11-15-2011, 07:41 PM
My argument has always been that games should be able to shift away from "self-improvement" and towards "clan improvement". Your clan could be your player-run guild, like EVE, or it could be a fixed NPC team, like POTBS or Planetside.
Then, rather than fighting to get to the Mountain King because he drops a sword that you want, you would always be fighting to improve your team in some way. Taking over the Mountain King's lair lets your team claim it and start crafting Mountain Swords. So it may still be of benefit to you, but more to the point, it benefits your entire team. When some other team takes that position away from your team, then your whole team is hurt. You will personally lose the ability to replace your Mountain Sword when you lose it but this hurts the team as a whole more than you as an individual.
Planetside and POTBS both scratched the surface of this concept, as does EVE, but I think a lot more could be done.
Anyway, that's basically my whole position on the subject:
* Remove "personal incentive"
* Create "team incentive"
Incidentally, I think "gear based" can mean two things:
1) A game is "gear based" if you spend most of your time doing things that get you gear. Rift qualifies but so does EVE, under this definition. In EVE, you aren't killing NPCs for hours because it's fun or because it benefits your team -- you're doing it for cash (and materials), which gets you gear.
2) A game is "gear based" if gear is a sizable factor in determining the winner of a fight (rather than player skill).
Planetside is probably the best example of a game that is not, by either definition, gear based. You aren't fighting for gear and all gear is readily available to everyone.
Rift and WOW are the best examples of games that are gear based, since everything you are doing is for gear, and that gear has a large impact on combat.
EVE is gear based by definition 1 but not by definition 2.
Then, rather than fighting to get to the Mountain King because he drops a sword that you want, you would always be fighting to improve your team in some way. Taking over the Mountain King's lair lets your team claim it and start crafting Mountain Swords. So it may still be of benefit to you, but more to the point, it benefits your entire team. When some other team takes that position away from your team, then your whole team is hurt. You will personally lose the ability to replace your Mountain Sword when you lose it but this hurts the team as a whole more than you as an individual.
Planetside and POTBS both scratched the surface of this concept, as does EVE, but I think a lot more could be done.
Anyway, that's basically my whole position on the subject:
* Remove "personal incentive"
* Create "team incentive"
Incidentally, I think "gear based" can mean two things:
1) A game is "gear based" if you spend most of your time doing things that get you gear. Rift qualifies but so does EVE, under this definition. In EVE, you aren't killing NPCs for hours because it's fun or because it benefits your team -- you're doing it for cash (and materials), which gets you gear.
2) A game is "gear based" if gear is a sizable factor in determining the winner of a fight (rather than player skill).
Planetside is probably the best example of a game that is not, by either definition, gear based. You aren't fighting for gear and all gear is readily available to everyone.
Rift and WOW are the best examples of games that are gear based, since everything you are doing is for gear, and that gear has a large impact on combat.
EVE is gear based by definition 1 but not by definition 2.