MMO Progression

Oops, I should probably also clarify that I'm NOT a big fan of GW1. I liked the deck-building approach - but that was pretty much it.

I LOVE progression - and GW1 progression was too limited - outside of the card gathering.

Meaning, the mechanics were a bit too simplistic - and the game needed a whole host of other progression opportunities, including crafting, mounts, housing and so on.

I want progression to be infinite and eternal - just not specifically about a linear power curve.

NewDArt said:

I believe I already explained what I think about "vertical" and "horizontal" progression

There's only progression. Meaning, if you gain any kind of tangible advantage - then you've progressed. It's that simple.

Click to expand...

Yes I know but lot of people including many game designers make the distinction since there are lot of people who do not like the so called "horizontal" progression system. They don't consider having more options as *enough* progression. I personally prefer little bit of both.

I played lot of GW1 in the early days and I loved going out collecting skills and doing my own build etc but also wanted to upgrade my gear and weapons too. It didn't feel like an RPG when you are not upgrading your weapons and armour! This is why I say I like elements from both.

NewDArt said:

In my game design, it would be all about skill. Meaning, it doesn't matter if you've played the game for 100 hours or 10000 hours.

Click to expand...

NewDArt said:

A player THAT good won't need more powerful items. He'll kick ass even in basic gear - in my design.

Click to expand...

What do you mean by player skill here? Reaction time, reflex etc? Are you talking about skill in terms of the "skill" needed to play a game like Dark Souls?

If yes, then is this a RPG in the traditional sense of the word?

NewDArt said:

Oops, I should probably also clarify that I'm NOT a big fan of GW1. I liked the deck-building approach - but that was pretty much it.

I LOVE progression - and GW1 progression was too limited - outside of the card gathering.

Meaning, the mechanics were a bit too simplistic - and the game needed a whole host of other progression opportunities, including crafting, mounts, housing and so on.

I want progression to be infinite and eternal - just not specifically about a linear power curve.

Click to expand...

Ah just saw this post! I wholly agree, there wasn't enough progression in GW1.

Also about "other" progression systems you mention such as crafting, housing, mounts etc don't really appeal to me! Maybe mounts but thats about it! I never saw the point of housing and decorating it etc. I found crafting to be tedious in most MMOs I have played. But all of these are just my preference and I know lot of people love these!

lostforever said:

Yes I know but lot of people including many game designers make the distinction since there are lot of people who do not like the so called "horizontal" progression system. They don't consider having more options as *enough* progression. I personally prefer little bit of both.

Click to expand...

Again, I think it's a silly and unnecessary distinction. There's no MMORPG without a ton of both - regardless. Every new skill you get as you gain a level is clear-cut horizontal progression - more so than vertical progression. Meaning, it's an entirely new option (horizontal) but the end result is still more power (vertical). You know?

It was a buzzword that became popular with GW2 - because they tried to pitch their pathetic MMO design as "revolutionary" - and I think it utterly failed.

I played lot of GW1 in the early days and I loved going out collecting skills and doing my own build etc but also wanted to upgrade my gear and weapons too. It didn't feel like an RPG when you are not upgrading your weapons and armour! This is why I say I like elements from both.

Click to expand...

I would agree with that.

What do you mean by player skill here? Reaction time, reflex etc? Are you talking about skill in terms of the "skill" needed to play a game like Dark Souls?

If yes, then is this a RPG in the traditional sense of the word?

Click to expand...

All kinds of skill - the more the better.

I prefer games to have roles - and I want roles to be very different, requiring different skill-sets.

That's another mistake that GW2 made, by removing the holy trinity. How stupid was that?

I mean, it's fine if you actually IMPROVE upon it - but just taking it away was supremely stupid.

Anyway, in my design - I want everything from crafting, riding, exploring, interacting, fighting, magic - and so on - require different kinds of skill.

But it would take too long to explain - pages and pages worth of design.

But, just to give you an example - in my game combat would be rare, because you would be risking almost everything.

Just fighting a single goblin would get you killed as a veteran - if you made a few mistakes or you grew complacent.

I don't like how combat is a trivial activity in almost all RPGs. I want it to be dangerous as hell - and I want people to be absolutely terrified at the prospect of going out and challenging a Troll near his cave.

Most people would have to spend a long time training and developing their skill-set if they wanted to pursue such a dangerous in-game career of being a soldier/mercenary/adventurer.

NewDArt said:

All kinds of skill - the more the better.

I prefer games to have roles - and I want roles to be very different, requiring different skill-sets.

That's another mistake that GW2 made, by removing the holy trinity. How stupid was that?

I mean, it's fine if you actually IMPROVE upon it - but just taking it away was supremely stupid.

Click to expand...

I agree that we need roles and the stupidest thing they ever did in GW2 was to get rid of them!

For now lets just stick to combat roles only and explore what you mean by "player skill".

When people talk about "player skill", they mean the ability of the player who is controlling the character to react to certain situation etc. In other words reaction time, reflex of the player.

Is this the "player skill" you are talking about within the context of combat roles?

lostforever said:

I agree that we need roles and the stupidest thing they ever did in GW2 was to get rid of them!

For now lets just stick to combat roles only and explore what you mean by "player skill".

When people talk about "player skill", they mean the ability of the player who is controlling the character to react to certain situation etc. In other words reaction time, reflex of the player.

Is this the "player skill" you are talking about within the context of combat roles?

Click to expand...

I'm talking about a combination of player and character skill. A large part of skill, in my game, would be awareness - and developing a proper strategy for the enemy you're fighting.

Think of it as an evolved version of Witcher 3 - for instance.

I would emphasise a variety of factors - including distinct AI behavior, vulnerabilities, parlay options, speed, damage, and on and on.

So, some enemies would require fast reaction times - and other enemies would be much slower, but require awareness of vulnerabilities and movement patterns.

Also, my game would allow for several ways to avoid combat in the first place. Either through dialogue or creative use of the environment.

For instance, it might be possible to lure the enemy to a position where another player could set a large boulder rolling - resulting in a big splat

I would never design a game where only "fast" players could succeed. Some roles - or skills - would be better suited for fast players - and other roles/skills would be more cerebral and the battle would often be won before it was even fought

However, even for fast enemies - being fast in return wouldn't be the only way to defeat them. I would always try to ensure there are more ways than one to handle an encounter.

Key is that all encounters should be meaningful and have an element of risk. I don't want a large amount of trivial fights - except perhaps for very powerful/skilled players who decide to go hunting a tribe of kobolds or whatever. But even that shouldn't be entirely certain.

I would like my game to reflect what real combat is like in terms of danger and chaos. Also, fighting multiple enemies would be much, much harder than it is in most MMOs.

There's strength in numbers - and that's how it should be.

NewDArt said:

That's another mistake that GW2 made, by removing the holy trinity. How stupid was that?

Click to expand...

Spoken like a person who haven't played GW2 outside open world PvE and the Zerker-meta dungeon epoch.

GW2 Raids meta is the Trinity and WvW groups require a very specific set of class builds/roles to the point getting into a WvW group is harder than getting a spot in a Raid for new players. Every group content shun selfish builds/players. If you are trying to get carried just by pressing #1, expect to be trash talked in chat. Veterans don't like when meta events fail because of stupid players who believe GW2 is an easy game that doesn't require anything but pressing #1 to go through content.

I didn't play GW2 long enough to see Raids. I did 5 man instances, open world boss and some WvW. None of them required any roles during the 1st year of release. Has that changed now? If so what kind of roles do they need?

If this has changed and if they now have "proper" roles like tank, healer, dps, CC etc, then I might give it another shot some point!

azarhal said:

Spoken like a person who haven't played GW2 outside open world PvE and the Zerker-meta dungeon epoch.

Click to expand...

Oh, I know. I need to play the game in a very specific way to have fun, right?

The 90% of the game, which is open world PvE, is not supposed to be enjoyable, right?

Yeah - I heard that many times before.

I prefer games that are naturally fun - by doing what I naturally want to do.

I've never had to adapt to any kind of trinity role - except mindless DPS - in any open world encounter that I've tried in GW2.

I've only tried a few dungeons - and they were boring and overly chaotic. They might require more coordination - but because of the awful investment-to-reward ratio in GW2, and the lack of compelling dungeon content/atmosphere - I never bothered to spend much time with them.

I essentially despise the core design and philosophy of the game.

GW2 Raids meta is the Trinity and WvW groups require a very specific set of class builds/roles to the point getting into a WvW group is harder than getting a spot in a Raid for new players. Every group content shun selfish builds/players. If you are trying to get carried just by pressing #1, expect to be trash talked in chat. Veterans don't like when meta events fail because of stupid players who believe GW2 is an easy game that doesn't require anything but pressing #1 to go through content.

Click to expand...

Too bad I don't enjoy raids anymore, then. I hate the WvW concept and execution in GW2 - so I wouldn't touch that with a ten foot pole. It's more like a big sports match than anything approaching war.

If the very endgame content is super hard, then guess what - the GW2 developers did a miserable, miserable job educating the players - or giving them a proper learning curve. Having a 180 degree turnaround and expecting players to suddenly completely understand their entirely new and very demanding roles is what you would call idiotic game design.

Blizzard understands this - and they excel at introducing challenge slowly and steadily.

But I'm glad there's some content to be enjoyed in GW2 - but it's too bad the rest of the game is shit.

Obviously, that's not true.

It all comes down to personal preferences. Some people can accept that we have different tastes - and others can't.

I'm perfectly OK with people loving GW2 - and I'm sure there are ways to enjoy it.

That doesn't mean those ways are for me, though.

lostforever said:

I didn't play GW2 long enough to see Raids. I did 5 man instances, open world boss and some WvW. None of them required any roles during the 1st year of release. Has that changed now? If so what kind of roles do they need?

If this has changed and if they now have "proper" roles like tank, healer, dps, CC etc, then I might give it another shot some point!

Click to expand...

I spent a few hundred hours on GW2. The dungeons did require precise movements - but it was so chaotic due to the abysmally bad feedback - and it was obviously not very balanced. Some classes were so obviously superior at the few variations you had to do, it wasn't even funny.

The game did a really, really poor job informing players in this way - and it seemed a completely different game during dungeons.

Didn't help that the dungeons were boring and lifeless compared to something like a proper WoW dungeon.

That's something Blizzard knows how to do.

Again, I don't think it's great that every player has to do everything - pretty much. I like roles and the strategy and tactics involved with classes that are designed around those roles.

That is not the case in GW2 - where every classes can literally do a bit of everything.

lostforever said:

I didn't play GW2 long enough to see Raids. I did 5 man instances, open world boss and some WvW. None of them required any roles during the 1st year of release. Has that changed now? If so what kind of roles do they need?

If this has changed and if they now have "proper" roles like tank, healer, dps, CC etc, then I might give it another shot some point!

Click to expand...

The role stuff is in Raids (which require Heart of Thorns), the rest haven't really changed outside HoT and later maps having harder content open-world wise and open world bosses getting revamped (well Tequalt and The Shatterer) and post season 1 open world bosses being sorta "100-150 players raids" where a few players have specific roles/mechanics to deal with and the rest following commanders.

Raids meta contains tank, healer and DPS roles, but the tank only require the most toughness to keep aggro (so technically anyone could play that role based on their gear, doesn't mean they can survive being the tank though…the preferred tank is a Mesmer with the Chronomancer elite spec, lots of evade and blocks, great utilities, crap damage). Healers are Ranger (Druid elite spec), Elementalist (Water) or Revenant (Ventari) (specific builds and gear required, Ranger are preferred). DPS can be anyone technically, but classes/builds with more group support and DPS are preferred.

As for CC, Anet revamped champions and how interrupts/CC skills work on them. Now champion and legendary have "break bars" and CC skill damage that "break bar". Those "break bar" have to be destroyed at very specific time on certain bosses to stop deadly skills usage or annoying mechanics. One character wouldn't be able to bring enough CC for that (unless it is a thief with the elite Venom, but that's because everyone gets that Venom which is a CC attack), so you need more than one character with CC. It's pretty hard in open-world to have "click #1 only players" break bars which is a big cause of trash talking on map chat after failed events…

Which brings us to another issue I hate about MMOs, the competition between developers and 'top tier' guilds. I enjoy MMOs the best when it's just me and a few friends (or pick-ups) and do some dungeon for a few hours, and that's how the first MMOs were for a while, but then it all turned into how to make it challenging for top tier raiders, which means people like me feel left out. You're either raiding the same dungeon over and over and over, having to memorize boss mechanics in 8 stages with multiple mechanics, and do that until the next expansion, or you're bust. Non-hardcore content becomes an after-thought.