[quote name='Caldenfor' timestamp='1304084096' post='4804420']
[quote name='RedPin' timestamp='1304060361' post='4804324']
I think you might be interested in reading what people actually want on mmorpg.com. After reading about 20 threads of the same "historians" and "new kids" arguing back and forth the formation of a want list was created based on the reasonable aspects of their ideas and arguments. I'll go over some of the wants and desires of both sides. Amazingly, any indie team can deliver these aspects into a mmog.
1. Players simply want as many optional mini games as possible, and they require a reward or some in game changing events for winning and losing.
2. Destroy the healer class along with every other class and make every skill available in some kind of combination process and skill support system with the exception of skills based on certain items the player needs equipped.
3. Allow the player to build their character, city, guild, raid, mount, pet, and items their own way with as much control given to them as possible.
4. Players want stability, top notch connections, and also availability of the mmog.
5. Players are willing to pay for subscriptions or cash shop items that don't ruin the balance of the game, and yes most of the people posting for this were cheap skate idiots looking for a lot for no cost to them at all.
I actually have around 25 reasonable additions any "developer" can add totheir mmog list, but "6. The mmog should be complete and without bugs" is a big pet peeve that makes games or breaks games this age.
Hope that helps, and yes no matter how much a idea may sound good, may smell good, may seem to sell good, you need to be able to hear the cries of the people before you go into a epic stun lock of ideas. Down right to the formula, games are meant to make money by immersion alongside fun.
Players don't always know what they want, nor get what they want, as it may not fit into all games. I am trying to be as broad as possible with the design without taking away from the concept. When I was younger I used to want to design MY game, but over the years I have realized what I want isn't what everyone else wants. What I am trying to design is a game that is Domain vs Domain oriented where you have more invested in a game than just your character. I want collaborated efforts by players to be rewarding for the Domain rather than just rewarding the individuals.
1. If you can think of some mini-games that would fit into the concept without taking away from the game I am always open to ideas on bettering the game. I plan for their to be collectibles like Ultima Online, which on it's own is a form of mini-game. When I say collectibles I am not talking about saving things in your digital binder for self pleasure, I mean ones that you can buy, sell, stash away, or proudly display.
2. Not going to happen. There will be skills that determine the overall capabilities of the combatant, but they are restricted on a per class basis. This is for balancing mainly, but also to have characters have some individualism to them. Less of the FOTM, more of the, "I play it and I enjoy it". The power curve of the game is less than your traditional MMORPG. Level 50 in this concept would be like playing as a level 35 in DAoC with both starting at the same level 1. They just gain power more slowly. I find that games that concentrate on making characters too powerful take away from the enjoyment of combat. How many people would run around different level BGs in games just to enjoy the "non-end game PVP" purely because it was more balanced?
3. Player cities will be customizable with provided structures. They can choose the layout, but there will be a max radius(square most likely) available to build in to avoid Great Walls being built every where. Outside of homes will have slight customization options, while entering a home would be in a separate zone(instance) for the player to customize as well. I would love to avoid all instances, but I don't think it would be technologically possible to have homes like Ultima Online did without bogging down those around the home. I am trying to include taming in the game without making it too powerful, but also enjoyable. Potential for pet customization would be in finding various visuals, some more rare than others, while being able to help train your pet. There is a possibility for raising pets from egg form.
4. Graphics are going to be good, but "next-gen" is out of the question unless it provides for many people battling simultaneously. I don't think it will be too hard to imagine 200+ players getting together for fights. If all goes well it could even rear up to 600+ in a close proximity(same zone). Quality of play comes before graphics to an extent.
5. I don't really see room for a cash shop, but a subscription would be a certainty if it all works out.
Gotta run.
[/quote]
Well, I see another strong headed dreamer that doesn't think that the masses of players can speak up. When in the market of cookie cutter games versus sand box games, in which all seem to be the same, you need to listen to the community. Developers refuse to listen to the cries and changes needed to go back into pure immersion and fun. I do like some of the aspects of the game you want, and if you're dead set on that style of game that's fine, but I will head a warning that others seem to shrug off til their pockets are burnt.
1. Mostly put in what people want for mini games. I can come up with 20 mini games that will fit most mmogs. You need to design a game that will fit those mini games and make ppl happy. Design every tier to have tier specific mini games to draw ppl into leveling or achieving that tier.
2. People are tired of being told that they can not do this, or the same old mechanic systems from another game. Once more, people wish for no classes, skills to associate or penalize the player for having other skills in a reverse tree, and also to create a skill based combat system. Sure, it'll be unbalanced, but why do a linear type class system that you need balancing and just let people pick the skills they want and like and formulate a balance themselves? It's by trial and error people have the most fun finding out about formulas and such.
3. You need to think about more than just customization, you need to also think about functionality. You need to have a reason for them to take the cities, a initiative. Yeah, its cool to just take cities, but without the motives then there is no reason for them to do it more than 1x. You can implement a dynamic changing siege system for almost about everything. Also, if it's subscription spend some time into making a sandbox for their armors, characters, skills, and pets and mounts. You can also make a combo sandbox editor for the skills and various other things in the game. Allowing a player to make his own mini game is far more fun and adds tons of hours of replay value than having a preset mini game that doesn't involve or change the players interaction into the environment.
4. I'm not talking about graphics, I'm talking about technology. You need a T48 connection with multiple server shards and multiple T48 connections to handle lag and balancing. A good Dedicated pc for hundreds of thousands of players is $100k each, and figure around 50 or so for 1M players. I'd gauge at minimum 10-15 T48 internet connections to help reduce the lag of internet connections. It might come also down to hardware specs for the average pc end user that will play your game, but ultimately if it lags on the internet connection, if your servers aren't accessible and if your servers are always down, people will leave.
5. You're subscription can be greatly effected by what you do with your game. Your game is there to solve the communities problems, and your goal, job, directive, w.e., is to make sure that you meet their needs. Earning money by providing people with a solution to their problems by offering your game that solves that problem is 100x more profitable than making another cookie cutter mmog. Think on it, is your game in your mind worth $50 box price and a $15 monthly subscription? To you it may be, but to the community it is a totally different story. You are to cater to the masses, not to your own (butt).
Hope that enlightens someone on here, even with just my suggestions I currently think you will draw more attention and sales than just by going with what you initially wanted. You need to decide to add what the masses want, and what you might like to see together, and get rid of anything from your side, yes yours not theirs, that conflicts with each other.
~ Red
[/quote]
I never said I didn't want "mini-games", but I don't want "Gems" or whatever it was from EQ. I would want game mechanics that existed for players to interact with to fill this role. I also don't see it as being overly impossible to have little game objects that could actually be played in the game. How hard would it be to make a windowed game within the world where people could play board/card games/etc. No, not monopoly. Something more fitting to the genre.
If you are talking about me I am not entirely sure what you are talking about for most of that post. Things being expensive and technologically challenging, yes, cool. I never said I actually thought the game would be made nor that it would be inexpensive. I would certainly like to play a game with an RVR type gameplay, but there aren't many, if any, options available currently other than a dated MMO originating ten years ago.
As to the rest of it, why do you think that it is a sandbox? PVP is separate from PVE only areas so that seems quite the opposite of a sandbox. You can't attack your allies. You have limits, thus, not a sandbox.
Why is it a copy of something else? Because it has PVP objectives similar to older DAoC? I don't see as that being a bad thing. You may not have enjoyed PVP in DAoC, prior to ToA, but there are more people than just myself that really enjoyed the thought behind it as I see it on multiple forums. I already stated why player cities are of use and how they would actually be useful to the players. If you feel I didn't properly explain it, or feel the explanation was inadequate, please feel free to offer suggestions to make them of more use. Player cities aren't for PVP combat. That is a PVE only portion of the game where player cities are made.
I did, however, believe that potentially making the cities controlled by NPCs that grow over time as being part of the game, but why take that part of the game away from the players other than to implement cities with less complications, also known as humans, to worry about.
And on a final note, if you find anyone that can balance a skill based system rather than class based for a competitive and enjoyable PVP experience, please let me know. People all want cookie-cutters, sadly, classes is one of the ways of preventing that and it works quite well. People think they know what they want and think it will always work. I am not absolved from this statement either. I don't imagine a "wow-killer", I think of a quality game for people to enjoy to fill more than just a "niche" in the system. While I claim it would be similar to RVR, you could actually play the game and have fun without ever participating in RVR, unless of course the game is composed as garbage. I wouldn't expect this concept to be the next big thing and who would want to be it? Currently "the next big thing" keeps turning up to be a steaming pile.
If any of this is read as being aggressive, defensive, whatever, it isn't and is never intended.
[/quote]
