Do you think themeparks are ending? Sandboxes allow the devs to keep up. WoW has extreme churn in the leveling portion. Some 30% of players make it past 10, and some 10% of level 10s make it to max (so, 3% overall, minus however many quit after doing M+ and LFR for a few weeks). Surely, people just want a living world, and sandboxes don't necessarily segment players and make 90% of the world irrelevant. Gathering, crafting, and trading are really important options that keep the world alive and players relying on each other (not to mention, professions are fun roleplay). Economy/money answers everything.

Looking forward to your opinions and suggestions.

>729187054
kill yourself you retard ESL bot gpt spamming retard, literally no one agrees with your shit slop threads you keep making.

>>729187163
Not an argument.

>players want sandbox
>wow and its biggest clone, ff14, are still the two biggest and most popular MMOs of all time
explain this third world spammer

xp makes me feel good, the moment I hit level 60 in classic I quit because I stopped receiving that dopamine

Once XP stops meaning anything, the game quietly switches to ilvl XP instead. Same treadmill, different label.

>>729188309
What A+ sandbox MMO has been launched in the last 10-20 years?

A sandbox just replaces XP gates with economic and social ones -- ones players actually create and enforce.

>>729187054
>can't lose xp
Play HC, fag.

>>729190197
I don't think I would. I have enough problems justifying leveling as is.

I was so upset when Blizzard redesigned the economy to not need previous materials. I want to gather, craft (enchanting, WWA), and trade (market corners, WWA).

>>729187054
I'm playing Classic SPP and having a good time

File: best-mmo-mouse-20240426-medium.jpg (168 KB, 1000x563)

168 KB JPG

What we need:

>Robust open world
>World bosses
>Non-optional PvP once you turn it on (Or set sections of the map being "Lawless")
>Simplistic class system where each class gets like 5 skills
>Sub-class specializations that develop them further.
>Rewarding combat (Since there's a low number of skills you can focus on movement and reaction-based stuff)
>FUCKING NOTHING is instanced-based content. If you want to play the game, you do it in the world. We didn't spend 10 years mapping this shit out for you to spend your whole lives in the cities using them as LFG lobbies.

What we get:
>Classes with so many skills you have companies making specialized mice just to play them.
>Massive open worlds being fucking dead and wasted because everyone is just chilling in a city waiting for their queue to pop.
>Pussy shit PvP where there's both no risk and no reward

>>729190424
>Not PvPing on retail.

>>729190747
Just make PvP sandbox servers, and full loot servers with no factions.

Also, I would have instanced PvP because not everybody likes to gather, craft, and trade all the time.

Is this the competitive dogshit takes thread?

>>729187054
I don't think "sandbox" is the catch-all solution people make it out to be, but I agree that MMO world design is both severely lacking and also overly drawn out
I still want to see another MMO really embrace the GW1 design philosophy, where questing is about expanding what your character can do rather than forcing some overly-long and boring/easy grind
honestly there are a lot of MMO design elements that are effectively just holdovers from technical limitations that no longer exist

>>729192054
What do you mean?

You seem bitter. You're not a millionaire, right? Instead of shitposting on /v/ in the MMO thread, you could be making a videogame.

I don't think you could argue for leveling segmenting players and making 90% of the world irrelevant. Sandbox MMO gameplay is the future.

>>729187054
One of the most fun parts of WoW was leveling. Would have been even better if it was a tad slower so you actually had to finish quests in most zones to actually hit level cap

>>729190197
Wow would have been better with a 10% xp of current level loss when you die. No delevling. Would make the world have more consequences without being the fuck you that deleting a character is.

>>729193925
97% of people disagree with you.

leveling in vanilla wow should be 0.5x exp of the current rates, infact make them 1/4th. Also make 5% exp loss on death. Also make way more open world dungeons like WC and make good loot come from the elites in the open world. There I fixed the game and community and made group oriented content mandatory

>>729193991
That's a completely retarded stat and you know it

>>729193991
I've spent thousands of hours levelling in WoW but only ever got one character to 60. You don't have to hit max level to enjoy levelling.

>>729194194
Admit that people don't like leveling.

>>729187054
>only like 3% of people playing Classic made it to 60
who said getting to 60 was the goal? Spending 20 hours in the first 3 human zones collecting herbs, making potions, and grouping up with people is no less fun than a 20 hour rpg

>>729194346
>>729194514
Even if you ignore the 10% 10-60 statistic, 70% of people quit before level 10.

>>729194473
which is fantastic, because online video games retain less than 10% of the players.

>>729194606
For >>729194570.

>>729194473
Or maybe people just make extra characters for the extra inventory slots or to reserve names

>>729194838
Characters per account is approximately 1.

>>729194914
A bunch of retail babies hopped on to classic because it was free, realized they didn't like it and went back to retail

>>729194914
how can it be approximately 1 when most people you talk to have upwards of three characters just to try out different classes unless its including literally every single person who only plays retail as having zero characters

>>729195054
LMAO. That's still a static against leveling.

>>729195130
It is. What do you want me to say?

File: 1756591765543447.jpg (94 KB, 1080x1350)

94 KB JPG

I wonder how long it will take you retards to come to the conclusion that part of the reason as to why retail WoW sucks is because it caters to fucking mouth breathers. It's not like vanilla/classic WoW is difficult to begin with.

>>729195247
>That's still a static against leveling.
How? They have leveled in retail, probably multiple characters to max level. They just didn't feel like playing classic, you can't say it's because of leveling

why boomers love their classic so much?

>>729195816
its the most popular mmo that was designed to encourage talking and interacting with other players rather than punishing you for it

>>729195816
fundamentally good design. you probably know fuck all about games, so you won't understand.

>>729195816
it just works

>>729195684
I also mmed that article, and it seems to be talking about retail. It might be both, but I don't think it's just Classic.

PS: Classic was supposed to be the best version. If people get filtered so hard by leveling when it was actually an RPG, you can't fault logic that says leveling is a no go. Either way, the stats aren't good.

>>729196113
>mmed
Skimmed*.

>>729187054
>only like 3% of people playing Classic
that percentage is characters, more than 70% of accounts have at least 1 level 60

>>729196193
Source?

PS: Characters per account is approximately 1.

>>729187054
For MMOs, it's still the best system in place that serves multiple gameplay aspects, including progress, complexity, exploration, and at-a-glance expectation of competence.

You point out the lack of people that made it to 60 in Classic, I say that's proof that you can effectively gatekeep endgame content without resorting to shitty MMR algorithms. Thats not a failing of the XP system, that's a failing of people dedicated to reach the peak.

Even in single player games, XP is a constant mechanic because of how efficiently it meshes with any progress-based system. Even variations on the concept, like souls in Dark Souls, is just XP wearing a different hat.

I'd be curious to hear what alternatives people have come up with or experiencedlol that could work or being expanded upon to replace XP as a mechanic.

>>729196113
I don't know what your source for the numbers is but clearly it's bad numbers that need a fuck ton of context to make any correct assumptions from it. They are on the level of every mass murderer has eaten bread and trying to assume something from that

>>729195968
it was the most soloable mmo on the market when it was released and being able to meaningfully progress by yourself was what made it successful

>>729196423
>For MMOs, it's still the best system in place that serves multiple gameplay aspects, including progress, complexity, exploration, and at-a-glance expectation of competence.
It's not; everything can be done with equipment, which doesn't massively segregate players and obsolete 90% of the world. I don't think those two things are worth anything leveling can provide when gear is so good.

>Gatekeep.
3% of your people experiencing the game the way classes, etc., are meant to be played isn't good. It's just extremely low value for making money and making players happy. Socialization and monetization are far more rewarding and important than relegating 90% of the world to a patience test.

yet the game started to die once they moved away from the classic levelling philosophy...
curious...

>>729196423
>replace XP as a mechanic
You could do stats/skills/spells/skill points that are earned from specific quest lines so you couldn't just farm rats in the starting area to hit max level or generally ignore all quests. The end result wouldn't be that different tho

>>729196607
https://www.vg247.com/only-30-of-new-wow-players-continue-after-level-10-says-blizzard.
https://www.icy-veins.com/wow/news/what-if-wow-quietly-revealed-a-9-million-subscriber-number/.

>>729187054
Stop making threads, Chang.

>>729196930
Not an argument.

>>729196821
>new wow players
Isn't WoW free to play up to a certain point now? So people try out a game because it costs them nothing, and find it isn't for them.

>>729196821
>trial players who play World of Warcraft pass level 10 are much more likely to stick with the game for a long time. Currently, only about 30 percent of our trial players make it past this threshold
So it wasn't even all players, it was only trial players aka people who jump in to see what the big MMO everyone talks about is like because it's free

File: 1765617962635969.png (96 KB, 1039x302)

96 KB PNG

>>729196382
>>PS: Characters per account is approximately 1.
no, you could have up to 50 classic characters per account at launch, probably something like 10 per server

File: World_of_Warcraftvscompet(...).png (1.98 MB, 1728x2458)

1.98 MB PNG

>>729195398
>It's not like vanilla/classic WoW is difficult to begin with.
anon, that's why WoW took off to begin with. In 2004 most of the major mmos at that time were simply too difficult for the teenage audience and even a smaller percentage of those games lasted

>>729196821
>article is from 2010
>mentions 30% of trial players making it past level 10, and if they do they are much more likely to stick with the game
>other article says the average player has more than just 1 max level character
>doesnt mention 3% making it to 60
>doesnt mention an average of one character per account

>>729197103
you forgot Ultima Online and other hardcore games. Casual niggers like you always forget Ultima Online.

im starting to believe that these mmo threads really are just bots practicing the same arguments over and over again

>>729197334
>you forgot
you can always add them in yourself and besides, u still get the point.

>>729190747
>Non-optional PvP once you turn it on (Or set sections of the map being "Lawless")
forcing people to do things they don't want to is a surefire way to make sure you have nothing but dead zones that only you and maybe 5 other autists will kill each other in.

>>729197028
>>729197065
>>729197172
The statistics still aren't good.

>Article is from 2010.
The game had twice the subs and "a better leveling experience" then.

>>729197440
you have missed my point. World of Warcraft is a casual theme park and always has been. You can not compare Half-Life to Ultima Online because they're different genres. So is WoW a different genre compared EvE online or EQ or Star Wars. With established economic play and player housing systems and full loot and what you have.
WoW is like the babies first online game. I'm not saying WoW Vanilla is bad, I'm just saying it's casual slop.

>>729197503
Find me any free trial where more than 30% of players buy the game after playing it. If you can't, your point is meaningless.

>>729197587
>Find me any
>any
are you sure about that? Because there have been cases like:
Minecraft.

>>729197172
Do you honestly think more than like 3% of players are reaching max? What about subbing after their first month of trying M+, LFR, and instanced PvP? It would be massively more successful if people didn't have to level and if max had more to do than linearly push ilvl.

>>729197587

>Free game.
>Vast majority of people quit under half way through.
I'm not going to look for statistics that likely no one publishes. You still can't argue that leveling is good or optimal in light of these statistics or gear as an alternative to massively segregating players and making 90% of the world irrelevant.

File: 1749669215387785.jpg (124 KB, 992x750)

124 KB JPG

>>729187054
Yes, get rid of leveling in MMOs. The knowledge that a newfag fresh off the character creation screen and barely knows how to play can join my endgame activity at any time will absolutely keep me from picking another up ever again. Maybe you'll even kill off MMOs for good and we can have another renaissance instead of this World of Wokecraft clone hell we've been in for the past decades.

>>729198017
WoW already has boosts and carries.

>>729197936
If you don't like MMOs, go play Concord or something

the issue isn't grind or vertical progression or any of that.
It's that computers are so powerful you can now have internet windows open that have 100% of the game's information available to you at all times, and in MOST capacities, everyone else playing does, and expect you to as well.
This causes issues with game design, where everyone expects to know everything already by the time it comes out, which leads to devs dumbing down content because there's no reason to make anything unique or special.

>>729196735
>It's not; everything can be done with equipment, which doesn't massively segregate players and obsolete 90% of the world. I don't think those two things are worth anything leveling can provide when gear is so good.

Actually having everything gear-based does exactly that. When someone can join a game where gear is the only metric, they can walk out of the starting area and into endgame content, either through donations by established friends or using the in-game economy, rendering all of the open world obsolete. How does one counter that? By implementing a level system that prevents people from using gear until they reach a threshold.

>3% of your people experiencing the game the way classes, etc., are meant to be played isn't good. It's just extremely low value for making money and making players happy. Socialization and monetization are far more rewarding and important than relegating 90% of the world to a patience test.

Based on whose metrics? A game can be fun until it isn't, this is true for all games. You reasoning is entirely based on financial return, but I would argue that there is a distinct difference between a game that is designed for a certain type of player and a game designed to get as much money from as many people as possible. By your line of reasoning, gacha is the natural evolution of the MMO experience, and XP should instead be replaced by a button linked to your credit card that increases your rank depending on how many times you click it.

>>729196810
>You could do stats/skills/spells/skill points that are earned from specific quest lines

Still an XP system. Just focused on specific gameplay areas and not as an overarching metric.

>so you couldn't just farm rats in the starting area to hit max level or generally ignore all quests

I can't think of a single active post-WoW MMO that doesn't implement some form of diminishing returns on XP that renders the 'South Park' strategy impossible.

literally the only game i play is runescape 3.

it's the only thing stopping me from killing myself.

File: 1737336910040381.jpg (27 KB, 640x366)

27 KB JPG

literally every mmo fails at The Barrens step
>second zone after tutorial that's open world with different quest hubs and quest objectives making you explore every little nook and cranny with built-in lore of the land
>quests and rewards are tough and filled with one-shotting elites that you can't just run into facetank and solo on a dps forcing people to naturally party up and play together
>has a main dungeon in the middle for everyone to meet up and roads that lead to explorable future content and future dungeons
>mobs/elites/dungeons/life skilling all essential and tied to in-game world quests and future content

>>729198291
every MMO post WoW has been fundamentally antisocial
which ironically enough is also WoW's fault thanks to things like LFG

>>729198164
>the issue isn't grind or vertical progression or any of that.
depends on the progression itself. resetting the progression every patch to keep a virtual treadmilll running is not a viable model, factually.
but, treadmill being shitty game design for an mmo, a fantasy of living, breathing world, is beside the point.
>that have 100% of the game's information available to you at all times, and in MOST capacities
the simpler the game the better for the masses. People don't like this simple truth, but it is factual. Only 18 to 30 year old men without jobs or other hobbies are in it for the sweat of the game. Maybe a few ugly females too. People with money don't care for sweaty complexity. As I have pointed out before in this very thread, WoW was so succesful and appealing not in the least because it was so very simple and easy to play with just a few addons (no auras bullshit). When raids were a simple rotation of 3 to 5 buttons the game was peak and numbers reflect that. Majority of humans prefers vanilla mage gameplay with the endless spam of frostbolt, one button, which they do in e33 and candy crush.
>This causes issues with game design
issues is that retards praise sweats getting into game design and creating needlessly overcomplicated bullshit that never leaves niche status like path of exile or mythic raiding. Instead of appealing to retarded masses.
>which leads to devs dumbing down content
they never did. wow was as complex in the bfa (latest I played to be honest) as ever. needlessly so. with 2 items of borrowed power with cloak and necklace. With endless grind and bots and carries everywhere.
TL;DR: The game was simply shit. Because the modern devs have no idea how to design a good game.

>>729198252
What do you think about the th removal?
I expect a loooooooot of people to quit since they won't just get lamps and stars to megaboost their stats.

I really enjoyed necromancy when it came out, but the skilling hasn't been fun to me for a while.

>>729196821
There's a dozen reasons new players don't stick to the game and leveling is the weakest of them. The biggest ones IMO:
>story is still a nostalgiafest for people who played the RTS games, impossible to pick up, impossible to follow as someone new to the franchise... you're just surrounded by people you -think- are supposed to be important because they have unique models, those people are constantly sucking your cock and calling you "champion" even though you just stepped off the tutorial island... and the payout is terrible because post-Dragonflight story is the retarded child of fantasy capeshit and "friendship is magic" saturday morning cartoon for toddlers > no attachment to the game world
>when you try multiplayer you get lambasted by neckbeards who are offended you haven't wasted 20 years of your life memorizing every piece of content in the game like they have. someone else can onboard you. > terrible community on a supposedly cooperative game
I'd type out more but then I realized this is a general and we're going to have the same thread with the same conversations tomorrow so i'm done

>>729198248
>Still an XP system
It's quite clearly not an XP system, it's a character progression system. Makes it so you become stronger as you progress the story. Like you could have a quest of transferring something heavy and when you complete it your strength goes up but if you don't have enough strength you can't do the quest

>>729198248
>>729196735

To extrapolate further on your "low value" arguement, WoW has consistently been the most lucrative "traditional" MMO on the market. Your base assumption is on the data of Classic, and that alone provides a significant margin of error in your conclusions based on data. How many people in the sample size that produced the 3% tally were actively playing retail? How many left after 'scratching the itch' and still continued playing retail? How many exclusively returned and paid money to play Classic, only to abandon it and cancel their subscription strictly because the process of leveling to 60 was the main reason for cancelling their subscription? Can you provide evidence that those same numbers correlate with numbers of people who reached 60 during the original pre-BC vanilla experience?

File: self-determinatino-theory(...).jpg (78 KB, 1333x1000)

78 KB JPG

>>729197172
30% of trial account make it past 10, but only half of level 10 characters make it to 20.

>>729198128
Not an argument.

>>729198248
>Actually having everything gear-based does exactly that.
You don't have proof for that.

>When someone can join a game where gear is the only metric, they can walk out of the starting area and into endgame content, either through donations by established friends or using the in-game economy, rendering all of the open world obsolete.
The vast majority of people are going to have to work their way up through zones organically.

>Based on whose metrics?
A good game is going to have good retention and income. Quality is objective. See Flow Theory and SDT.

>>729198762
NTA but you're trying to solve a multiplayer problem with a singleplayer solution

>>729187054
either make an MMO or shut the fuck up and stop making these threads every single fucking day you faggot

New picture for the thread and original comment is now first reply. Who gets paid to do this and how do I get in? I can and have made way better bait for fun.

>>729198843
>only half of level 10 characters make it to 20.
Source?

>>729198835
>WoW has consistently been the most lucrative "traditional" MMO on the market.
Milking addicted whales for 90 dollar dinosaurs is not a sustainable business model.

>>729198934
>people aren't falling for my bait
>i'll metapost

maybe you should skinwalk as one of the lalas

>>729188914
there is no A+ sandbox because every sandbox mmo that comes out fails. the people with the money to make an mmo are about business, and they arent going to invest into an unsuccessful business model. only hope is some giga autist indie dev comes along or AI makes creating games trivial

>>729199000
http://www.videogamefacts.com/my_ass

>>729198858
You can make some of the quests require help to complete, making them multiplayer quests. Also I don't see how an xp system is a multiplayer problem

File: 1763080653631611.jpg (130 KB, 1228x925)

130 KB JPG

I play WoW to collect MOUNTSMOGSPETSCHEEVOS and show them off to my fellow MOUNTSMOGSPETSCHEEVOS collecting sisters. If I wanted a "living world" I would just play a "living world" game, not a collectathon.

>>729193925
WoW zones, at least classic have multiple level gaps. Like Stranglethron you do the first questss at 33-35 and don't think of going south, then you come back and finish south around 40.

Ashenvale is like this, but such a shitty zone. Stonetealon and Duskwood too. Stonetalon is garbage though, Duskwood is mint. There are more. The game was not finished at all. I would like to see a Classic+ with white developer intentions before they all got the whip cracked and started churning out TBC quests.

>>729199009
It has been sustainable for over 20 years

>>729198762
Don't split hairs over semantics to convince yourself that you're right, friend. If it's a matricthat dictates what you can/cannot do in terms of content, it's an XP system. To make it simple: character progression based on any quantifiable metric = XP.

You can chop it up into individual gains; make it as specialized or circumstantially based as you want. It's still XP by nature.

File: World_of_Warcraftvscompet(...).png (2.57 MB, 1728x3363)

2.57 MB PNG

>>729197576
>I'm just saying it's casual slop.
and that's the point the image is making. It was the only casual mmo that appealed directly to teenagers at the time
>>729197334
>you forgot Ultima Online
not anymore, you lazy bastard

>>729199243
So to you character progression is an XP system. Got it, you are retarded

>>729198858
whenever you're trying to recreate life or even a larp in a digital environment you have to keep in mind that the majority of the time humans are not cooperative and don't do shit togeether with the same humans.
I don't mean hostility and conflict. I mean that people sleep, eat, have hobbies, free time, relaxation. Mostly alone or with some people, who they don't work with. And another way around, in a highly profesisonal enviroment they work to achieve something in a completely different team. As people move through the life itself they change the teams and hobbies and social circles too.
TL;DR: What I'm getting at is that an MMO is a single player game at a core, because you control a character that is supposed to live through a fantasy life. And pretty much all of the MMO's fail at that. Which is why it's almost a dead genre of number crunching.

>>729199059
I don't know what that means, but I will agree with you to stop you replying to my posts.

WoW is the tru.. ACK!!!

>>729187054
Funny how you keep making this same thread crying about leveling in WoW yet the journey from 1-60 is the best part of vanilla.

>>729199000
>>729199084
https://www.icy-veins.com/wow/news/what-if-wow-quietly-revealed-a-9-million-subscriber-number/.

>>729198843
>You don't have proof for that.
WoW proves exactly that. The introduction of character boosts is in direct correlation with the rise of paid carry runs and 'gear boosting'. It became a reality in Classic as soon as they integrated paid character boosts on those servers as well.

>The vast majority of people are going to have to work their way up through zones organically.
Source: personal headcanon.

>A good game is going to have good retention and income. Quality is objective. See Flow Theory and SDT.
Good job ignoring everything past that initial question. Please bless me with more bad faith arguments.

>>729199009
Except for the fact that a multi-billion dollar gaming enterprise has spawned explicitly based on milking a small percentage of whales for a majority of their sustained revenue.

Try again.

File: 1741545084356592.jpg (146 KB, 500x428)

146 KB JPG

>>729187054
You don't like MMOs. The sluggish tedious leveling of Vanilla was the best part of the game and everyone I know made lifelong friendships tackling the bullshit the game throws at you for basically anything you want to do - like running across half a continent to get to a dungeon, finding people to kill a quest elite, even just finding a fellow crafter to get you secondary materials you needed for your crafts (like leathers for engineering).

You don't like MMOs. It's quite literally as simple as this. Stop making these threads, stop obsessing over doing a 180 on a game you hate and just go play a plug & play matchmaking game.

>>729198835
30% of trial players making it past level 10, and half of level 10 characters making it to 20, are retail statistics.

>>729198576
yes but that's because mmo's aren't letting people sink their teeth into anything
lvl 1-10 is 10-20mins
lvl 10-20 is another 15 mins and thats it

Barrens has hours of questing and dungeon content, shows you peaks of even more content waiting if you explore down to southern barrens and thousand needles or far north to Ashenvale.
Level 10-20 is also when you choose one of the three talent specs for your class as well and begin to experiment with the game more, start getting bags to increase your inventory space, start getting sellable blue-tier gear for auction house, start getting into professions and crafting your own gear.
KMMO's just simplify this whole process and turn it into a 10 minute quest-log click-through so it holds no weight and doesn't draw you into the game, it just expects you to keep going and thinking things will get better but they never do.

>>729198843
>20
25*.

>>729190747
>>Pussy shit PvP where there's both no risk and no reward
NOBODY FUCKING LIKES PVP YOU FUCKING GORILLA NIGGER
Every fucking pvp game or server has consistently failed, every, single, fucking, time.
The only pvp that actually works are fucking XvX shooters with skill based matchmaking, people don't fucking want to be assraped from behind by an sweaty skull level nigger and then having their corpse camped so they can kill you once you go back to revive, and hardcore full loot pvp games are even worse, literally everything wrong there can be in a pvp game.

>>729199345
So, just to clarify, you believe that there is a quantifiable difference between 'XP', and... a character progression system that gives +1 strength for moving boxes?

If you do a quest that, say, involves fighting enemies, and you level up, and that gives an increase to specific stats based on stats that your character uses, you consider that a completely different system from doing a specific quest that can only be done with specific stats that relate to your character and gaining an increase from doing that quest?

Explain it to me like I'm 5. Please.

>>729199243
>If it's a matricthat dictates what you can/cannot do in terms of content, it's an XP system.
Again, you can do everything through equipment.

>>729199895
You being so mad is the reward for camping noobs.

>>729195684
>They just didn't feel like playing classic, you can't say it's because of leveling
The problem with classic is that it takes months to level a character, and it's fucking hard to beat more than one mob at once, so lots of people just drop the ball really fast.
Most people are used to the QoL shit modern mmos have, so when they go back to old games, they can't stand how "shit" they're in comparison.
I've played retail extensively and leveling is basically a handful afternoons and you're already on the latest expansion and doing whatever it has, and in most cases, unless you fight elite mobs, you will never die even when going at like 10 mobs at once, so people fly through it and start doing end game, in classic everything is slow, tedious and hard, you never have money and/or equipment, you die fast, there's no dungeon finder, there's no quest tracker, there's no level adjustment, there's no flying mount from level 10.

File: 1765795901636996.png (644 KB, 1300x1000)

644 KB PNG

>>729190747
Retarded drivel from someone who has never played the game.

>>729200114
Ok, enjoy empty servers and games failing.

>>729199614
Boosts and carries don't prove that zones will be irrelevant, especially not anywhere near leveling.

>Source: personal headcanon.
Most people aren't going to be given gear. With reasonable drop rates, it would be too expensive.

>Good job ignoring everything past that initial question. Please bless me with more bad faith arguments.
Except those arguments aren't wrong.

Feel free to clarify what argument changes that.

>>729199736
Since when has retail had good economic roleplay? A long time.

Arguing for vanilla still has to defend leveling massively segregating players and making 90% of the world irrelevant.

>>729199895
PvP games are the most played games, both popularity and hours played. See SteamCharts, MOBAs ...

>>729200335
This image is especially funny because a few weeks after Alliance were getting thoroughly assbeaten someone had the genius idea to gather ~5 people, split them into several groups that then would ALL be listed in the party finder. Poor Hordelets got obliterated from sheer numbers alone, which in turn caused more and more Alliance to join in for the free rewards.
This is all to say the OP is a retard and his plan doesn't work. Your average MMO player doesn't want to PvP unless they can absolutely decimate the other side.

>>729200510
90% of the world being irrelevant isn't the big deal you think it is when you have a steady stream of new players. In fact it's better because new players don't have to compete with some level capped raider stealing their mobs or materials.
Something you would know if you spend more time thinking about your shitty ideas than reposting the same dumbass thread.

>>729199739
Ironically, your line of logic is exactly how retail WoW ended up in the tailspin that has been affecting it since the end of Wrath. It's a common misconception in the marketing funnel. You aren't looking at the end results. You aren't seeing that the formula at present has lead to the greatest ROI compared to your direct competitors in the market. You see that your non-organic efforts to attract new players have garnered significant initial interest and awareness, but those percentages are not a straight line graph into conversion. In a desperate move, you seek to change the things that made your core conversion demographic into your loyalty and advocacy groups, in an attempt to force the awareness and interest groups to become conversion groups. Now you get neither, because you can't accept that some people just aren't interested in your product and cannot be satisfied with the numbers you've reached.

>>729187054
You don't want World of Warcraft, you want Minecraft.

>>729200081
So you agree with me that both are XP systems?

>>729200685
People who play SKILL-BASED PvP games stay the fuck away from tabtarget MMOs where the player who participates in PvE section of the game has a clear and significant advantage over them, you moron.

>>729200685
>Lack of reading comprehension
Never expected any better from pvp fags.
As I've said, the only games that thrive are those who have skill based matchmaking, simple as that.
Plus, mobas are only played by people who played them when they released, nowadays almost no one's getting a phd to play a single game that has meta changes every other day, once those people stop playing, the games will die.
Shooters are the only ones that are maintaining the playerbase, because you just download and start blasting people.
In MMORPGS pvp will never work, it's the least fun part of mmos and generally hated by everyone, every single one has failed and will continue to fail, and pvp wow servers will remain consistently disappearing and being empty.

>>729200394
>Except those arguments aren't wrong.

Once again you prefer feeling right over staying on topic. The rest of your dribble can be ignored now that you've admitted that your perspective is based in imagined scenarios rather than empirical evidence. Excellent debate, friend. :)

>>729200803
Ironically, Minecraft has an XP bar, and it's actively used for progression as a resource used in gear enchanting.

>>729200712
>90% of the world being irrelevant isn't the big deal you think it is when you have a steady stream of new players.
Which is why they had to create phasing?

Again, the metrics point to people not liking leveling.

>>729200737
Making sandbox servers isn't some core-redefining innovation.

>>729200869
>Doing everything through equipment is an XP system.
No, that's retarded. XP is linear; you can't delevel; and it doesn't drive economy.

>>729201175
>In MMORPGS pvp will never work, it's the least fun part of mmos and generally hated by everyone, every single one has failed and will continue to fail
I disagree with a general sentiment. You're talking about the general world pvp and full loot hardcore gamers.
PvP by itself is pretty good in an environment such as a battleground. I have enjoyed the battlegrounds in WoW a lot. And I don't mean ranked bg's, just the casual queue bg's.
Wintergrasp was also very fun. Even if you're lagging as hell and losing.

>>729201121
>>729201175
You don't have evidence that PvP in WoW is low population.

>>729201271
It's not an XP bar. It doesn't level you up or increase your stats. It's just an incorrectly named enchanting resource.

>>729201178
Not an argument.

>>729201361
Look at PvP achievement percentages.

>>729201438
Do any of them show non-rated stats?

>>729201284
>Which is why they had to create phasing?
>Again, the metrics point to people not liking leveling.
What the fuck are you talking about? "Phasing" didn't exist in Vanilla.
Why the fuck are you even bringing up Classic? That didn't have a "steady stream" of new players, it had a fuckhuge population explosion at launch. You don't understand what the word "stream" means do you?

>>729201363
Its a metric of progression, and directly affects your power level in the game. Not a direct equivalent, correct, but the cumulative number you gain equates to greater enchantments that provide greater enchantments that provides greater benefits that affect your character. It's XP.

>>729201485
yeah, the honorable kills counted since like tbc just reflect the people dying nearby in any contested or pvp zone as well as casual backgrounds.
if those still exist, anyway. Plenty of players even semi casual were in bgs, wintergrasp, tol barad, and outland, etc..

>>729201485
Yes, retard? The fact you don't know this while pushing WPvP so hard is really telling at the "honesty" of this thread.
Look at all the meme PvP content Blizzard has put out the last few years like Legion's outdoor FFA areas, Battle for Nazjatar, the "hostile to everyone" N'Zoth consumable... I'm sure there's more recent content but you'll have to ask someone who survived Shitolands.

File: 1762015027396831.jpg (17 KB, 640x335)

17 KB JPG

>>729201417
I figured my condescending tone was clue enough that I acknowledged you chose not to argue on topic and that further discussion was fruitless.

>>729201648
No, it doesn't. Your levels are consumed and placed onto a item which does not increase YOUR stats, it increases the ITEM'S stats. And it is tied to an item. A temporary, ephemeral item with durability. If you lose that item you lose your progression.
This has nothing to do with RPG leveling. Is gathering Strange Dust to enchant your bracers a leveling system? No, it isn't. Shut the fuck up.

>>729201650
I meant BGs.

>>729201284
>Making sandbox servers isn't some core-redefining innovation.

You read all that and surmised that I was referring to "sandbox servers"? What in the actual fuck are you talking about?

>No, that's retarded. XP is linear; you can't delevel; and it doesn't drive economy.
So gear shouldn't be tied to progression? But it also should? Gear has the potential to delevel? I'm not quite sure what point you are trying to make. Please clarify.

>>729201727
I haven't pushed, perhaps even mentioned, WPvP in this thread.

>>729202146
>You read all that and surmised that I was referring to "sandbox servers"?
Nobody here was trying to change existing servers into sandboxes, at least not explicitly.

>So gear shouldn't be tied to progression? But it also should? Gear has the potential to delevel? I'm not quite sure what point you are trying to make. Please clarify.
I just said it isn't an XP system, and previously, that it doesn't massively segregate players and obsolete 90% of the world.

>>729201878
So.... it's just Dark Souls with non-permanence. A non-linear experience system. Something that is created through cumulative effort not through direct correlation to the actions and the outcome, but by exploring the world and engaging in combat that can then be translated into player power, with the added risk of losing said power. Sounds like XP to me.

>>729202436
>Nobody here was trying to change existing servers into sandboxes, at least not explicitly.

Perhaps this is a misunderstanding. To me, a sandbox server is a development tool that gives free range and access to all available systems with no restrictions. In gaming, it's better known as a dev room and is where testers have the ability to see how things function at any level of play without any restriction or gating that may be present in the actual game. Think garry's mod in relation to Half-Life 2.


>I just said it isn't an XP system, and previously, that it doesn't massively segregate players and obsolete 90% of the world.

Unless all gear is purely cosmetic and the game is entirely based on skill, gear will cause segregation in a player-base. In a level-based game with varying levels of endgame gear, the percentage disparity between 'best gear' and 'almost best gear' might be miniscule, but if you expand that system to the entire game, maintaining the same amount of content and hours required to reach endgame, I can almost guarantee that those disparities would fall in line with similar metrics regarding level. Also, unless gear in strictly tied to going out into the world and completing content, and no form of trading, crafting, or other economy exists for gear, it will still provide an alternative 'fast track' to skip the world that a leveling system would not.

That being said, and I cannot stress this enough: if it involves quantifiable, numeric-based progression in any form, it is inherently an XP system.

File: 8647786_p0.jpg (368 KB, 900x1230)

368 KB JPG

How did the French manage to make the GOTY and the best MMORPG of 2025?

>>729203207
Nobody knows what that is

>>729203186
Nta but that seems kind of pedantic. There are commonly understood differences between gearing and leveling within and across genres, they are both forms of character progression but if somebody is talking about “XP” you generally understand they’re talking about leveling systems

>>729203186
>Perhaps this is a misunderstanding.
Why would I be talking about a dev server? "Sandbox servers" usually means not-themepark servers (like 99% of conversations).

>Unless all gear is purely cosmetic and the game is entirely based on skill, gear will cause segregation in a player-base.
You can obviously see the difference between questing for dozens, if not hundreds, of hours, and being able to do or be given whatever you want? Your friends could have you come play with them immediately.

>if it involves quantifiable, numeric-based progression in any form, it is inherently an XP system.
Emergent gear availability isn't an XP system. Have fun with any further mental gymnastics.

>>729187054
The genre is mmo RPG, not mmo sandbox. MMOs (aka MMORPGs) are just single-player RPGs with tacked-on multiplayer. Hence WoW, XIV, ESO, UO, etc just being spinoffs of single-player series. What's bad for the genre is the existence of endgame at all, which is just a gacha game tacked on to the end of an RPG to siphon money from the least intelligent subsection of the customer base. What's also bad for the genre is expansions, as opposed to releasing new games, like every other RPG series in existence does.

>>729204412
>No True Sandbox RPG.
No.

>>729204480
I take it back. Sandbox andys are the least intelligent subsection of the customer base. Or they would be if they actually played video games.

>>729204412
modern mmos are barely rpgs anymore the most rpg they have is a long story with lots of dialog thats literally it

>>729187054
It wouldnt be hard to make it so levels had less of a dramatic impact on power. WoW in particular was bad because of the innate miss/resist chance for level differences. If that wasnt a thing it would open up the content a lot more and even make PvP between high and low levels less 1 sided.

The problem is you have people who think that in order for the player you need huge swings in progression, which isnt true. Funnily enough a lot of devs who make games like this add level scaling which defeats the purpose anyways. One thing many people dont realize is that a lot of game designers are adding things to games because they saw someone else do it but they arent analytical thinkers themselves and dont really understand why they are doing what they are doing which is why you get insane power creep paired with level scaling (two opposing game mechanics) in the first place.

File: 1664255398849419.jpg (57 KB, 591x601)

57 KB JPG

>>729204771
The problem is you have people who think that you need huge swings in progression to make levelling feel meaningful
im sleep deprived

>>729187054
The impression i get from your post is not that levels and level bloat is your problem but that its the actual "power progression" that leads to stat check gameplay. Its true you want character progression but that power progression does not need to scale up to the point where level 30 areas are irrelevant for your character when you hit 50. With a tighter stat system combat could be engaging even with large level disparities and you wouldnt even need level scaling to make it so. Higher levels could offer more skills, more utility, more options during combat, without making it so you simply stat check through everything lower than you, lower level mobs could still be dangerous if you pull too many or "stand in the fire" so to speak, and maybe they have some materials relevant for endgame, and a small chance at a unique item thats good even 20 levels later, so they are possibly worthwhile at any level. The game that comes to mind when i think of this is Conan exiles, you can find endgame viable legendary gear in the starting zone in hidden caves. Though higher level gear is much more common in higher level areas, and high level area legendary gear is often a little stronger, it is not always the case. you get 60 levels in that game and each level you get 1 attribute point, you can do endgame content at like level 25-30 if you want but levelling up feels very rewarding, low level mobs can still be dangerous but wearing endgame armor makes it way more forgiving to make mistakes vs them. An mmorpg game could have power progression similar to this where power progresses more gradually and content is relevant for longer and levels have way less influence on the content you can do. I think people are underestimating the lengths gamers will go to for a 5%-10% damage boost from crafting progression or how well utility, or niche bonuses can fill the role of character progression in place of general stat increase from levels/gear.

>>729203645
You are correct, but pedantic is the name of the game. When you boil down mechanics to their base, core values and what they represent, then you start to realize how many 'alternatives' or 'better options' are basically the same concept with a different name.

Many in this thread have tried to argue with me, but as a core concept, "XP" as a foundational system has been a constant in every game with any sort of progression tied to player power.

What I was hoping the glean from my initial post >>729196423 was suggestions and ideas that broke away from this innate concept and provided a truly unique approach that didn't incorporate any type of numerical, progression-based system. Even if it's purely a theoretical concept that hasn't been attempted before.


Foolish? Probably. But you know what they say about monkeys and typewriters.

>>729205176
I've been referencing leveling as questing for dozens, if not hundreds, of hours, plus a few other points. Stat differences are an aspect, and zones don't necessarily have to be obsoleted but a leveling system, but why have levels when you already have gear, and when people want to play their class, or even all classes (obviously; why have content that most people won't see?), and when players want to play together and be relevant to everyone? It's identity, playability, and choice.

>>729205623
because you need to drip feed character skills or the casuals get overwhelmed and stressed out and quit your game.

File: 1762810468995612.png (10 KB, 282x55)

10 KB PNG

YES MY QUEEN

>>729187054
>bunch of fucking schizo babble
Ok bro. Warcraft is fucking gay.

>>729205623
> and when people want to play their class, or even all classes (obviously; why have content that most people won't see?),
already addressed in the post you replied to
>and when players want to play together and be relevant to everyone? It's identity, playability, and choice.
already addressed in the post you replied to

>>729205663
Do you have any reason to think the massive churn in WoW isn't because of leveling?

>>729205623
>but why have levels when you already have gear
It depends on the game but Levels typically are used to provide permanent power increases, introduce players to their skillset gradually, and (in games with builds) serve to define what specific gear is valuable to the player.
>>729205194
You’re not “boiling it to its base, core values” you’re just engaging in sophistry where you strip everything of meaning to prevent discussion

>>729203710
>Why would I be talking about a dev server? "Sandbox servers" usually means not-themepark servers (like 99% of conversations).

Then perhaps a misunderstanding in translation. There is a significant difference between sandbox 'games' and sandbox 'servers'. When you say sandbox servers, I think of my previously described definition. What you describe is sandbox 'games'. At least, in my interpretation of your definition.

>You can obviously see the difference between questing for dozens, if not hundreds, of hours, and being able to do or be given whatever you want? Your friends could have you come play with them immediately.

And you can see how such a system directly contradicts your assertation that it would render 90% of the world obsolete, yes? If you could forgo progress to begin playing with friends immediately, then you eliminate the need, and desire, to explore beyond the specific areas that you play with your friends. History, usually being the best teacher, shows us that this approach will typically concentrate players to whichever handful of areas will provide the most benefit. If you normalize benefits across all areas, then the concentrations will occur where those benefits can be acquired at the fastest rate. If you normalize both, then people quickly lose interest.

>Emergent gear availability isn't an XP system.
Please elaborate further. This isn't trolling, I want to understand what you mean by emergent gear availability.

>>729205816
So, again, why have leveling when you have equipment?

>>729205851
Gating makes players lose interest. The 100% definition of a sandbox is to let players do what they want. Pure freedom.

>>729187054
XP is literally fucking experience, fuck it’s even in the name but you’re so retarded you probably didn’t even know that.

In real life, you also have to grind the fuck out of shit to get to the next “level” and become better at something.

>>729206117
>So, again, why have leveling when you have equipment?
see >>729205663
>because you need to drip feed character skills or the casuals get overwhelmed and stressed out and quit your game.
>>729205837
>Do you have any reason to think the massive churn in WoW isn't because of leveling?
typical wow baby mentality where you can tell the person only ever played wow and wow clones and literally can not even conceive that an MMO might be different from wow.
>but le levels are le gate keeping le players from playing with le fwends
yeah thats called World of Warcraft stat system where autistic super nerds think that being 6 levels higher than a mob or another player means you should arbitrarily have 50% increased chance to hit and crit chance and they should miss you 80% of the time, because progression doesnt exist unless it totally dictates who wins the stat check.
Meanwhile in old school MMOs like star wars galaxies high levels and low levels could group up together to do content of whatever level and low levels could be useful in high level content using support skills like buffs and CC because the game didnt arbitrarily punish
>but in le wow!!!!!!
yeah heres an idea, dont do it exactly like wow because wow is poorly designed.

>>729205875
Approximately nobody thinks sandbox servers, in the context of WoW, means dev realms.

>If you normalize both, then people quickly lose interest.
A). Then people like gating even less. B). You don't have the evidence for that. "People don't like sandbox freedom. People don't like true fantasy-meets-reality."

>>729206268
Limiting the game to questing for however long lost WoW subs for a decade.

>>729193969
Pretty sure Turtle WoW does this

>>729205851
It would only be sophistry if the point I am making was fallacious, which it isn't.

I actively desire discussion; I just have yet to encounter someone in this thread that isn't engaging in semantics, arguments of bad faith, or has presented an argument that proves a flaw in my point of view.

I'm not trying to be disingenuous, I'm trying to have a discussion that doesn't devolve into name-calling.

>>729190424
How good are the bots in SPP? Real
players are so fucking retarded I’m not even sure if it would make much of a difference.

Can you make a party of bots and play WoW like a sort of real time 3rd person CRPG?

>>729206302
>because you need to drip feed character skills or the casuals get overwhelmed and stressed out and quit your game.
Gear already does that, but it's not forced questing for however long. You can't deny this as an effective description, because that's how most MMO RPGs have done it.

>>729188914
Oh so you don't actually want a sandbox, you just want a new A+ mmo to pump and dump

>>729206763
I don't necessarily mean budget.

>>729206561
gear doesnt typically give your character new skills. seems like class skills and gearing would be a mess if all class skills came from gear.

>>729206484
>I actively desire discussion; I just have yet to encounter someone in this thread that isn't engaging in semantics, arguments of bad faith, or has presented an argument that proves a flaw in my point of view.

>or has presented an argument that proves a flaw in my point of view.

yeah i did that. The flaw in your view is that you think that levels inherently gatekeep players from content or make certain content obsolete. They dont. You just play too much wow where the devs went overboard on trying to make the player feel a sense of progression through leveling up.

>>729206347
>Approximately nobody thinks sandbox servers, in the context of WoW, means dev realms.

Because nobody, in my experience, has referred to WoW with the term 'sandbox servers'. Going back to your original points and applying your words to my current understanding of what you meant also makes no sense, as much of the rhetoric surrounding retail and it's decline has been regarding its transition to a more theme-park model as opposed to sandbox. If your point and statistics of "30% of trial players making it past level 10, and half of level 10 characters making it to 20, are retail statistics." are in reference to retail Classic and not 'retail' retail, then it still does not address my former points regarding those numbers and how they provide little in terms of actionable data based on factors unique to Classic Wow as opposed to WoW circa 2004-2007.

>>729206941
Yeah, I didn't mean all abilities.

I still think you would lose more people to a leveling system than you would to overwhelm.

>>729207039
I meant retail WoW, not retail Classic.

why are wowfags so dumb?

>>729207002
>yeah i did that. The flaw in your view is that you think that levels inherently gatekeep players from content or make certain content obsolete.
But that has never been my argument. From the start, I've posited that levels and XP has been the best system implemented in MMOs so far. You took my original assertation regarding the percentage of people reaching 60 and ignored the point I made that it was only gatekeeping in the sense that it filtered out those with no interest in the investment that endgame took. The devs designed the game, the players determined whether or not it was worth the time investment. Based on evidence rather than arbitrary stats for Classic, the formula was a resounding success for the IP as a whole.


>You just play too much wow where the devs went overboard on trying to make the player feel a sense of progression through leveling up.
I haven't given Blizzard a dime in close to a decade. I'd argue that where the devs went wrong was in taking the system that had worked well for years and creating the 'borrowed power' system that started in Legion and didn't start showing drawbacks until BfA when artifacts that replaced the normal progression provided by levels were stripped away and, rather than being baked into the classes themselves, were substituted by talent tree revamps and arbitrary Azerite gear meant that tried to supplant progression with RNG.

>>729207602
>I meant retail WoW, not retail Classic.

Then your point makes even less sense, and I can only assume you're talking out your ass.

Levels aren't a problem. In fact mmorpgs have the opposite problem where there aren't ENOUGH levels. You have class level, maybe a couple of trade skills arbitrary limited to "encourage cooperation" ( read: only guilds can meaningfully progress ). I think classic WoW had weapon skill levels too?

MMORPGS need to go the opposite direction. Quantify everything into skill levels. Have a very limited number of skills a single character can have. Make players lock in, delete, and combine skills. Treat it like an isekai/litrpg system. Don't let players just click a menu to gain a skill or level it up. They have to actually do in-game actions to acquire skills and level them.
Give the skills a path of exile like tagging system. Don't have base attribute and players can just click a button to increase strength or dexterity. If you want strength you have to level skills with the strength tag, like mining and woodcutting and brawling. Make it so players have to carefully curate and min-max their list of skills.

If you really want to emulate litrpg and give players power fantasies you can force players to have more unique builds by having a counter-skill system. They can choose to lock in a set of skills and resist skills on the counter skill list better. Don't force entirely force players to readjust their active play style to fit the meta, let them naturally balance themselves in a subsystem instead.

>>729207839
>But that has never been my argument. From the start
oh well i thgouth u were OP and OP said
>XP only exists to tell you when you’re allowed to play with other people.
which is not inherently true and is only true for games that design it to be that way.

bot thread

>>729207839
>>729207953
>the formula was a resounding success for the IP as a whole
Again, a small percentage reach max.

>>729207924
I don't even know what you're arguing anymore.

>>729207963
Definitely not OP. That guy is fucking retarded.

>>729208118
Not an argument.

>>729208108
>Again, a small percentage reach max.
You are once again conflating 'small percentage' with 'small number'.
You're also conflating 'reached max level' with 'has an active subscription'.
Both are incorrect. I'd explain further but I feel like it's an exercise in futility.

>>729208168
I'm not arguing with you bro. You thought I was OP, which I'm not, and I disagree with
>XP only exists to tell you when you’re allowed to play with other people.
as well. We're on the same side, stop trying to fight me lol

MMO pvp niggers are the skilless retards that cant shake it in a real mans PvP game. Do you know why WoW esports completely failed? Because MOBAs assraped that genre into the grave. The real competitive types moved to MOBAs where skill is much higher there. You want to pvp? Play a pvp gaming genre. MMOs and pvp don't mix and they never have. Thats why the only time you see pvp mentioned its a 30 year old grandpa game which is WoW. Even then, it's only really the old versions of the game. Even Blizzard knows since Cata open world pvp is effectively dead and buried.

>>729208941
WoW PvP is massively more varied:deep and fun than MOBAs. See trinity, and ability count.

>>729209292
the very deep gameplay of walking over and 1 shotting someone 40 levels and 400 ilevel lower than you and saying ez yeah

>>729209292
bait

>>729209610
>Let me just one-shot this strawman.
Irony.

>>729209702
Not an argument.

>>729209292
I know you are shitposting but not even any MMO dev believes such tripe. Ironic or not, MMOs are known to all gaming devs as not something PvP is taken seriously in. You want your PvP you play literally anything else.

>>729210060
Instanced PvP mogs MOBAs.

File: 1754023072210369.jpg (86 KB, 468x718)

86 KB JPG

>>729210036
>Not an argument

>>729187054
>only like 3% of people playing Classic made it to 60
and that's a good thing

>>729199895
thanks for the spade, noob.