill lines (kick_1 -> kick_2 -> kick_3)), but it isn't a "skill based system" as you've experienced it.

Skill based skills are an arbitrary ranking that was also implemented in PnP systems to simply character ranking. Although, I'd like to state right now that I'm intelligent enough to understand how a skill based system works, and I've played UO/Co*/AC and pretty much anything you've ever played, so I'd like it if you at least pretend that I'm as knowledgeable about systems as you. Which I suppose is a good time right now to bring forward why I'm stating that you don't understand what Xyzzy and I are talking about; the simple fact that you align what I've been talking about with systems that I've specifically said it's not is a key factor of where your understanding lays.

Don't get me wrong, what Xyzzy and I are talking about has been a long, long time in coming. We've been discussing, brainstorming, debating, arguing and screaming at each other about this issues for years. In fact, I suspect I know the current mind-space that you're currently in. I'd imagine if we could get into a physical space, some alcohol and probably a BBQ we could debate this until you fully understand our point of view. I'd guess that you'd probably get as aroused as we do about this.

Apart from the fact that you keep hearing it might suggest something to you.

I'm not going to argue this point at least not at the moment. I don't agree with you, in fact I think it's a really rosed coloured glasses intermixed with the limited community at the time. Arguing this point is detracting from the debat I'm much more interested in making. However, assuming your point is correct, it creates a interesting area of conversation about community and popularity being mutually exclusive.

wow compare to eq2,
id say eq2 has more of a companion feeling, and youd only really feel it the way im describing if you are playing both games PVE over PVP.

really its as simple as that, the games are more or less the same exp and achievement wise, if you want a game that has a solid pve experience play eq2, its the pve dream.
if ou want a game that is a pve game with pve then play wow, wow is a noob game, anyone thats new to mmo's will love it and think eq2 is dull and unoriginal, anyone experinced in mmo's will realise what a great game eq2 is and is probably playing it already based on recomendations made from people they have played previous mmo's with.

if you have played neither then try out both, wow is really noob friendly, it will teach you alot about the grenre, once you have an idea of whats going on then try out other mmo's and go with what suits you.

Does 2nd Life require grinding?

Does 2nd Life require grinding?

Does it have progression?

In fact, I suspect I know the current mind-space that you're currently in. I'd imagine if we could get into a physical space, some alcohol and probably a BBQ we could debate this until you fully understand our point of view. I'd guess that you'd probably get as aroused as we do about this.

Only if you wore that green moo moo

But seriously typo. Keato and Buba hate EQ and are never going back but both would say EQ had a community.

I don't think anyone could say WoW does.

Even DAOC had server communities, because to get or defend relics you had to interact with people outside your friends / guild. Tho no where near as big or as long lasting as EQ ones.

But seriously, the essence of what we are discussing (wrt to leveling) is, how do I give progression value. Time is the easiest universal currency.

I don't agree with group quests and dungeons being a way to progress things. Because 6 months after release and there are no groups doing lets get Kick2 you have signed the death warrant for your game, and if you can get all these skills solo then getting them as a group will be trivial (see previous arguments about trivial being bad). Basing progression around content is a difficult thing.

The current paradigm to me would seem to be it'll usually takes x ammount of content to get from z - y, go forth designers and make content. You sound like you are suggesting if at z you go off and do content x you will get y. And it sounds like it might be very linear. This is the path, the only path, to uber kick2. People (min maxers) will skip all your non progression content.

I think Lotro did something better then that if you follow the storyline and do the quests in the areas it passes you through. You will level. But ... if you don't want to, you don't have too. You can go randomly explore or grind or camp a named or do dungeons or go find quests that are off the storyline etc etc and have the same effect. Shame LOTRO had Tolkien haters and no end game.

Yeah, I enjoyed LOTRO, I never got very far (only to about level 20), but I want to go back and see the rest one day when I have time. I would have kept playing it but I started raiding in WoW and that sucked up any time I'd put aside to play LOTRO.

But yeah, I found I was never looking at my level, never looking at my XP bar thinking "Come on, only 2 more bars of XP till I'm level 20", I was just doing quests, doing instances, doing group stuff, trying to complete the deeds and achievements and stuff, and then suddenly I'd just level, and it'd come as a real suprise to me cos I'd have no idea I was even close to levelling. I dunno if that sort of feeling carries throughout the whole game or not, but it really didn't feel like a grind at all.

Time is the easiest universal currency

... and the most complained about currency. The Furor rants about zerg guild #137924 and even to an extent the WoW rants about welfare epics are all complaining about the inadequacy of time as a stable universal currency.

On the flip side Skill (even if it is merely organisational like 40 man raids) is a hard currency to argue against. The culture is already primed for "if you're not good enough to do this content then you need to man up and learn to play better". Which is not to say no-one complains about skill as a currency.

The current paradigm to me would seem to be it'll usually takes x ammount of content to get from z - y, go forth designers and make content.

If we wanted to get really technical actually what one would hope they'd be saying is "it'll take p amount of xp to get from z - y which generally requires x amount of content". However given how often the p you get from x is less than the p required... i'm not so sure i'd like to make that leap.

In fact to me thats what the problem with WoW post 20 is. Before 20 is this surfeit of x so that getting p is fun and interesting. Afterwards there are periods were you've finished with the x for your level band and the x for the next level band is too hard(and of course any successes just mean that you shorten the amount of p you can get for the next bracket).

And it sounds like it might be very linear. This is the path, the only path, to uber kick2.

While i'm not going to suggest you didn't read my post, was my point(that with my system multiple paths of equal progression become trivial to add) too obscure? And i mentioned at least three different "paths" to what is in effect kick 2(though i will certainly admit that my example did give a negative for anything other than the "one true path" in the form of a rep grind).

XP systems are by their very definiton linear. You add points onto an xp total to add points onto your level total. If the system has epic classes you can break off from one line and start along another, other than that there's little you can do to break the line.

With my proposed system (you accomplish goals, you get rewards) you can have alternate lines of advancement. In particular i mentioned a single alternate line that was more difficult for no extra physical gain, purely for e-peen value. However other possibilities could include a PvP line, a massacre bad things line (potentially even multiple ones, think "hero of " or perhaps " of "), potentially even merchant/social lines. With design and user understanding we have a system that is open enough to allow creativity. rather than turning everything into +500xp.

Like anything that hasn't been done to death, there is a level of difficulty. I'm sure balance would be a right cow and Expectation Management and user understanding become crucial rather than useful. But game development shouldn't just be about doing what everyone else has done just because anything else might be difficult. And it's not like the problems you mention would be truly unique to this progression system. XP is linear by design(as already mentioned), routinely results in content skipping and in the fullness of time results in content being either impossible because no groups are available(the eq syndrome) or trivial for groups(the wow syndrome).

I was just doing quests, doing instances, doing group stuff, trying to complete the deeds and achievements and stuff, and then suddenly I'd just level, and it'd come as a real suprise to me cos I'd have no idea I was even close to levelling. I dunno if that sort of feeling carries throughout the whole game or not, but it really didn't feel like a grind at all.

And i remember back when WoW was in "super best friends club" beta and reports were pretty much saying exactly what you said.

[edit] Oh and also the interviews with some blizzard big wig (can't remember if it was lead designer or what) who said that that was their holy grail, that people ignore the XP bar and just do stuff[/edit]

And i remember it happening to me several times in CoV(usually in the middle of a TF/SF) and a fair bit in early WoW.

last edited by Xyzzy at 19:54:53 27/Jan/08

See I'd say wow 1-20 and wow 60-70 pretty much are that way.

I don't think anyone could say WoW does.

Actually WoW used to have awesome server communities until they introduced battlegroups, then it all went to s***. Anyway who cares, everyone enjoys different games for different reasons.

Yeah that would be a fair statement

But seriously typo. Keato and Buba hate EQ and are never going back but both

I'm not going to argue this point at least not at the moment. I don't agree with you, in fact I think it's a really rose coloured glasses intermixed with the limited community at the time. Arguing this point is detracting from the debat I'm much more interested in making. However, assuming your point is correct, it creates a interesting area of conversation about community and popularity being mutually exclusive.

However, I will say this, even if I don't know how to say it without being amazingly offensive to someone; so I'll just say it blunt and hope that the right people don't get offended:

Really, there's only one name on that list that I have any respect for and it isn't because of the shared 'community' I've shared with them in MMOGs, it's because we've been close friends for more than a decade. However, at least for me, the rest of the people on your list are a pack of c***s that I don't want to associate with in any MMOG again. So, you'll excuse me if I don't respect what you, keto or bubba say about online communities in massively multiplayer games.

I'll be willing to fork the discussion into the two points (progression and community), but please stop using that click group as some sort of positive reference point.

I don't agree with group quests and dungeons being a way to progress things.

This is the exact reason why I didn’t want to get an example. Neither Xyzzy, nor myself, ever stated that all players are forced to jump through group quests, dungeons or even raids. Sure, some abilities may be introduced via huge raids, but those abilities should be designed to enhance raiding, they really shouldn't be that awesome for solo players. Just like other methods of progression should directly effect that method style and not, so much, others.

There’s nothing stopping two abilities to be scarily similar but at different stages. Who’s to say that at release the only way you could get "Smashf***" was to get a raid of 40 people together and raid some s***ty red zone over and over again. Then, later say after you’ve released your first expansion, you make available to small, but exceptional groups. Then in your second expansion, it becomes a standard progression for adventurers and even really good soloists.

Additionally, who’s to say that you can’t have a low level “kick" ability that adventurers, soloers, and raiders have. They all have different flavours of peen, but on the other hand there can be a lot of overlap. I mean, all kick abilities might interrupt a spell from being cast. But the PvP one might have player armour pen, and give a debuf that slows down player caster; while the raider kick might cancel elite mobs, while knocking back non-elite mobs; and while solo progression characters get a stun effect on non-elite mobs.

So, sure, the solo progression guy and the raid progression guy might get "smashf***" at about the same exposure within the game, but it's not as effective (in specific roles) or cool as the raid progression guys. So, when he wants to go through the process known as 'gearing up' for raids, he's going to have to start doing activities that open up raid based skills to him.

Anyway, the overall point of development based progression to make a heroic story (Hector never grinded mobs until he suddenly screamed "DING!" and could learn mortal strike) instead of false, non-meaningful rankings that are currently implemented.

a fair bit in early WoW.

In fact, when I first started playing in WoW, I levelled too quickly. Once I remember getting 5 levels before getting back into town.



last edited by typo at 02:45:37 28/Jan/08