Neranja
Ughhhhhhhhhh please add substance to your posts ffs.
What I'm reading is "can't, no, nope, hard, mess, question? question? question?".
This isn't a discussion, it's a critique.
The vibe I get out of your posts, and I hinted at this before, is that it sounds to me like you're a disgruntled game designer, have worked many long & hard hours on many games, have had high hopes & expectations once-upon-a-time, then had them shattered when when the public reception didn't match the enthusiasm behind the work.
Now you slog along disillusioned, depressed and with little enthusiasm.
I completely understand how it must feel working in the game biz. Making games is hard. Making good games is even harder. Making a good game and getting appreciated for your work is equally as difficult. Gaming communities are brutal.
You keep bringing up business practices where it's unwarranted. I'm not going to create this game. I don't need to convince anyone to finance it. Spitballing ideas on a gaming forum is simply that, maybe someone sees the idea and it spurs more ideas and maybe ends up in a game somewhere in the future. Or maybe it's just a bad idea but it leads to something better, who knows? I will stand by my assessment that MMOs need "Emergent Gameplay". I proposed 3 elements of emergent gameplay and I've outlined how 1 of those could possibly work. The other 2 being well-known already. And maybe there are other Emergent Gameplay ideas we've yet to discover, or I've missed. You just seem to latch onto "ideas" and critique the shit out of them without adding anything of substance to the conversation.
You don't think we know how hard it is to create a game, or how ideas evolve and mature during development? Stop kidding yourself. I know you're new here, but this community is comprised of the maturest set of gamers I've ever known. People here have been around the block... several times. All we can do is reiterate what we loved from past experiences and hope a new title may incorporate those ideas into their design.
Contrary to what you may believe, I do not have a perfect game in my head. Not by a long shot. I have high-level concepts I'd like to see but wouldn't be able to tell you any of the nitty gritty. So much relies upon system-upon-system and you can't just store up every idea and expect them all to work in harmony. I've seen games evolve very rapidly from concept to prototype to live. It's foolish to assume every idea is gold-plated.
It feels like you played a browser game, got high on the victories you had there and want similar game systems in your MMO. However, combining disjunct game systems does not make for compelling gameplay. Throwing together chess and checkers is not the better game than the two, it's just a mess.
Nowhere have I said this. Lol. Any system in the game needs to be a part of the bigger picture for the game.
But to entertain your game idea: Have you ever played Pathfinder: Kingmaker? It's a single player RPG combined with kingdom building (as in: build your city and settlements, manage ressources etc). How would your management systems work? Similar, or different? How would they scale with player population? Do the "kingdoms" become instanced, or ist there limited land?
I haven't played that game and frankly I dislike the spam-questions when you don't contribute to a conversation. The questions you ask are details that would need to be worked out based on the type of game it is. My ideal world is a huge non-instanced ever-expanding "universe". But is the hardware there to support that? Maybe.. maybe not. Obviously we always need to consider the tech behind the game.
Not neccessarily, because after UO with FFA we had a strict PvE enforcement with EQ (what we on the Zeks called "bluebies"). But in my opinion this didn't make the world better and everyone peaceful hippies loving everyone else, they just invented new methods like training to grief each other. When Blizzard launched WoW they had a lot less PvP servers than PvE servers, but after a while they realized that PvP servers were in high demand and had to launch more to satisfy demand. So we have come full circle from UO to WoW, just with a more structured approach like team PvP and without looting corpses.
To bring home a point: If you want to make a new MMO game in the currrent day, then you have to meet the expectations of how an MMO game plays, works and feels--at least on a rudimental level. And these expectations have shifted significantly after each generation in UO -> EQ -> WoW line. If you cut out PvP completely you just lost at least 50% of your potential playerbase.
Reading the posts in this sub-forum I think you'll see that most people HERE want an EQ clone, and dislike PvP.
Also you are throwing out some false 50% number without any facts behind it. Most people that enjoy PvP will stick with a PvP game. People are allowed to enjoy different types of games
at the same time. You're not necessarily going to lose 50%.
I could argue you won't gain those PvP players ANYWAY because your PvP is likely to be inferior to an actual PvP game. If you want PvP you better build the game for it from the ground up. And if you do that, you are likely to turn away other people that hate PvP. It's a no-win situation imo and you just need to pick a route.
