Originally posted by Kralizec

Maybe have a way to loot other player's storage with some hard work. Have the storage be a "physical" location in the game rather than an abstract hammerspace dimension able to be accessed from every town in the world. However you'd need for the items to be somewhat easy to replace with adequate skills, contacts or knowledge and less of e-peens directly better than every item below it in a senseless scale.

But this would indirectly put you in the way of level-less, social interaction focused, sandbox world simulations instead of grinding games.

I'd kill for a game like that.

Im working on it, it will be ready in 2012... unfortunately.. the world will go under right after its release!!

Then it seems to be a pretty common thought... I'm also working on that (of course integrated inside a wider array of interdependent systems), and I think I remember ironore describing a similar idea a long time ago.

Is it weird how making the games more realistic seem like radical ideas to anyone but me?

Originally posted by Kralizec

. . . directly better than every item below it in a senseless scale.

You know that really sums up my frustration with item focused games.  Once you are arbitrarily allowed to wield the next best sword, the one you used to use is virtually useless to you from then on.  What ever happened to the classic sword of all good myth that the adventurer carries into every battle from the time it was acquired to the last and glorious end?

We need less of a focus on stuff and more of a focus on what you and other players can accomplish with that stuff as you interact with the world and with one another.

And yes, that means more realism in some ways, but it is a balanced realism that layers the variety of interaction in such a way that leads to exponential possibilities within the game world.  A few simple, intuitive mechanics and freedoms when combined can result in a stunningly complex and self-sufficient system.

I just have to bump this, it's been nearly a year but I would really like to collect some more data from the new crowd on the Developer's Corner as it has changed quite a bit over the last year.

Please take the poll as you have time, more data would provide better answers.

Thanks.

Can't say I read the original post, maybe later.

HOWEVER, I will say this.

I would like to see a game in an MMORPG world where, if you kill an elite serpent guard, you can loot the elite serpent guard's bronze curiass. Point being, I want to have access to something tangible because I killed something that was, in fact clad in armor/weilded weapons that made him a formidable target. It doesn't really make "sense" that I have to kill a god of fire to get boots that are better than what I'm wearing. If aforementioned deity of destruction hordes this sort of loot for himself, cool, let's go rob that vault and bounce.

...I dunno, while enjoyable, the type of progression that we take for granted in games now a days doesn't float my boat... sometimes.

 Really great questionnaire. I read the whole thing and kudos 2 you ironore for taking the time out to do this. This shows me how some people are serious business about their games/loot/rewards but are not willing to risk real loot to progress. Especially when there is a chance to lose it.

Good stuff, keep it up.

I took the poll, but I am dissatisfied with the possible answers.

You say to assume a different progression than standard MMORPGs, but at the same time, you also insist that there is some sort of item exclusivity and loss over time.

Is this what video games will be forever into the future? One-armed bandits that not only cost money to use, but may also take back your winnings just as predictably as they were gained?

I'm sorry, but my idea of different has nothing to do with such artificial restrictions. I've learned my lesson with random value generators, exclusivity of data, and imposing artificial restrictions in the digital space.

To impose such laws would require a dedicated law enforcement team, something that cannot be maintained by a small development studio. My efforts are headed the way of the software pirate, only instead of copying data from others who would wish it to be exclusive, we'll make our own data and share it with everyone for free.

Then we give everyone else the ability to do the same.

An internet super-civ that doesn't run on money. Could you imagine how much fun it would be to be part of a very real online society that actually progresses in meaningful ways - ways a strategy guide could never describe?

Toooo... many... polls!!!

On one hand material attachment to virtual property just defeats the purpose of a game for me. I'm OK with a subscription fee to support a company and allow it to maintain the service.

On the other hand I'm aware that companies want to try to keep and gain customers and thus introduce various elements to do so. It may include elements of grind to extend the amount of time you have to invest into the game. Another aspect are the virtual possessions that you acquire in-game and that increase the likelihood of staying with the game. After all, if you quit a game it would mean that all your efforts were to no avail (especially the time spent).
Following real world example might show it more clearly. If you buy a house or apartment you have limited your "action radius". If you are forced to take a job in another town, it's less likely that you will move to the other city as long as you don't want or can't sell your apartment or lack the financial resources to rent another apartment. 

Thanks to all for participating.

I wasn't quite sure on plasuma's post tho.  The progression model being driven at by the questions is supposed to remove arbitrary mechanics like grinding for loot and 100% secure inventory and storage (and even character), although they are gradually graded to see what effect different degrees of insecurity would have on spending.

In the end I realize this would be better as a branching survey where if you don't or won't spend you are led to questions to determine the reasons and then ask more questions based on those, and if you do spend it would lead to questions that might determine not only what factors would make it not worth it to spend and to what degree, but also what factors would lead someone who does spend for certain reasons to have no desire to do so.

The idea is for an MMO design that you just  . . . play.  You don't grind, it isn't focused on items.  I just wanted to see what reasons lay behind paying RL money beyond subscription and how both people who do that and don't would feel about a system where there wouldn't be much of a push for it.

im willing to buy the game!

im willing to spend 10$/month or less for a game!

if there is someking of risk or the game is more brainiac like the control style in everquest im more inclined to go toward that route

but any of the mmo have to be avail in local store like walmart ,ebgame.

any game that is avail in e-store only have 0% chance of me playing it!