Jump to content

  • Curse Sites
Help
* * - - - 3 votes

Anet on why there is vertical progression


  • Please log in to reply
288 replies to this topic

#271 Zippor

Zippor

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 136 posts
  • Server:Desolation

Posted 17 December 2012 - 09:41 AM

View PostXPhiler, on 14 December 2012 - 12:05 PM, said:

In fact I would like to post this question to everyone. Whats horizontal progression to you?

I'm not quite sure. Can we say that when I'm getting better at the game, that it's horizontal progression? Or does horizontal progression only entail the progression of my character and it's capabilities? Regardless of my capabilities in the gameplay itself?

#272 raspberry jam

raspberry jam

    Vigil Crusader

  • Members
  • 4787 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 10:45 AM

View PostXPhiler, on 14 December 2012 - 03:31 PM, said:

Its is now because its suits you but you original argument the one I disagreed with said you won that fight because you were wearing ascended Armor so if you'd be honest you'd say team A won the fight because Member #2 showed up. Which is true of course but is also miss leading because Team A didnt win the might because member 2 showed up, it won the fight because all the team showed up. member 2 wants any more or less  instrumental  than anything else.



I never said Gw2 is soloy horizontal, Go back to my post and you'll see  I always claimed its trying to be both. Few if any PC games are really horizontal and that includes minecraft which you said is horizontal (if you dont progress in mine craft in power (build weapons, tools, shelter) you will not surivive for long.  Back on subject, like gw1 before which also had vertical progression, it has a little vertical progression you have to go through but unlike other MMO that are soley vertical progression based the progression is primarely level based. a Level 1 will not be able to survive in a level 80 no doubt. But a level 80 geared in level 1 gear will be able to survive in a level 80 zone. In many other MMOs gear factors the majority of the stats so a max level character will not be able to surive in a max level zone with level 1 gear.


thats your defition with which I totally disagree. There is no real difference between your character gets stronger with your character gets more capable. Take Eve-Online for example. I am sure we'll both agree Eve Online is a vertical progression MMO. Though that vertical progression is driven through making your character more capable as it is all skills based. It doesnt have a gear treadmill but it has a skill treadmill. You defenition would make Eve-Online a horizontal progression game more then Gw2 is but you'd finish a full set of alts fully geared in Ascended gear without a doubt and you'd still be light years away from being able to drive a titan. It would take years, litterally years to get a new character to learn the skills required to drive a titan in eve online.



Not true at all. Not in the least. For starters for someone who claims to have an interest in learning how to maximize the tools given to him/her by a game I am surprised to hear statements like "but the horizontal choices are so obvious and have so little effect compared to vertical progression elements that they don't greatly matter." Really? I guess I must have imagined videos of people creating good crowd control builds that in sPvP where both have exactly the same level of gear on party with good damage mitigation skills is able to kill an oponent without barely takening any damage. Or I must have been dreaming when I experimented in WvW wearing no armor, no accessories and still managed to get 7 kills with just 2 deaths. Yes obviously gear is what matters the most. I mean even taking your example. That ascended gear gave you 40 extra HP. If you fear a warrior right as  they unleash a 100 blades you just saved yourself about 2000 dmg - even 4000 dmg if they crit. How can you even say with a straight face that your gear choice has a greater effect then what skills you take and your ability to anticipate / react to situations? Its absolutely false.

why are you comparing a level 80 ascended + exotic against a level 3 in starter gear? Sure with such a huge gap you're most likely right. A level 3 will not even have access to any traits or any utilities. Those are far bigger issues then the lack of gear imho.

At least go with a level 80 geared in rare (dont tell me 1 day is more then you'd be willing of investing in a little vertical progression) and yes I wouldnt say such a fight is definitely not a sure deal like you claim it to be from first hand experiance. I have always played WvW dressed in rare except for 3 slots (66% rare) and have a ridicolous kill to death ratio for a non PvPer.
Yes. Maybe you are unable to read. I will try again: In the case of team A's win, of course all members contributed. However, in the case of team A's loss, member #2 is fully to blame.

Your post says that GW2 ensures that you are not prevented in exploring the tower you were talking about. But clearly, GW2 does prevent that. The things you mentioned in Minecraft are horizontal. Having a diamond pick does not preclude you from doing anything in the game. Having a house does not mean that you don't need food (assuming survival mode). etc.
In other words your are wrong. It doesn't matter that a level 80 can survive a level 80 zone, since a level 1 cannot.

No, EVE Online is a vertical progression game mostly because of the things you mention. The number of valid (as in, not stupid) choices does not increase as you play. The choices themselves change, though: this is what makes it vertical.

You "experimented" in WvW giving you 7 kills and 2 deaths. Imagine your results if you had been wearing gear? Since gear does not give any penalties, only advantages, you would not have done worse, and possibly have done better. In other words your choice of gear (or rather, non-choice) just made things worse for you. Your result was good, but it could have been even better.

lol did I say that gear meant more than skills? I didn't. I say that if we would have the same skills, and do the same things - if everything that happened, happened, but I was wearing exotics only, I would have lost. You keep claiming that I said things that I never said. At least you have a flexible imagination.

I'm comparing a level 3 to a level 80 to show you how much the vertical progression elements matter. You can also take a level 3 with all skills unlocked - the level 80 would still win.

I have no idea how you'd level to 80 in one day.

View PostZippor, on 17 December 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:

I'm not quite sure. Can we say that when I'm getting better at the game, that it's horizontal progression? Or does horizontal progression only entail the progression of my character and it's capabilities? Regardless of my capabilities in the gameplay itself?
You get better at any game when you play it, right? So no. For example, Tetris is a game without any progression at all. Horizontal progression means that your character, or your set of in-game stats, is progressing horizontally.

Easy illustration that is not really accurate: Imagine playing an FPS. Picking up a +100 health kit is vertical progression. Picking up another weapon that you never used before and that expands the way you play, is horizontal progression.

#273 Zippor

Zippor

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 136 posts
  • Server:Desolation

Posted 17 December 2012 - 11:42 AM

View Postraspberry jam, on 17 December 2012 - 10:45 AM, said:

For example, Tetris is a game without any progression at all.

I think that is false but I see what you're pointing out. Since there are 'levels' in Tetris, there is progression and it's vertical, correct? How about horizontal progression on Tetris? You would get new blocks in each level that you haven't seen before.

Would GW2 benefit from increased tools (skills) for characters? I know it would be a pain in the ass to balance out in the long run, but do you think the added horizontality would outweight the cons?

#274 raspberry jam

raspberry jam

    Vigil Crusader

  • Members
  • 4787 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 01:08 PM

View PostZippor, on 17 December 2012 - 11:42 AM, said:

I think that is false but I see what you're pointing out. Since there are 'levels' in Tetris, there is progression and it's vertical, correct? How about horizontal progression on Tetris? You would get new blocks in each level that you haven't seen before.

Would GW2 benefit from increased tools (skills) for characters? I know it would be a pain in the ass to balance out in the long run, but do you think the added horizontality would outweight the cons?
Not really. Levels in tetris isn't the same as character levels. Getting to a new level just means that the game starts over and runs faster. The gameplay is the same, the stats are the same. It's a game revolving around the player, not the in-game stats.

GW2 isn't built for horizontal progression. The component mechanics are not narrow enough. GW1 wasn't perfect in that regard, but better than GW2. Adding new mechanics would upset the already bad balance, since there are no self-balancing mechanics either (which, again, GW1 had). In other words, no, GW2 as it is now would not benefit from increased possibilities for horizontal progression... IMO.

#275 Cronos988

Cronos988

    Fahrar Cub

  • Members
  • 44 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 01:08 PM

View PostZippor, on 17 December 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:

I'm not quite sure. Can we say that when I'm getting better at the game, that it's horizontal progression? Or does horizontal progression only entail the progression of my character and it's capabilities? Regardless of my capabilities in the gameplay itself?

I did try to pose some definitions, I think it was even in this thread, but it probably got buried under a lot of argument of what my definition of an RPG is.

The way I understand it, horizontal progression is:
Giving your character new tools/Options to handle a given Situation that do not reduce the effort/time required to handle the Situation. Or, to put it differently, horizontal progression gives you new, different solutions to a given problem, but all solutions are equally effective.

Vertical progression, by compairison, would be improving your ability to solve a task while keeping the manner in which you solve it the same. You do not get a new solution to the problem, but your existing solution becomes more effective.

The advantage of vertical progression is that it does not need any outside motivation: Getting better at a given task has it's own reward by virtue of a feeling of accomplishment.

Horizontal Progression needs some other "incentive" in order to make it rewarding. That is where I think GW2 is lacking. The skills feel gimmicky because you are equally effective with just using any 3 tier one Utilities. That makes the progression seem dull, in addition to it being very short and arguably a bit shallow. Dusk Wolf brought up something I would call "coolness-factor", which could motivate. Other than that, I think combining horizontal and vertical progression into some kind of "diagonal progression" would make for good gameplay: New options make you better by giving you more effective skill combinations.

#276 Zippor

Zippor

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 136 posts
  • Server:Desolation

Posted 17 December 2012 - 02:02 PM

How far should horizontal progression go then? I understand that people want horizontal progression because it doesn't take them any work to get results other than learning the basics and just a bit more. How much of horizontal progression is enough? GW1 had so much different skills added throughout it's lifetime that it became convoluted and some of the skills were useless and/or outdated. Besides of skill utility increase, what other horizontal progression could there be added? New kind of problems most likely, but how much of that can be kept up without rehashing old mechanics? One of the good points of horizontal progression would be that all new and old content would be relevant and coming in to do anything would require no prerequisites. I think a game going for pure horizontal progression would require some serious innovation and implementation that no one has even given thought about yet. It sounds great on paper and as an ideal, but getting it to work on an MMO that's supposed to draw millions of players in is not very likely.

#277 Arquenya

Arquenya

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1204 posts
  • Location:Netherlands
  • Guild Tag:[DVDF]
  • Server:Gandara

Posted 17 December 2012 - 02:30 PM

View PostZippor, on 17 December 2012 - 02:02 PM, said:

How far should horizontal progression go then? I understand that people want horizontal progression because it doesn't take them any work to get results other than learning the basics and just a bit more. How much of horizontal progression is enough? GW1 had so much different skills added throughout it's lifetime that it became convoluted and some of the skills were useless and/or outdated. Besides of skill utility increase, what other horizontal progression could there be added? New kind of problems most likely, but how much of that can be kept up without rehashing old mechanics? One of the good points of horizontal progression would be that all new and old content would be relevant and coming in to do anything would require no prerequisites. I think a game going for pure horizontal progression would require some serious innovation and implementation that no one has even given thought about yet. It sounds great on paper and as an ideal, but getting it to work on an MMO that's supposed to draw millions of players in is not very likely.
But horizontal progression isn't just skills (although I'd love to have more 6-10 skills). It's - in my opinion - basically everything that doesn't make you stronger but gives you more options and possibilities. This can also include "FoW armour", guild halls, town clothes, mini games contests, crafting, player housing, titles/accomplishments.
I never understood why the rest was kind of neglected and so much in GW2 seems to be just focussed on gear and stats - and thus combat.

The basic idea behind horizontal progression and why people want it is that getting to know your class, skill combinations and teamwork make all the difference in fights (both PvE and PvP). For a lot of people it's just no fun and takes away from the feeling of accomplishment to (partially) beat something or someone else because you have the better equipment.

Edited by Arquenya, 17 December 2012 - 02:33 PM.


#278 raspberry jam

raspberry jam

    Vigil Crusader

  • Members
  • 4787 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 03:01 PM

View PostZippor, on 17 December 2012 - 02:02 PM, said:

How far should horizontal progression go then? I understand that people want horizontal progression because it doesn't take them any work to get results other than learning the basics and just a bit more. How much of horizontal progression is enough? GW1 had so much different skills added throughout it's lifetime that it became convoluted and some of the skills were useless and/or outdated. Besides of skill utility increase, what other horizontal progression could there be added? New kind of problems most likely, but how much of that can be kept up without rehashing old mechanics? One of the good points of horizontal progression would be that all new and old content would be relevant and coming in to do anything would require no prerequisites. I think a game going for pure horizontal progression would require some serious innovation and implementation that no one has even given thought about yet. It sounds great on paper and as an ideal, but getting it to work on an MMO that's supposed to draw millions of players in is not very likely.
To add to Arquenya's post, one important thing about horizontal games is that they are kept balanced by limiting the number of choices available at any one time. For example, GW1 had an 8-slot skill bar. In MtG, this is done in another way: your deck needs to be at least 60 cards and have at most 4 cards of each kind (except certain cards). You are however allowed to have as big of a deck as you want... But you don't want to go far above 60, because that makes your deck less predictable and that in turn makes it harder to control it and play your strategy.

GW1 spun out of control in a way, because of power creep and because the number of combinations were too many to balance. The MtG method is in a way self-balancing, and that is a very important concept to horizontal design. Another example of self-balancing mechanics would be some of the most well balanced skills in GW1:

Frenzy: Probably the best general IAS in the game, but one that viciously punished you it if you use it at the wrong moment. Not only does this self-balance against the user, but also against the opponents, who are (doubly) rewarded for keeping a lookout for people using Frenzy.

Reversal of Fortune: Like any prot, this one is wasted if cast on a character that doesn't come under attack. But even more so in this case, because the skill has a potentially massive heal that triggers only if you cast it well.

Diversion: The skill that pretty much defines much of what mesmers were in GW1, it yields a massive reward if used right and is just a waste of its quite long casting time if used wrong.

In all of these cases, the actual numbers were not what kept these skills balanced, it was the mechanics behind them that did it. Of course, a 100% IAS in Frenzy instead of 33% would be unbalanced, but removing the double damage would be a much worse hit against the skill.

Why am I blabbing on about skill balancing when the question was how much horizontal progression there should be? Aha, because it's intimately connected. There must be self-balancing mechanics involved. There must be tradeoffs. Tradeoffs that feed back into the use of the skill, the construction of the deck, etc. If you run out of tradeoffs, or if they don't work, you should stop putting out mechanics. In other words, there can be as much horizontal progression as the mechanics allow, and there can be as much mechanics as the tradeoffs allow.

#279 Cronos988

Cronos988

    Fahrar Cub

  • Members
  • 44 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 04:52 PM

View Postraspberry jam, on 17 December 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

To add to Arquenya's post, one important thing about horizontal games is that they are kept balanced by limiting the number of choices available at any one time. For example, GW1 had an 8-slot skill bar. In MtG, this is done in another way: your deck needs to be at least 60 cards and have at most 4 cards of each kind (except certain cards). You are however allowed to have as big of a deck as you want... But you don't want to go far above 60, because that makes your deck less predictable and that in turn makes it harder to control it and play your strategy.

GW1 spun out of control in a way, because of power creep and because the number of combinations were too many to balance. The MtG method is in a way self-balancing, and that is a very important concept to horizontal design. Another example of self-balancing mechanics would be some of the most well balanced skills in GW1:

Frenzy: Probably the best general IAS in the game, but one that viciously punished you it if you use it at the wrong moment. Not only does this self-balance against the user, but also against the opponents, who are (doubly) rewarded for keeping a lookout for people using Frenzy.

Reversal of Fortune: Like any prot, this one is wasted if cast on a character that doesn't come under attack. But even more so in this case, because the skill has a potentially massive heal that triggers only if you cast it well.

Diversion: The skill that pretty much defines much of what mesmers were in GW1, it yields a massive reward if used right and is just a waste of its quite long casting time if used wrong.

In all of these cases, the actual numbers were not what kept these skills balanced, it was the mechanics behind them that did it. Of course, a 100% IAS in Frenzy instead of 33% would be unbalanced, but removing the double damage would be a much worse hit against the skill.

Why am I blabbing on about skill balancing when the question was how much horizontal progression there should be? Aha, because it's intimately connected. There must be self-balancing mechanics involved. There must be tradeoffs. Tradeoffs that feed back into the use of the skill, the construction of the deck, etc. If you run out of tradeoffs, or if they don't work, you should stop putting out mechanics. In other words, there can be as much horizontal progression as the mechanics allow, and there can be as much mechanics as the tradeoffs allow.

Very good post. And what you describe in your last paragraph is one of the main Problems of horizontal Progression: Every new Option requires meticulous balancing, something that takes a lot of time and often requires innovative thinking. There is a sharp limit on how much horizontal content you can make, and that directly conflicts with the design philosophy of current MMORPGs, which revolves around providing as much content as possible to keep people playing.

Maybe a major design shift away from the "Theme-Park-MMO" towards a user-created-content mentality could help (read about that recently).

Nevertheless, I think a pure horizontal focus will not work in games with a PVE focus. The appeal of PVE is often based around being able to beat tougher foes, the method is not terribly important. Horizontal Progression works in player-player Interaction, be it PVP or showing off skins or titles. MOBA's have purely horizontal progression systems, and if other genre's focus more on player interaction instead of PVE, we might see more of it.

#280 raspberry jam

raspberry jam

    Vigil Crusader

  • Members
  • 4787 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 05:46 PM

View PostCronos988, on 17 December 2012 - 04:52 PM, said:

Very good post. And what you describe in your last paragraph is one of the main Problems of horizontal Progression: Every new Option requires meticulous balancing, something that takes a lot of time and often requires innovative thinking. There is a sharp limit on how much horizontal content you can make, and that directly conflicts with the design philosophy of current MMORPGs, which revolves around providing as much content as possible to keep people playing.

Maybe a major design shift away from the "Theme-Park-MMO" towards a user-created-content mentality could help (read about that recently).

Nevertheless, I think a pure horizontal focus will not work in games with a PVE focus. The appeal of PVE is often based around being able to beat tougher foes, the method is not terribly important. Horizontal Progression works in player-player Interaction, be it PVP or showing off skins or titles. MOBA's have purely horizontal progression systems, and if other genre's focus more on player interaction instead of PVE, we might see more of it.
Thank you! :)

Yes, it's important to separate content from mechanics - horizontal progression is very much about that, while vertical progression treats mechanics access in the same way that it does content access (e.g. you get access to new content in roughly the same way you get access to new mechanics, that is, through some form of leveling). On one hand, that makes handcrafted PvE content easier to make, since you can be 100% sure of what the players will be able to have when they get to a certain point - and also, what they don't have yet. That is, of course, not always true for horizontal progression...
Or rather, it is, but it won't help the designer. Because in that case, players can possibly have access to any mechanic that the content is not actually locking out (e.g. when designing a skill quest, players can have basically any skill whatsoever, except the one skill that the quest gives).

I believe that you are wrong, and that PvE can support horizontal progression just as much as PvP can. Of course, GW1 is basically my only evidence of this.

#281 Kilian

Kilian

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 317 posts

Posted 18 December 2012 - 12:16 AM

View PostAureliusRex, on 28 November 2012 - 10:34 PM, said:

...GW2 is just a mess of a game right now.  If you want to be where there are any people at all you are running fotm, and even then, you're looking for a group your level if you can find one.  The economy is bad, the open world is empty, the launch day dungeons are empty, spvp is a complete flop,  there are reams of bugs that haven't been fixed...

This is how I pretty much feel about GW2 right now. It's a shame for me being a GW1 vet seeing how GW2 is turning out to be.

As of right now all I'm doing is lvling alts, but even that gets boring with the lack of other players in the PvE zones. Bring on the guesting feature, merge servers PvE wise, or just do something about it Anet.

#282 UssjTrunks

UssjTrunks

    Golem Rider

  • Members
  • 2615 posts
  • Guild Tag:[BOMB]
  • Server:Yak’s Bend

Posted 18 December 2012 - 12:33 AM

It's stuff like this that makes me glad I never got into the PvE in this game.

#283 Arquenya

Arquenya

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1204 posts
  • Location:Netherlands
  • Guild Tag:[DVDF]
  • Server:Gandara

Posted 21 December 2012 - 09:28 AM

View PostCronos988, on 17 December 2012 - 04:52 PM, said:

Nevertheless, I think a pure horizontal focus will not work in games with a PVE focus. The appeal of PVE is often based around being able to beat tougher foes, the method is not terribly important. Horizontal Progression works in player-player Interaction, be it PVP or showing off skins or titles. MOBA's have purely horizontal progression systems, and if other genre's focus more on player interaction instead of PVE, we might see more of it.
Well it depends. Player skill can make up for a lot, teamwork and tactics too, if a game caters for such things.
I imagine it's quite hard to do this though, while on the other hand not causing people to all run the same few effecive builds.
Challenging but with flexible solutions. That would be perfect! :)

#284 duncanmix

duncanmix

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 90 posts
  • Guild Tag:[PA]
  • Server:Gunnar’s Hold

Posted 21 December 2012 - 10:05 AM

The way I view horizontal vs vertical is mostly about different approach in overcoming new content. I'll compare things before ascendant gear with dungeons.

I think before fractals most challenging dungeon in game was arah and especially path 4. But if you wanted to get full arah set you could run daily other paths, still it was challenging enough with lupicus. Max gear at that time was exotic, and prize for doing it was exotic as well but with unique and I would say elite skin. U don't see many people running around in arah set because it was hard for most people.

Now lets go to point where they decided to go vertical. They added bunch of new dungeons (fractals), and instead of putting prizes something like new unique skin, they introduce new improved rings and backpack. This simple move made people do fractals over and over again because each ring is +26 stat and I'm to lazy to compare backpacks because before we didn't even have exotic ones. So just on rings u get extra 52 stats. Yes they are introducing equip slowly but by the time u finish full ascendant gear, someone with exotic will not be able to kill you 1v1( same skilled people). And in pve it will be huge advantage as well. Just think that 2 rings give u extra 52 stat. That's only 2 pieces of equip. Obviously this is effect of many people crying on forums how they got full exotic and 80 within week and don't know what to do. Mostly people from WoW because they simply lived game like this: get max gear -> overcome content -> get new patch that: increase max stat of gear + content requires u these stats -> repeat to infinity... This is vertical progression to me. U simply adding new same content and raising numbers. Its easy way to get new content up + it keeps people playing because they will need some time to grind that gear.

Now this was my hoping how gw2 will turn out: adding new content for example fractal dredge map especially when last boss is dredge machine. This boss without agony resist can be tough as hell. Add him some more dangerous moves and I bet you 90% people will have hard time doing it. And as a prize get some new unique skin. So this way people are not forced to do it, but at the same time its challenging enough for some to try it out. There are bunch of easier fractals for people that don't wanna hard content, so u put other skins on them as well. But horizontal progression have major flaw: it simply don't keep people playing enough. Especially people that got used to WoW. If they don't have some gear goal in front of them, the game is not feeling right. It's in their blood after all these grinding years. Its pathetic and at the same time sad that anet decided to go this path, and actually give in to all these criers but I guess it was big number of them.

So yea what can we expect in future: bunch of easy content like fractals throw in there one hard path (dredge) that you have to do if u wanna stay top geared, instead of choosing content u wanna do.

#285 DuskWolf

DuskWolf

    Seraph Guardian

  • Banned
  • 1876 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 10:05 PM

That's the thing, dunc.

I've been enjoying TERA lately because of the fun combat it has, and whilst you can indeed do something crazy like taking a level 28 character to go and fight a level 80 boss mob (which you could never do in GW2), it does still have a little of that linearity there. In honesty, I'd love to see that linearity abolished in favour of just letting people play the content they want to play. The problem with vertical progression is the gating, you can't do Y content, until you've done the grinding for X gear. So you can't choose to do Y content. You can't login and say 'Hey, I feel like doing Y content today!'

In Free Realms you can do exactly that. All of the areas of the game are open to you from the start. I actually want people here to give it a go and try to look past the aesthetics. It's genuinely the closest thing to Ultima Online I've played in a ... very long time. It eschews a linear levelling path in favour of having 'jobs.' These jobs are like classes that have very, very varied playstyles. Many of those jobs, those classes, are tied into unique content which is only available for that job. So you have fifteen types of jobs, and that means fifteen types of unique content, and then you have quests and objectives outside of that which can be played by many jobs and are also unique. This leads to a huge variety of playstyles.

So when I log into TERA, or GW2, or something similar (not picking on any one game, here), I grind along a linear path. The gear I get isn't a delight because I actually need that gear to continue. So the gear is a necessity rather than a fun luxury. I sigh, I put it on, and I continue. That's what you do in a game that has vertical progression, you need to do X before you can do Y. But then you have something like Free Realms. In Free Realms I can just teleport to Y (for free) and do the content I want to there. In FR, you actually have people strewn about the entire world, because there's no dire need to be grinding in any particular zone.

So unlike GW2 or TERA, where many places you'll wander through are ghost towns, you have players everywhere. These players are hanging out because they just like this area and the content in it, they like doing it. It's fun. It's sort of like having an area you like in Skyrim, so you'll just stick around that general area a lot, doing all the content you want there. That's the great thing about Skyrim. Want to go defeat Alduin right away just to get it out of the way, or do you want to leave it until later so that you can do other questlines first? That's your choice. Linear games with vertical progression don't offer you that choice.

You can't choose how, when, or where you want to play. And that's depressing. Vertical progression does nothing to add value to a game, at least for me, and it only turns me off of it because I can plainly see the carrot and the stick. So I play for a little while, for as long as it's fun, then I'll try exploring. If I can go to any area I want to and nose around, then I'll stick with it for much longer. In Free Realms I'm openly invited to go wherever I want, in GW2 I'll get one-shotted if I think of stepping into the next zone too early, and in TERA it seems like somewhere between the two where I can go and defeat stuff 40 levels above me if I'm careful about it.

I guess I'm just not taken in by the grinding thing. Whereas many people have addictive personalities and they absolutely need to see the next zone, I just shrug, say "Hokay, you don't want to show me? Fine." and then I quit. I've had GW2 uninstalled for a while, now, because of that. I still irregularly play TERA, and regularly play Free Realms, all based upon what the game allows me to do. You can have fun and structure in a sandbox without the need for monotony, in my opinion, Free Realms absolutely proves this.

So no, I'm not after the EvEs or whatnot. I'm more after Skyrim, the MMO. Maybe that's what the Elder Scrolls Online will be? It probably won't. We'll see. But any MMO that lets me wander into any area I desire without one-shotting me? That's the one that's going to retain me as a player. And I can't be alone in feeling this way.

#286 Millimidget

Millimidget

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 499 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 11:10 PM

View PostCronos988, on 17 December 2012 - 04:52 PM, said:

Maybe a major design shift away from the "Theme-Park-MMO" towards a user-created-content mentality could help (read about that recently).
Themepark is quite capable of offering it; the PvP mini-events are evidence of that. Just because the content needs to be balanced, doesn't mean you can't segregate it from previous content in order to make balancing it easier. sPvP doesn't include racial abilities, for example. To use the MtG analogy, after a point, the type 2 format was offered for tournaments, using only a short list of recently released sets to derive decks from; I think the best way to translate something like this is through distinct rule sets, as much as it is to keep expanding upon any individual content.

#287 Arquenya

Arquenya

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1204 posts
  • Location:Netherlands
  • Guild Tag:[DVDF]
  • Server:Gandara

Posted 22 December 2012 - 02:40 AM

View PostDuskWolf, on 21 December 2012 - 10:05 PM, said:

8< snip >8
Most of that could simply be solved by upscaling you in all areas.
Make all content accessible to all levels.

#288 DuskWolf

DuskWolf

    Seraph Guardian

  • Banned
  • 1876 posts

Posted 22 December 2012 - 06:00 AM

View PostArquenya, on 22 December 2012 - 02:40 AM, said:

Most of that could simply be solved by upscaling you in all areas.
Make all content accessible to all levels.
D'Accord.

I... don't have a lot more to say than that because I agree with you.

Hokay, storytime I guess. Early on in the development of Guild Wars 2, this is what it sounded like they were actually going to do. Back when it was all 'levels are just a number that can go to nine thousand, infinity, and beyond' and such. That was back when they were really talking my language, and I couldn't help but think to myself... how cool is that? I was hyped. Then it was later revealed that it was only a sidekicking system.

I don't even think the sidekicking system made it into the final game, did it? Neither did the NPC buddy system (which I was tremendously excited about). I won't dwell. The point is though is that that's what I was originally convinced they were going to do, which was a nice way to sidestep vertical progression. It meant that people could go and do stuff, and their level and gear numbers would scale to meet whatever content they were doing, but they'd get gear according to their actual level.

That was never to be, sadly.

But it would have been awesome, wouldn't it?

If you happen to be reading, ArenaNet, this would be a lovely olive branch and a step in the right direction. I can't see it happening, though, which is a damn shame. Still, I hope other MMO devs/pubs/marketing peeps are reading forums like these and getting ideas.

#289 Lucas Ashrock

Lucas Ashrock

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Banned
  • 1000 posts
  • Location:Asia, always around

Posted 23 December 2012 - 04:42 AM

View PostDuskWolf, on 21 December 2012 - 10:05 PM, said:

So no, I'm not after the EvEs or whatnot. I'm more after Skyrim, the MMO. Maybe that's what the Elder Scrolls Online will be? It probably won't. We'll see.
One thing i know for sure, when elder scroll online will be available, i will move there asap not even thinking twice. :cool:

Edited by Lucas Ashrock, 23 December 2012 - 04:42 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users