Support NeoGAF

[Men_in_Boxes]

Real world economy is driven by people, a make-believe economy with make-believe resources has every reason to work in a similar way. Or rather, thats the point of making a player driven economy in the first place.

What specific reasons do you think prevent in game player economies from working. I'm not a game developer but I think I'll be able to track my brain for a few seconds to come up with solutions to anything you might have.

The point is, i heard all the buzzwords being throw around in these trailers before. Then seen them fail again and again, end up in development hell or just coming very short of expectations. Look up Starbase. Same promises of MMOs with player driven economies set in large persistent sandbox open worlds, see the state that game is in right now.

Starbase was a super ambitious game from a small, underfunded developer with no Cloud support. Please do not bring up trash like that when discussing AAAA Pax Dei. They are not comparable.

Not saying this Pax Dei is sure to fail, but history isn't on its side. You can't blame me for being skeptical.

I like a skeptical spirit!

Most popular games these days are MMOs focused around grind, one of which is nearing 20 years of age. Aside from that some survival games, some of which also came out ages ago, MOBA which is an old-as-fuck genre, and Battle royales which are basically arena shooters with larger map (with larger maps definitely not being a new thing either). Doesn't seem to have evolved much.

Wrong. All wrong.

MP games have always been big, even in times where internet connections were less than ideal. The only thing that changed is that during the ps360 era they found their way into consoles.

Insanity in text form.

Level size in the biggest multiplayer games has had an steady upward trajectory over the last 50 years.

Level size is integral in allowing new innovative gameplay ideas to come to fruition.

MP grew in proportion to the gaming industry as a whole.

Wrong again. Multiplayer has outpaced single player considerably in terms of popularity and revenue separate from the industry as a whole. PlayStation didn't go from...0 MP from their studios during the PS4 era to...becoming a multiplayer centric company by 2025 because "multiplayer grew in proportion to the gaming industry as a whole". A ridiculous thought that has been put to bed.

 

[th4tguy]

Gaf has taught me that the more women present in these videos, the harder it will fail…So dead in 2 years bankrupting the studio in the process?

 

[Guilty_AI]

What specific reasons do you think prevent in game player economies from working. I'm not a game developer but I think I'll be able to track my brain for a few seconds to come up with solutions to anything you might have.

Oh no, they work, too well sometimes. They just aren't fun for the average player, thats the whole problem.

tarbase was a super ambitious game from a small, underfunded developer with no Cloud support. Please do not bring up trash like that when discussing AAAA Pax Dei. They are not comparable.

There are similar slightly less ambitious games with far more funding that also barely moved needles.
Heard of Fallout 76? Flopped extremely hard when it launched and after tons of fixes, improvements, business model changes and further investment for years it finally managed to get as much active players as indie rogue-like coop third-person-shooter Risk of Rain 2 made by a team of half-a-dozen people.

And isn't this Pax Dei being funded by Microsoft? Their game development teams aren't exactly making a name for themselves for their management skills right now.

Wrong. All wrong.

Insanity in text form.

Level size in the biggest multiplayer games has had an steady upward trajectory over the last 50 years.

Level size is integral in allowing new innovative gameplay ideas to come to fruition.

I was talking about popularity. But talking about level size, heard of Guild Wars Nightfall? Test Drive Unlimited? Planetside? Arma? BIG isn't anything new either in multiplayer games.

Wrong again. Multiplayer has outpaced single player considerably in terms of popularity and revenue separate from the industry as a whole. PlayStation didn't go from...0 MP from their studios during the PS4 era to...becoming a multiplayer centric company by 2025 because "multiplayer grew in proportion to the gaming industry as a whole". A ridiculous thought that has been put to bed.

They want to invest in MP because they have higher returns when compared to their investment. Fortnite can make a few millions selling a couple of Marvel characters skins that can be constructed quickly with minimal development costs, while a regular team of devs needs to work for years, sinking further resources in a game to make a similar amount money.

As I said, they're investing in it because they developed a really good understanding of how to make money, not how to make games.

 

[Maddux4164]

This looks meh.

No clue how it’s “a new era of gaming”. It’s very average looking and boring

 

[Lambhalf]

I'm more interested in gameplay, which I'm not yet impressed. If I want realistic graphics, I can go outside.

 

[StereoVsn]

No NPCs... This will be a crapfest. Giant meh.

 

[Sgt.Asher]

Is this a joke topic or is OP that big of an idiot?

Well op is a scam citizen stan, so take that as you will.

 

[flying_sq]

IDK if you're trolling or not, but it's obviously a looter shooter with a hub city. I have a friend who plays games like this. Loves Destiny I asked him why he just likes shooting the same enemies and stuff to watch a health bar chip away slowly. Said he likes the dopamine hit from getting slightly better gear and the randomness of it. This coming from a guy who was literally addicted to milk and had heroin like withdraw symptoms. Also was an obsessive gambler for a bit. I feel like these types of games prey on people like my friend and as much as I hate the government, think this stuff needs to be regulated.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Oh no, they work, too well sometimes. They just aren't fun for the average player, thats the whole problem.

Can you list of some potential problems player economies might give the average player? Again, I will use a few seconds of brainpower to come up with a potential remedy.

There are similar slightly less ambitious games with far more funding that also barely moved needles.
Heard of Fallout 76? Flopped extremely hard

It never flopped.

Games media (stop listening to games media y'all) tried to bury it because they're obsessed with IP and SP but the game metrics were healthy enough at the start to warrant further investment in the game.

So a successful Bethesda multiplayer game is a point for moi.

And isn't this Pax Dei being funded by Microsoft?

Nope.

I was talking about popularity. But talking about level size, heard of Guild Wars Nightfall? Test Drive Unlimited? Planetside? Arma? BIG isn't anything new either in multiplayer games.

I've repeatedly said that the most popular multiplayer games of each era have steadily grown in terms of map size. Remember when Street Fighter 2 and Mortal Kombat were all the rage? Map size my friend. Map size.

They want to invest in MP because they have higher returns when compared to their investment. Fortnite can make a few millions selling a couple of Marvel characters skins that can be constructed quickly with minimal development costs, while a regular team of devs needs to work for years, sinking further resources in a game to make a similar amount money.

All that is true. It's also true that multiplayer has far eclipsed single player in terms of overall popularity.

As I said, they're investing in it because they developed a really good understanding of how to make money, not how to make games.

Fortnite is the greatest game of all time. It's the Elden Ring of multiplayer if Elden Ring were any good. The player metrics pre monetization proves that.

 

[Guilty_AI]

Can you list of some potential problems player economies might give the average player? Again, I will use a few seconds of brainpower to come up with a potential remedy.

For startes the average player has 0 knowledge on how economies work aside from the necessary for his own survival.

Secondly, look what happens in games with player driven economies. Not only they tend to be very harsh on beginners who are subjected to veterans who built their empire for a long time and created monopolies, there are also literal economical wars, which sounds fun until you realize you aren't taking part in it and that it will only make your daily dose of fun far more complicated and miserable than you wanted it to be.

It never flopped.

Games media (stop listening to games media y'all) tried to bury it because they're obsessed with IP and SP but the game metrics were healthy enough at the start to warrant further investment in the game.

So a successful Bethesda multiplayer game is a point for moi.

About as successful as coop indie rogue-like made by small dev teams. Doesn't paint a good picture for the argument you're making.

Nope.

Who is then? Considering you dismissed Starbase based on team size and funding, it seems very relevant.

I've repeatedly said that the most popular multiplayer games of each era have steadily grown in terms of map size. Remember when Street Fighter 2 and Mortal Kombat were all the rage? Map size my friend. Map size.

Are you really just gonna ignore all the examples i gave? Here, i'll post them again so you can look them up:
>Guild Wars Nightfall
>Test Drive Unlimited
>Planetside
>Arma

All that is true. It's also true that multiplayer has far eclipsed single player in terms of overall popularity.

12 million people buying wizard game seems to disagree, or the ones playing Elden ring a year later. Or how plenty of the most popular gaas are PvE.
I'd agree if you said GAAS is replacing traditional release models, but those are veeeery different concepts from Singleplayer x Multiplayer.

Fortnite is the greatest game of all time.

 

[Comandr]

Fortnite is the greatest game of all time. It's the Elden Ring of multiplayer if Elden Ring were any good. The player metrics pre monetization proves that.

I’ve been having fun reading this thread. This quote has the same energy as Light revealing himself as the owner of the death note. I am now convinced we are just being trolled and nothing will ever change my mind. No one could possibly be this willfully ignorant.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

For startes the average player has 0 knowledge on how economies work aside from the necessary for his own survival.

Secondly, look what happens in games with player driven economies. Not only they tend to be very harsh on beginners who are subjected to veterans who built their empire for a long time and created monopolies, there are also literal economical wars, which sounds fun until you realize you aren't taking part in it and that it will only make your daily dose of fun far more complicated and miserable than you wanted it to be.

You've avoided my specific question twice now. I will not be asking a 3rd time.

About as successful as coop indie rogue-like made by small dev teams. Doesn't paint a good picture for the argument you're making.

But it's way more successful than Grid so that doesn't paint a good picture for the argument you're making. Draw.

Who is then? Considering you dismissed Starbase based on team size and funding, it seems very relevant.

Don't know. It's not MS though.

Are you really just gonna ignore all the examples i gave? Here, i'll post them again so you can look them up:
>Guild Wars Nightfall
>Test Drive Unlimited
>Planetside
>Arma

No Man's Sky
Minecraft
Star Citizen
Elite Dangerous

All 4 are newer, way more successful, and provide much larger worlds to play in.

I think it's safe to say we put this one to bed.

12 million people buying wizard game seems to disagree, or the ones playing Elden ring a year later.

Two ways to parry your basic attack here...
1. 12 million is cute. Roblox gets 200 million MAU.

2. Go look at Wizard game and Elden Ring on Steamcharts. Ghost town games.

Or how plenty of the most popular gaas are PvE.

PvEvP is the future. Why?

Because catering to a wide variety of playstyles and a wide range of skill produces the most successful games. Large worlds more easily offer that.

 

[HerjansEagleFeeder]

As much as I would like to believe that the end product looks close to what this looks like..... I know it's not going to.

Yeah the promo material looks like you need a 4090 with DLSS3 bullshit frame generation to even hit an unstable 60fps.

 

[Crayon]

Nah.

 

[nkarafo]

Even ads don't have as much hyperbole in their campaigns as in OP's posts.

 

[Beastclaw Raider]

Phew. Getting into a thread with such statement I alread feel like I need to vomit.


Okay now I'm rolling over the floor laughing and vomiting.
Seriously you need to work on your marketing strategies.


This trailer ist crap. Looks like slow paced CGI bullshit. Dosn't tell me anything about the actual game


Okay now we actually get to know more about the real gameplay or at least how ot looks like currently.

Seeing this my immediate hope would be a Game that is a true successor to Ultima Online.

But for that to be possible they would need to give communitys the ability to host their own server, make their own rules, be able to manipulate the maps and gameplay aspects.

I would love to play a UE5 Fantasy MMO with a RP community.

Like the fucking awesome RP Ultima Online Freeshards I used to play in my youth.
Sadly this was the pinnacle of social mmos back then. Never found anything as immersive and interactive ever again.
Stopped playing that like 15 years ago but would love to dive into anything similar with modern graphics/gameplay possibilities again.

Yeah give me a game where I can play a bard and hide in dungeons and provoke demons on players so I can loot them, cut their corpses and facefuck them all over again please

 

[Danjin44]

Fortnite is the greatest game of all time. It's the Elden Ring of multiplayer if Elden Ring were any good.

 

[Guilty_AI]

You've avoided my specific question twice now. I will not be asking a 3rd time.

I gave you the reasons very clearly, at this point i can only think you're either trolling or in denial.

But it's way more successful than Grid so that doesn't paint a good picture for the argument you're making. Draw.

Yup, definitely trolling.

Don't know. It's not MS though.

Its future looks as bleak as Starbase then, we don't even know where the money is coming from.

No Man's Sky
Minecraft
Star Citizen
Elite Dangerous

All 4 are newer, way more successful, and provide much larger worlds to play in.

And at least 2 of those are nowhere nearly as successful as MP games with much much smaller play areas and much simpler game mechanics, old or new.

You've been building your argument under the assumption bigger and more complexity is always better and how MP games are evolving like that, and that old games get left behind because they don't have the same size and complexity.

I showed you games that are much bigger and much more complex than the most popular modern titles - like "the greatest game of all time, Fortnite" - yet aren't nearly as succesful. Now you are listing modern games that also are much bigger and much more complex, and similarly aren't as successful as other simpler games, losing out even to some single player titles.

Now riddle me this, and if you don't answer this question i'm just dropping this conversation:

If MP games are truly evolving into bigger complexer games, why are these very same bigger complexer games being outpaced and left behind by much smaller and simpler titles?

 

[Tomeru]

Lmao, I think it was mentioned they want EVE online scale of politics.

Good luck

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

I gave you the reasons very clearly, at this point i can only think you're either trolling or in denial.


Yup, definitely trolling.


Its future looks as bleak as Starbase then, we don't even know where the money is coming from.


And at least 2 of those are nowhere nearly as successful as MP games with much much smaller play areas and much simpler game mechanics, old or new.

You've been building your argument under the assumption bigger and more complexity is always better and how MP games are evolving like that, and that old games get left behind because they don't have the same size and complexity.

I showed you games that are much bigger and much more complex than the most popular modern titles - like "the greatest game of all time, Fortnite" - yet aren't nearly as succesful. Now you are listing modern games that also are much bigger and much more complex, and similarly aren't as successful as other simpler games, losing out even to some single player titles.

Now riddle me this, and if you don't answer this question i'm just dropping this conversation:

If MP games are truly evolving into bigger complexer games, why are these very same bigger complexer games being outpaced and left behind by much smaller and simpler titles?

I think you're getting confused about my main point, so I'll break it down for you.

Street Fighter II ---> Mario Kart ---> Halo ---> CoD (outlier) ---> Fortnite.

Each game (genre) at one time was the most popular (successful) multiplayer game of its era. As technology grew more advanced, game worlds became larger and provided a larger variety of players more fun ways to play (ie better).

Now where you're getting confused is because the trend looks like this...

You have to have the clarity to know multiplayer started at Pong (single screen) and see the trend, not the outlier examples.

What you're doing is expecting progress to look like a straight line. You say "Test Drive Unlimited had a massive world and wasn't very popular." Progress never rigidly goes in one direction over a length of time.

To answer your bolded question, they're not. Battle Royale killed the arena shooter. The most popular games on steam are generally massive open world games. You can't get tricked by the exceptions to the rule (bUt wHaT aBoUt LeAgUe Of LeGeNdS?!) and allow yourself to be blinded to the greater trend.

Perhaps this graph better illustrates why your confused about this simple, obvious truth...

If I said "Heavyweight champion boxers are getting bigger and bigger over time." Would your brain understand my point or would you say "No they're not. Mike Tyson was relatively small!". Back up. Look at the trend.

If you had to, would you really wager the game that permanently knocks Fortnite off its 6 year champion pedestal is going to have a smaller world to play in? Not after this post you wouldn't.

The Metaverse, where multiplayer is heading, is massive. Heck, go look up what Brendan Green (PUBG creator) is working on. The industry knows large scale worlds are the future. How can you not know this?

 

[kvltus lvlzvs]

getting strong new world / fallout 76 vibes.

 

[Guilty_AI]

I think you're getting confused about my main point, so I'll break it down for you.

Street Fighter II ---> Mario Kart ---> Halo ---> CoD (outlier) ---> Fortnite.

Each game (genre) at one time was the most popular (successful) multiplayer game of its era. As technology grew more advanced, game worlds became larger and provided a larger variety of players more fun ways to play (ie better).

Now where you're getting confused is because the trend looks like this...

You have to have the clarity to know multiplayer started at Pong (single screen) and see the trend, not the outlier examples.

What you're doing is expecting progress to look like a straight line. You say "Test Drive Unlimited had a massive world and wasn't very popular." Progress never rigidly goes in one direction over a length of time.

To answer your bolded question, they're not. Battle Royale killed the arena shooter. The most popular games on steam are generally massive open world games. You can't get tricked by the exceptions to the rule (bUt wHaT aBoUt LeAgUe Of LeGeNdS?!) and allow yourself to be blinded to the greater trend.

Perhaps this graph better illustrates why your confused about this simple, obvious truth...

If I said "Heavyweight champion boxers are getting bigger and bigger over time." Would your brain understand my point or would you say "No they're not. Mike Tyson was relatively small!". Back up. Look at the trend.

If you had to, would you really wager the game that permanently knocks Fortnite off its 6 year champion pedestal is going to have a smaller world to play in? Not after this post you wouldn't.

The Metaverse, where multiplayer is heading, is massive. Heck, go look up what Brendan Green (PUBG creator) is working on. The industry knows large scale worlds are the future. How can you not know this?

Dude, if you're gonna base your argument around the supposed pattern of a trend on a graph, you better start compiling data on all the different most popular games throught the decades, their degree of popularity, and their degree of complexity.

Because the way i see this supposed trend will look like this:

We've been having MMOs since the 90s, then came games like the CODs, CS, Arena shooters and they all became equally popular or surpassed those despite them being "smaller". Some died off, others remained, newer genres rose from the dead like rogue-lit/kes with added coop and MOBA.

Now we also have Battle Royale, a genre born out of mods and special modes from games like Arma and Minecraft, games far bigger, older and more sophisticated than Fortnite, and also very popular on their own.

And just because this specific genre that rose and trended just so happened to be similar and slightly bigger than arena shooters, which happened to be on decline, you randomly decided to create this whole theory there was some upwards trends related to level map size, whilst ingnoring the whole history of multiplayer and everything else that has been going in the market.
If you want to prove this isn just a case of tunnel vision, as i said, you'll need more than just speculation on your part.

If you want to know why no one takes your theories seriously, its because this forum is full of people in their 40-50s who watched the gaming market progression closely with their own eyes, and know whatever you're saying about map sizes and mechanical complexity does not correspond to what has happened throughout the years.

If you want to refine your theories, i highly suggest starting searching about big games of the old, or even newer ones that aren't just the latest trend better. That goes for both Single and Multi player, because you seemlingly don't understand how these two aren't exactly separate entities, and how one props up the other.

 

[clem84]

Needs some battle robots or something.

You forgot hookers and baseball bats.

 

[ReBurn]

You forgot hookers and baseball bats.

I'm flexible

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Dude, if you're gonna base your argument around the supposed pattern of a trend on a graph, you better start compiling data on all the different most popular games throught the decades, their degree of popularity, and their degree of complexity.

Because the way i see this supposed trend will look like this:

We've been having MMOs since the 90s, then came games like the CODs, CS, Arena shooters and they all became equally popular or surpassed those despite them being "smaller". Some died off, others remained, newer genres rose from the dead like rogue-lit/kes with added coop and MOBA.

Now we also have Battle Royale, a genre born out of mods and special modes from games like Arma and Minecraft, games far bigger, older and more sophisticated than Fortnite, and also very popular on their own.

And just because this specific genre that rose and trended just so happened to be similar and slightly bigger than arena shooters, which happened to be on decline, you randomly decided to create this whole theory there was some upwards trends related to level map size, whilst ingnoring the whole history of multiplayer and everything else that has been going in the market.
If you want to prove this isn just a case of tunnel vision, as i said, you'll need more than just speculation on your part.

If you want to know why no one takes your theories seriously, its because this forum is full of people in their 40-50s who watched the gaming market progression closely with their own eyes, and know whatever you're saying about map sizes and mechanical complexity does not correspond to what has happened throughout the years.

If you want to refine your theories, i highly suggest starting searching about big games of the old, or even newer ones that aren't just the latest trend better. That goes for both Single and Multi player, because you seemlingly don't understand how these two aren't exactly separate entities, and how one props up the other.

You're line graph is preposterous.

Imagine going back to 1970s and collecting a data set on the most popular arcade games + Atari titles. The vast majority were single screen games.

Then do that for 1980, 1990, 2000 etc..

Your logic is being clouded by your love of the early MMORPGS which, while large in map size, were all 2D in nature (this is a killer point), extremely basic in design, not the most popular games of the day, and still dwarfed by todays largest games.

If you think the next big game has a chance at having a map size as big as 2D Mario or Unreal Tournament, I have a bridge to sell you.

You really just have to open your eyes and see where todays investment is going. All the big publishers are flooding resources into cloud projects which all allow for exponentially larger map sizes. The clarity is there for all to see. The future of gaming is larger worlds holding more and more players in those worlds.

The goal of debate and discussion isn't to be right, it's to "get it right", and you're simply wrong here.

 

[Guilty_AI]

If you think the next big game has a chance at having a map size as big as 2D Mario or Unreal Tournament, I have a bridge to sell you.

Your logic is being clouded by your love of the early MMORPGS which, while large in map size, were all 2D in nature (this is a killer point), extremely basic in design, not the most popular games of the day, and still dwarfed by todays largest games.

You really just have to open your eyes and see where todays investment is going. All the big publishers are flooding resources into cloud projects which all allow for exponentially larger map sizes. The clarity is there for all to see. The future of gaming is larger worlds holding more and more players in those worlds.

The goal of debate and discussion isn't to be right, it's to "get it right", and you're simply wrong here.

hmm, maybe i was wrong about you. You're not disingenuous after all.

Spoiler

 

[Seider]

Medieval Citizen

I dont buy it. Less developers talking and more awesome gameplay is what im looking for.

 

[Balducci30]

Looks boring. But then again I’ve never been into the genre - I tried EverQuest and WOW back in the day. Don’t get the appeal

 

[hemo memo]

Every time I read the word “multiplayer only” or Roguelike/roguelite I skip immediately. But thanks for the snooz video. It will help me sleep.

 

[hemo memo]

This question is becoming outdated as we move into a future where essentially all big games are GAAS. The old ways are becoming more niche by the year.

? The the most awarded games in the last 3 years aren’t GAAS. The majority of big games actually aren’t. Unless you count patches as service. Elden Ring is last year biggest game and it is a single player game.

 

[Schmendrick]

Amazing...not.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

? The the most awarded games in the last 3 years aren’t GAAS. The majority of big games actually aren’t. Unless you count patches as service. Elden Ring is last year biggest game and it is a single player game.

Elden Ring went big map...and sold 20 million more copies than when Souls games are small linear.

As to your first point, awards given by 100 out of touch people do little to influence the trajectory of the industry. Publishers all over the world are investing in open world technology because that's where all the money is.

 

[hemo memo]

Elden Ring went big map...and sold 20 million more copies than when Souls games are small linear.

As to your first point, awards given by 100 out of touch people do little to influence the trajectory of the industry. Publishers all over the world are investing in open world technology because that's where all the money is.

The Last of Us 2, God of War and pretty much all Nintendo big titles that sell bazillion non of them are GaaS. Also didn’t we see the fall and burn for the biggest GaaS titles like Avengers?

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

The Last of Us 2, God of War and pretty much all Nintendo big titles that sell bazillion non of them are GaaS. Also didn’t we see the fall and burn for the biggest GaaS titles like Avengers?

You people have a difficult time seeing trends.

GAAS investment has surpassed SP game investment in the industry. The investment gap between the two is only going to widen over the next decade +.

That being said, I believe my Ted Talk was about the map size trend that's become self evident.

 

[TintoConCasera]

My dude, Pax Dei looks like crap designed to be played on a tablet and Fortnite is a game meant for kids to spend their college savings on.

Go play some real games man.

 

[Lasha]

Looks boring. But then again I’ve never been into the genre - I tried EverQuest and WOW back in the day. Don’t get the appeal

Wow and EQ are theme park games. Sandbox style MMO are different. The appeal is playing in a world you have a tangible influence in shaping. Walking through a city you built with your guild in SWG or fighting for control of a system with your corporation in EVE are unique experiences.

 

[Bonsaibäumchen]

I did a little deep dive into Pax Dei and their discord these past 24 hours.

Although some of what the devs say sounds promosing im still very doubtfull they can achive it. And I am especially doubtfull if they will really be able to handle 20K players in one world.

But the biggest problem isn't technical its the community. Its already infested with the same Toxic PvP zealots that New World was already sugferimg under. It seems even worse now because NW failed these people are more furious then before. Trying to push their agenda of a full loot open pvp world.

its fucking impossible to talk to them without getting harassed by a bunch of weirdos that will throw all kind of venemous toxic insults around. It reminded me of 4chan and schoolkid like behaviour.

Way worse then console warriors.
I guess after quitting playing lol a few years ago I really am not accustomed to this kind of behaviour anymore.

 

[Lasha]

I did a little deep dive into Pax Dei and their discord these past 24 hours.

Although some of what the devs say sounds promosing im still very doubtfull they can achive it. And I am especially doubtfull if they will really be able to handle 20K players in one world.

But the biggest problem isn't technical its the community. Its already infested with the same Toxic PvP zealots that New World was already sugferimg under. It seems even worse now because NW failed these people are more furious then before. Trying to push their agenda of a full loot open pvp world.

its fucking impossible to talk to them without getting harassed by a bunch of weirdos that will throw all kind of venemous toxic insults around. It reminded me of 4chan and schoolkid like behaviour.

Way worse then console warriors.
I guess after quitting playing lol a few years ago I really am not accustomed to this kind of behaviour anymore.

Agenda of a full loot game? It's a preference that makes sandboxes meaningful. You should check out Palia. Palia is pushing a similar social MMO concept but with practically no combat at all. The devs have held a few playtests and it looks promising.

 

[Bonsaibäumchen]

Agenda of a full loot game? It's a preference that makes sandboxes meaningful. You should check out Palia. Palia is pushing a similar social MMO concept but with practically no combat at all. The devs have held a few playtests and it looks promising.

So just because I am against full loot pvp you are jumping to conclusions. Your first reaction is to recommend a game to me without pvp at all.

My experience with full loot pvp mmo(rpg) games started with Ultima Online, which I played for 10-15 years. I enjoyed EvE Online for a year and I've played and enjoyed some Darkfall,Mortal Online and Albion Online.
And I've been mainly engaging in PvP in all of those.

I do not have an Issue with that at all.

 

[Lasha]

So just because I am against full loot pvp you are jumping to conclusions. Your first reaction is to recommend a game to me without pvp at all.

My experience with full loot pvp mmo(rpg) games started with Ultima Online, which I played for 10-15 years. I enjoyed EvE Online for a year and I've played and enjoyed some Darkfall,Mortal Online and Albion Online.
And I've been mainly engaging in PvP in all of those.

I do not have an Issue with that at all.

I didn't make an assumption. I gave you a recommendation based on the tone of what you wrote. I love full pvp sandbox games and I think Palia looks neat. Don't take things so personally.