| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When people talk about Borderlands being "immersive" I think we can finally agree that the word no longer has meaning.
I, for one, hope there is a myriad of items to aquire in PFO. Otherwise, I'd be playing the game for no tangible benefit. Killing people for their trash gear that I can just purchase from a market for nothing doesn't seem fun and the same goes for any quests I complete.
So...bring on the hundreds of daggers!
Goblin Squad Member
|
In WoW I have met top equipped chars that were consistently unable to break 10k DpS in DpS heavy raid encounters while a bit worse equipped chars of the same class were close to 30k DpS.
So, no, in WoW equipment does NOT trump "skill".
If you typically find yourself unable to see beyond the next hill in video games, my first suggestion would be to get yourself a decent graphics card.
Thanks, but I own a top notch PC and I "see" scenery far enough. What I ment was that while scenery is drawn far out, chars are not. You see a mile wide only to suddenly have PCs/NPCs pop up just a "few" feet in front of you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thanks, but I own a top notch PC and I "see" scenery far enough. What I ment was that while scenery is drawn far out, chars are not. You see a mile wide only to suddenly have PCs/NPCs pop up just a "few" feet in front of you.
I can't say for sure, but I imagine that this is one of those n^2 problems - the amount of object data you need to send to client PCs increases exponentially the further out you set their draw distance. Now, I'm not positive that this hogs much in the way of bandwidth, but I think that probably has something to do with why characters are drawn at relatively short distances in most MMOs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yeah, I also think bandwith/lag is not a factor.
In DAoC there was a hack called Odins Eye which let you have a map with blips representing enemy chars on it. This hack showed that char data from far outside the normal "draw-radius" was sent to the client.
I think thats because character models are usually quite detailed and move "erratically" which causes slowdown when you have to draw too many of them, so the draw range is actually quite low in any MMO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No, please don't.
Yes, let's make the mistakes of fifteen years ago because we slapped blinders on our heads, shall we?
Then you aren't paying attention to the current MMO market.
You don't get to define what is and isn't roleplaying. The real audacity, here, is that you believe you do.
The game is supposed to feel like the Pathfinder campaign setting. Not the tabletop game on a computer screen.
Because it's fun to pick your own character's name.
Please don't go into game design.
Nope. This would make in-game communication (via things like /whisper) either impossible or needlessly complex.
Why? Because you have a deep-seated animosity towards certain games, or feel that anything inspired by those games has no place in the game you're playing?
Elitist drivel.
Congratulations, Mr. Betts, you have managed to craft a COMPLETELY negative and accusatory post! Every single line was accusatory, negative, unconstructive, or sarcastic.
Did you consider a single constructive suggestion, or were you just trying to be mean? Conversation requires give and take, and in a toneless medium your content is all anyone has to judge you by. Rather than simply shutting him down, why don't we offer explanations and helpful suggestions in return?
Personally I agree that famous video-game and superhero names should be banned. I don't want to be running alongside Superman, Drizzt, and Squall. Even better, I'd love to be able to ignore players and end up with them vanishing from my game world. When I ignore them, they shouldn't be able to see or hear me, and I shouldn't be able to see or hear them. Perhaps a generic dark blur with the name over the head "Ignored Player"?
RPGs are not about limitless creativity. They are about limited creativity in the vein of communal storytelling. They are not 'do what you want and violate the rules because you think it is amusing' like so many 'goons' who name their character "Reginald Rubmybottom" and "SuperGoon" and then think it funny to run back and forth over your character while in their underwear spamming the chatfilter as fast as they possibly can.
Immersion and storytelling are paramount to RP. RP is -part of the name of the game-. As much as they plaster RPG on Final Fantasy, there's no dialogue option, no control over the story, no real input. That's not role-playing, that's 'ability management'. It's time to put the Role Playing back in MMORPG, even if it's illusionary, as in the case of ToR.
Yes, I agree that ignoring what all the MMOs over the past 15 years have done is a mistake, but that's because market research, pitfalls, and inspiring ideas should be payed attention to wherever possible to make your product better than those who have come before.
Roleplaying is already defined... as playing... a... role. Those of us who are here playing Tabletop Roleplaying games should know that better than anyone else, shouldn't we? On the -Pathfinder- forums, for Pete's sake?
Creating a name is part of the process of character creation, and I disagree on an enforced random-name generator. They've never been very good, and I don't particularly want to play "Cheerf Noosbrowf".
You, sir, have insulted the mighty Goone Squade.
They will find you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Congratulations, Mr. Betts, you have managed to craft a COMPLETELY negative and accusatory post!
Oh, cool, one of these posts!
Every single line was accusatory, negative, unconstructive, or sarcastic.
Actually, I thought "Because it's fun to pick your own character's name," was fairly constructive. He wanted a reason and I gave him one.
Did you consider a single constructive suggestion, or were you just trying to be mean?
Well I certainly wasn't going out of my way to be overly civil.
Conversation requires give and take, and in a toneless medium your content is all anyone has to judge you by. Rather than simply shutting him down, why don't we offer explanations and helpful suggestions in return?
You're free to do just that.
Personally I agree that famous video-game and superhero names should be banned. I don't want to be running alongside Superman, Drizzt, and Squall.
See my previous posts in this thread for why that's not going to happen, except perhaps on specific servers with "proper" names enforced (but probably not). You just banned the female Air Wizard from using her preferred name of choice (Squall) because it came from a fictional source (that she'd never experienced) that you arbitrarily thought was inappropriate in your game. Well done.
Under your imagined system, Dave Gross, Pathfinder Tales author and creator of Pathfinder Varian Jeggare would be unable to create a character named Varian, because Varian is the name of a famous character from the Warcraft universe.
Even better, I'd love to be able to ignore players and end up with them vanishing from my game world. When I ignore them, they shouldn't be able to see or hear me, and I shouldn't be able to see or hear them. Perhaps a generic dark blur with the name over the head "Ignored Player"?
I think you'll probably just stop seeing what they say.
RPGs are not about limitless creativity. They are about limited creativity in the vein of communal storytelling. They are not 'do what you want and violate the rules because you think it is amusing' like so many 'goons' who name their character "Reginald Rubmybottom" and "SuperGoon" and then think it funny to run back and forth over your character while in their underwear spamming the chatfilter as fast as they possibly can.
That's an adorable personal conception of what an MMORPG is and isn't about.
Immersion and storytelling are paramount to RP. RP is -part of the name of the game-.
Roleplaying does not mean to everyone what it means to you. You don't get to decide what is and isn't proper roleplaying. You just get to roleplay however you want. Enjoy.
As much as they plaster RPG on Final Fantasy, there's no dialogue option, no control over the story, no real input. That's not role-playing, that's 'ability management'. It's time to put the Role Playing back in MMORPG, even if it's illusionary, as in the case of ToR.
Roleplaying, at its most basic, simply means to play a role. Anything else that you decide to tack on as a requirement is extra.
Yes, I agree that ignoring what all the MMOs over the past 15 years have done is a mistake, but that's because market research, pitfalls, and inspiring ideas should be payed attention to wherever possible to make your product better than those who have come before.
Right.
Roleplaying is already defined... as playing... a... role. Those of us who are here playing Tabletop Roleplaying games should know that better than anyone else, shouldn't we? On the -Pathfinder- forums, for Pete's sake?
And yet we get so many people in here claiming that you're not really roleplaying unless you're talking in-character, or giving your character a "thematically appropriate" name, or whatever.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I want to have a house that collects dust. I want to have to keep my house dusted.
I want to have to use plates and utensils to eat my food with in game. Food that I have to hunt, skin clean and cook real time with a recipie. Then I want to have to wash those dishes and utensils in a pre-renaissance appropriate fashion. None of this cartoony sit and eat a conjured chicken leg bull! How is that fun?!? <scoff>
Anything less will ruin my immersion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I want to have a house that collects dust. I want to have to keep my house dusted.
I want to have to use plates and utensils to eat my food with in game. Food that I have to hunt, skin clean and cook real time with a recipie. Then I want to have to wash those dishes and utensils in a pre-renaissance appropriate fashion. None of this cartoony sit and eat a conjured chicken leg bull! How is that fun?!? <scoff>Anything less will ruin my immersion.
I want to think I need to be somewhere, open my eyes and I'm there. I want a learning curve with a slope of 0 as I do not have time to learn difficult mechanics and if possible would just like to press 1. I want to be invulnerable and in the event I reach 0HP, simply change the contrast of my screen for 5 seconds, after which I regain full health and get 10 gold for persisting with the game through this difficult experience. For offering such resistance, the monster that challenged me, now flatenned by the hand of god (Scott Betts), should temporarily become my magic carpet and whisk me to my next objective. Quests should offer a map identifying the precise locations I must imagine myself to so that not only do I feel like I'm using a walkthrough, I'm doing it with Chinese efficiency. Should a player even attempt to engage in PvP with me, the local authority should immediately burst through their door and arrest them. Community service will follow.
Anything less will ruin my fun.
♠ Join the Pathfinder Online community in IRC | Server: irc.stratics.com (6667) Channel: #pfo | We'll see you there! ♠
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I want to have a house that collects dust. I want to have to keep my house dusted.
I want to have to use plates and utensils to eat my food with in game. Food that I have to hunt, skin clean and cook real time with a recipie. Then I want to have to wash those dishes and utensils in a pre-renaissance appropriate fashion. None of this cartoony sit and eat a conjured chicken leg bull! How is that fun?!? <scoff>Anything less will ruin my immersion.
I want to think I need to be somewhere, open my eyes and I'm there. I want a learning curve with a slope of 0 as I do not have time to learn difficult mechanics and if possible would just like to press 1. I want to be invulnerable and for death to simply change the contrast of my screen for 5 seconds until I resurrect and get 10 gold for persisting with the game through this difficult experience. The monster that killed me, now flatenned by the hand of god (Scott Betts) for offering such resistance, should temporarily become my magic carpet and whisk me to my next objective. Quests should offer a map identifying the precise locations I must imagine myself to so that not only do I feel like I'm using a walkthrough, I'm doing it with Chinese efficiency. Should a player even attempt to engage in PvP with me, the local authority should immediately burst through their door and arrest them. Community service will follow.
Anything less will ruin my fun.
The difference between your sarcastic argument and Kryzbyn's sarcastic argument is that people have actually asked for things comparable to what Kryzbyn was "asking" for. No one has actually requested anything like half the stuff you're talking about.
No one actually wants a game devoid of challenge. But I bet there are actually people here who would like a game where you need to cook your hunted, skinned, and cleaned venison in real time.
|
The things id like to see many have already said but ill restatethem because i feel they are important to an MMO
1. ALOT of detailed IN DEPTH and enjoyable starting zones/ low level material (this is important for me because im what many of my wow friends call an alt-oholic)
2. PVP. PVp Pvp pvp pvP pVP pVp PvP. i dont mean just duels, battlegrounds, or territories imbued with crafting materials and dungeons (though those are fun too) i mean make it real, in the real world we can just walk past everybody, or we can go psycho and start killing them all (with obvious repercussions) we can choose our targets good or evil or faction v faction what have you, let us decide who or why will will kill someone be it someone from a rival trade guild, theives guild, the guy who attacked the king, or the guy who slept with our dughters, or even joe shmoe from down the road
as far as pvp goes i think it would make the most sense if all the pathfinder factions were inherently somewhat hostile to eachother, maybe not openly but at least a little malice felt one way or the other
3. an in depth crafting system. let it have the possiblility of failure, if you fail to pick a flower it kills the node temporarily instead of letting you try and try again. if you fail to mine a metal node then you can at least get a handful of possibly useful rocks and it kills the node temporarily. if you fail to make a shortsword+1 lets say the metal cracked in the quenching vat then you may at least be left with a jagged dagger. etc etc
3.5 item customization, dyes are a decent idea in most games so that you can make your character look the way you want, but also the shape and look of your gear sometimes needs to be adressed. i cant tell you how many time i was pissed off with wow playing a ret paladin or prot paladin AND THEY MADE ME WEAR A FREEKING DRESS AS A MELEE PLATE-WEARER. allow me to remove the excess cloth from my plate armor, or at least make it look ripped and torn as a melee person would not stand for wearing a dress in hand to hand combat. i like what they have recently done with transmogrification as well but its still not custom, what if i want to look like im in t3 pally gear but i dont wanna be in silver robocop jumpsuit? what if i want it to be red or gold? maybe these things could be a more advanced form of crafting idk but id like to see it.
theres a few other things too but i was thinking so much about those i forgot the rest lol
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The difference between your sarcastic argument and Kryzbyn's sarcastic argument is that people have actually asked for things comparable to what Kryzbyn was "asking" for. No one has actually requested anything like half the stuff you're talking about.
No one actually wants a game devoid of challenge. But I bet there are actually people here who would like a game where you need to cook your hunted, skinned, and cleaned venison in real time.
I think we can safely ignore people who want to slow cook their venison, but I do not see how any side is more or less valid.
People have argued against making the game difficult. People have advocated zero death penalties. People have or will expect quests locations to be marked. People have argued for no PvP. I'd say that these have been discussed or supported more than slow roasting venison.
The only difference between the two sarcastic posts is that you give one preference for whatever reason.
♠ Join the Pathfinder Online community in IRC | Server: irc.stratics.com (6667) Channel: #pfo | We'll see you there! ♠
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think we can safely ignore people who want to slow cook their venison,
Those people don't like being ignored.
but I do not see how any side is more or less valid.
They're both equally valid, up until the point where they're examined at any length.
People have argued against making the game difficult.
Against making the game pointlessly or frustratingly difficult. The distinction is non-trivial.
People have advocated zero death penalties.
Where? I don't think I've seen anyone do that.
By the way, "zero death penalties" means instant resurrection on the spot. Anything else, and a death penalty is involved. Yes, that means having to travel back to your corpse to resurrect counts as a death penalty.
People have or will expect quests locations to be marked.
Good. Even most non-MMO roleplaying games feature quest guidance. Even Skyrim, hailed for its immersion.
People have argued for no PvP.
People have argued for the absence of non-consensual PvP.
I'd say that these have been discussed or supported more than slow roasting venison.
A lot of these things deserve more support than slow-roasting venison.
The only difference between the two sarcastic posts is that you give one preference for whatever reason.
Again, in one instance, Kryzbyn is recycling what other people have asked for, to sarcastic effect. In the other instance, you're making things up in order to make the "other" side seem equally ridiculous.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
you're making things up in order to make the "other" side seem equally ridiculous.
You're starving the room of context as usual in proving a point.
Given the lack of context, then yes that was exactly what I was doing. In the wider context, Kryzbyn's post would seem to be bashing the pro-immersion school. There is more than meets the eye to the bare bones of our posts as one was specifically aimed at mocking more than what was immediately included in the post.
you're making things up in order to make the "other" side seem equally ridiculous.
He's using something ridiculous to slander an otherwise valid point of view.
This is a wishlist thread. Let people continue wishing for what they desire without featuring comedic slander of people's playstyles or Scott's highly analytical self glorification.
♠ Join the Pathfinder Online community in IRC | Server: irc.stratics.com (6667) Channel: #pfo | We'll see you there! ♠
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2. PVP. PVp Pvp pvp pvP pVP pVp PvP. i dont mean just duels, battlegrounds, or territories imbued with crafting materials and dungeons (though those are fun too) i mean make it real, in the real world we can just walk past everybody, or we can go psycho and start killing them all (with obvious repercussions) we can choose our targets good or evil or faction v faction what have you, let us decide who or why will will kill someone be it someone from a rival trade guild, theives guild, the guy who attacked the king, or the guy who slept with our dughters, or even joe shmoe from down the road
as far as pvp goes i think it would make the most sense if all the pathfinder factions were inherently somewhat hostile to eachother, maybe not openly but at least a little malice felt one way or the other
I am in favor of open PVP, but I am against meaningless addressed PVP. There should be aspects to create reasons for rivalry, but I hated WoW and other games, where they just write in "You red faction, you blue faction, you hate each-other and kill on sight". That is just a means to justify griefing. There should be elements worth fighting over, situations to cause conflict, but the actual cause for war should be decided by the players, and ended by the players when they get sick of it.
Personally I would like the factions themselves to be made by the players, what they stand for, what they oppose etc... When the game decides that for you, that is taking power away from the players.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My post wasn't to bash an idea, it was to bash what that idea becomes when followed to it's logical conclusion.
This is going to be a game. It's the G in MMORPG. The immersion crowd harps that we not forget the RP part of it, and seems to disregard the G. Real life immersion doesn't good roleplay make, and can and dare I say should be sacrificed in the greater good of it being a game.
While having to kill animals to harvest a material component in order to make a food item you can consume isn't a bad idea, and is already done in most MMO's with crafting, and can be fun (this is arguable), going to the extreme of having to spend real time hunting, skinning, slaughtering and preparing the deer just to cook it, is not fun, which is why the former is done, rather than the latter. It's the closest without going over, erring on the side of fun.
Most things fall into this logical dismissal filter. Having mounts, building houses, farming, training to fight, making armor...
That's really all I'm trying to say. I said something because it seemed people were trying to one up each other for realisms sake, and eventually would have gotten to my sarcastic example.
It's a game.
RPGs are not about limitless creativity. They are about limited creativity in the vein of communal storytelling.
Oh the lulz!
Thanks for sharing what RPGs are about...to you. The rest of us really do not care. RPGs may be about something completely different to me, and yet another totally different thing to Chuck over in the corner there.
Trying to force your way of roleplaying down the throats of other people is never a very good thing, it just makes you a part of the "badwrongfun" crowd.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My post wasn't to bash an idea, it was to bash what that idea becomes when followed to it's logical conclusion.
This is going to be a game. It's the G in MMORPG. The immersion crowd harps that we not forget the RP part of it, and seems to disregard the G. Real life immersion doesn't good roleplay make, and can and dare I say should be sacrificed in the greater good of it being a game.
While having to kill animals to harvest a material component in order to make a food item you can consume isn't a bad idea, and is already done in most MMO's with crafting, and can be fun (this is arguable), going to the extreme of having to spend real time hunting, skinning, slaughtering and preparing the deer just to cook it, is not fun, which is why the former is done, rather than the latter. It's the closest without going over, erring on the side of fun.
How then would hunting in an MMO...when it involves slowly stalking an intelligent behaving prey in realtime, not be a game to someone who enjoys it (aka, making it play)? Or, how about the "cooking" of the venison in real time...to someone who enjoys that? Why would these people who enjoy this want an undeveloped cheap mechanic just because you enjoy something else?
This means, if it is not fun to you, don't do it. Many people in RL do not do either of these things, and conversely many people do. I am not advocating either, just defending the position of making things difficult enough that getting good at something will actually be an accomplishment; building something, will actually be an accomplishment. Because these things are the game to those who choose to do them. You may want to go spelunking in dungeons, good for you...I think "they" should develop that choice as an option, so it will be fun for you. If you do not want to hunt or mine, craft or cook because it takes away from your adventuring time, good...that leaves the option open to those who do want to play those roles and do want to focus their time on them.
Most things fall into this logical dismissal filter. Having mounts, building houses, farming, training to fight, making armor...
That's really all I'm trying to say. I said something because it seemed people were trying to one up each other for realisms sake, and eventually would have gotten to my sarcastic example.
It's a game.
As one of the apparent advocates of "realism" I would like to say my defense of realism is not based upon a desire for realism "for realisms sake". It actually only seems so in the face of those who are asking for so much to be handed them...because that is fun evidently. I happen to think getting the "things" is the game, not the having the things, but perhaps this is a reflection of people's priorities in RL. Professionally and academically I design nonlinear systems with specific emergent behaviors in mind. I realize MMO design is probably not at this point...yet. But, it will soon I assure you. To this end, if you stick a bunch of agents in an empty sandbox and expect them to "create" a world, you have to give them a reason to change it in recognizable ways. You have to give the agents reasons we the player would recognize, understand, and utilize; and you have to design the world in such a way that the agents do things we would do in RL, otherwise we will not perceive or comprehend the order that emerges. You have to make them fear traveling during certain times so they will build roads and inns/towns along supply route (hence my request for slow travel, large distances, and real darkness). And, you have to give them a reaon to travel supply lines at all (explaining my request for making resources geographically and temporally limited). If you want these agents to build a realistic economy, you have to have supply and demand (hence my request for very localized economies, player driven limited supply and crafting). A viable economy also survives on services (versus solely commodities, hence my request for realistic mounts that must be captured or raised by someone who enjoys playing that role, stored and cared for by someone who enjoys that role; the fact that you think doing these things would not be fun, illustrates there would be an in-game demand, and the fact that there are games existing to cater to communities who enjoy this type thing illustrates there would be those who would accept your in-game money to do so). If you want realistic building strategies, you have to have realistic reasons to build something (aka, my request for making building things "difficult").
Even making most of the non-realistic content available only to "end-game" players (such as flying mounts or teleporters) is counter-productive. It is these high level players who will have the most ability to change the world. If they do not see a need to build a road to speed up travel on a supply route, it won't get done. If they do not see the need to build an inn along an especially long stretch of road to save people from having to travel at night, it will not get done.
For me, existing is an agent in a world in which things exist for a reason is much more interesting than "because the devs stuck it there". Exploring ruins that were actually made by a player group and later abandoned is much more interesting (trying to figure out the whys). Likewise, I have no interest in realism, my interest is in opportunities. It is my hope that some day, a game will come along that does offer these many opportunities, then if I get bored, I can just change my "profession" or what I do for fun instead of having to switch games (like all of us currently do). In such a game if someone does not like one aspect of the game, they can focus elsewhere.
People do not understand when they come from theme parks, specifically designed to entertain by offering all the rides free...to a sandbox, where the job is theirs to build a ride others can enjoy, and in so doing make enough money to pay the other players for the enjoyment of the rides they have made. Not everyone wants to build a Ferris wheel...in fact, how good would a park be with only Ferris wheels?
I suppose in summary, since I want to play in a rational and causal world (and I must assume people would as well (I quickly realized this assumption is probably incorrect, hence my decreased presence in these forums)), I make requests for design features/rule which I think will result in that type of world.
Anyways, sorry to the community for making this post so long. Just trying to be clear by illustrating my points.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The only difference between the two sarcastic posts is that you give one preference for whatever reason.
However, in addition to other differences, Kryzbyn didn't feel the need to shout out yours or anyone else's name into his post as opposed to yours which randomly threw a shot out at Scott Betts as you responded to Kryzbyn.
I really don't see the end of most arguments for "realistic" worlds. With similar arguments I could see the undertaker business being incredibly effected by anything less than permanent death. One could even say that starting as an adult limits those who would portray teachers, mentors, caretakers, and parents in the world. Or that when one goes to sleep, all perceptions for that character should be cut off until he awakens to give incentive for locks for bedrooms and people standing watch over a camp.
There are games about capturing and training animals, taking care of horses, cooking food, traveling a long distance safely in a wagon, maintaining a transportation network, and building cities, but each are different from one another as they try to make different experiences be fun for the player.
If the goal is to create an interesting dynamic within the game that mirrors what happens in our world, I can support that, but I would argue that a rational (where the game works like our world) world within a MMORPG is impossible because it is a game. At the very least, people will throw their avatars into death's maw with more ease than they do in the real world because the worst thing that could happen is that they lose that avatar. People will be more careless and aggressive with their lives in the game at a rate that I would say is high compared to the amount experience in our world (not to say that people don't throw their lives away in the real world, but just that people will do so more easily with their digital avatars).
Even if the world presented isn't perfectly realistic, players will operate within those rules to create a living breathing world. At some point though, adding more complexity into the system will just make the game more complex with less interesting behaviors that emerge from the addition. It will just take up time from development from other parts of the game while simultaneously weighing the game down.
Edit: That is not to say that all suggestions for realistic elements are bad or dissuade people from still voicing what they would like to see in the game, but just that there are elements of real-life that wouldn't help Pathfinder Online because it is a video game and not a real-life simulator.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...
That is true...and why "they" are calling it a sandbox with themepark elements. Because the heart of it will have to be themepark enforced rules: prebuilt cities, roads, dungeons, NPCs, governments, building spots, etc. And that is fine because they are building it upon an already developed lore. To me however, it sounds like it will be a themepark, with as many sandbox elements as they can give us...without treading upon the "fun" for those who prefer themeparks.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Kitnyx, I'm sure there is some happy medium between an animal dropping a cheesburger, and having to skin/gut/prepare etc. Most games have that happy medium. And it works.
I may have chosen my words poorly, but i don't think anyone is advocating realism for realism's sake, but they sure seem to be advocating mind numbingly monotonous difficulty, in the name of realism.
I think that there is a *very* crucial distinction between a difficult game and a mind numbingly monotonous difficult one. The entire genre of roguelikes is proof of this. I, for one, would very much like it if when a player dies, they are dead unless they possess a certain magic item or can have another player resurrect them. Perhaps there can be an option to display some sort of beacon around dead players? It would encourage cooperation and allow the less-heroic folks to extort some gold out of the dead player.
To that end, character creation should be fast and simple.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kitnyx, I'm sure there is some happy medium between an animal dropping a cheesburger, and having to skin/gut/prepare etc. Most games have that happy medium. And it works.
I may have chosen my words poorly, but i don't think anyone is advocating realism for realism's sake, but they sure seem to be advocating mind numbingly monotonous difficulty, in the name of realism.
Then I obviously chose my words poorly as well because you are not addressing my point. If something in boring to you, don't do it. For instance, I and my usual crowd in MMOs are all crafters. We love going out together and mining ore, cutting stone, gathering timber for hours. We then usually spend the rest of our play time crafting those materials as we are able. What usually determines whether we join a game is the complexity (aka realism) of the crafting system. We want to find/invent new recipes and spend months optimizing them. We want crafting to be time consuming because that is what we enjoy doing. Of course I agree, monotony for the sake of monotony is not what we want. Just like wandering through an empty dungeon would suck, an undeveloped and unchallenging crafting system would suck. But, this is what we enjoy. So, when you want to make crafting secondary to some other aspect that you will find fun, just so you can do it easily, I have to disagree. Likewise, making some other aspect, such as the example of hunting less developed leads to those who enjoy that aspect enjoying the game less. I am sorry if I have still failed to illustrate my point, I don't know how else to express it.
I suppose I am trying to say, one person's mind numbing monotony is another's idea of fun. The great thing about a well made sandbox is that there is room for both to do as the wish and they can be symbiotic. Ideally, we can craft you armor and weapons, you can use those armor and weapons to conquer new areas for us to gather resources from.
No worries...I realize the game is going to be made by your priorities, not mine. I just wanted to give a rationale for some of the suggestions I made (and some others have agreed with).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think that there is a *very* crucial distinction between a difficult game and a mind numbingly monotonous difficult one. The entire genre of roguelikes is proof of this. I, for one, would very much like it if when a player dies, they are dead unless they possess a certain magic item or can have another player resurrect them. Perhaps there can be an option to display some sort of beacon around dead players? It would encourage cooperation and allow the less-heroic folks to extort some gold out of the dead player.
To that end, character creation should be fast and simple.
How many times will you die because of lag or not seeing a monster before it attacked you and have to reroll before that stops sounding like a good idea. I'd wager once.
Having to reroll for every death would pretty much be the definition of mindnumbingly monotonos, and dare I say un-fun.
Goblinworks Founder
|
I think that there is a *very* crucial distinction between a difficult game and a mind numbingly monotonous difficult one. The entire genre of roguelikes is proof of this. I, for one, would very much like it if when a player dies, they are dead unless they possess a certain magic item or can have another player resurrect them. Perhaps there can be an option to display some sort of beacon around dead players? It would encourage cooperation and allow the less-heroic folks to extort some gold out of the dead player.
To that end, character creation should be fast and simple.
How many times will you die because of lag or not seeing a monster before it attacked you and have to reroll before that stops sounding like a good idea. I'd wager once.
Having to reroll for every death would pretty much be the definition of mindnumbingly monotonos, and dare I say un-fun.
*waves his walking stick emphatically
Funny you should say this. I love roguelikes with Permadeath and even recent games such as the torchlight brand have a hardcore mode for those that love the challenge of true mortality. The whole MMO genre was born of PnP & Roguelike MUDs with permanent death outside of resurrection. It saddens me that with each successive generation of MMO, there is less in this respect. Many of us loved these games because of hard core challenges imposed by harsh penalties, we love that we may lose every item when a monster kills us, we love that we may only survive 9 resurrections before our constitution score heavily penalizes our health and we love that if we cannot get someone with a raise dead spell to help us that we will have to reroll. These are the challenges we grew up with, the challenges that began with pacman and keep on the borderlands. These challenges made us who we are today, people that can accept defeat and start anew to rebuild what we lost.
*continues rambling about the price of eggs and how it wasn't like that in the war.
In a fit of nostalgia (for which I blame this forum—everyone here owes me a nickel) I renewed my EQ sub for a month. Doing so reminded me how wonderful and terrible that game is. But it was also informative. I was surprised by how little and how much has changed since I last played 7 years ago, when I started playing WoW. For instance, when you die you still lose experience but you are no longer at risk of losing your stuff.
My MMO wishlist is the best of both of those worlds (EQ and WoW), and also a complete departure from both in a fundamental way.
How well do the game commands control your character? Does he stop running when you stop making him run? (The answer should be yes, instantly.) Can he swim/fly easily by changing the camera angle? Does he jump when you hit space bar? Does mouse turning feel smooth? Or does all this feel like I’m rowing a boat with one oar?
Is the UI streamlined and intuitive, or cluttered and overbearing? Does it require the sizing, placing and locking of every frame? Does every command require alt or ctrl? Do I have to decide what chat goes in which window? Can I make macros easily?
Do I have easy access to detailed information about my own abilities?
Do I have a map? (Because you can be sure there will be maps online. Also, my character would almost certainly try to procure one for exploration.)
Is there a clock on the UI? Playing in windowed mode sucks.
Do I need to upgrade my computer to play? Is it going to be processor intensive or graphics card intensive?
My point here is simply that the feel of being in WoW is vastly superior to the feel of being in EQ. The controls are smooth and responsive, even on low settings with an older computer. You should do everything in your power to emulate that feeling as closely as possible.
WoW is a button mashing game. You hit a button every 1.5 seconds. This does give you the sense that you are being very active with your character, but often it also feels like going through the motions. This is most true when soloing, but even on boss fights, everyone has their “go-to” ability. You spend X amount of time setting up to push that one button as many times as possible.
In EQ, if you play a melee class, you get auto-attack and kick every 6 seconds. You get long cooldown disciplines and situational abilities, but you basically have auto-attack and kick.
The interesting thing about the EQ model is you have a long-term rotation. (Use disc 1 on mob 1, disc 2 on mob 2, disc 3 on mob 3, and then rest.) If you want to avoid excessive downtime, you are forced to hold disciplines in reserve. This is similar to a well-played PnP game, where it is often a good idea to hold back for the next fight.
Somewhere between having umpteen abilities and pressing a button every 1.5 seconds, and having very few abilities and really only one button to push every 6 seconds, is a happy medium—a faster paced version of the EQ model with more abilities (or a slower paced version of the WoW model with fewer abilities).
The number of total abilities my character has should be limited to what I can hotkey to two hotbars. Any more than that is just clutter on my screen and in my spellbook. 20 total abilities is a nice round number that would be appropriate for any character concept.
Ghostcrawler speculated in his watercooler blog that the ideal rotation is 4 or 5 abilities. I suggest running with this. Give everyone a “go-to” ability with 3 or 4 “discipline-like” abilities that qualify/modify/supplement it on cooldowns varying from maybe 6 seconds to 10 minutes. (To contrast, EQ cooldowns range from 5 minutes to 30 minutes.) This would both increase the mind-numbingly monotonous EQ pacing and also reign in the frantic button-mashing pace of WoW.
The difficulty in WoW is often binary—either something is virtually impossible or trivially easy. Take a simple example of attempting to solo a higher level mob. 3 levels higher than you, and you’re fine. 4 levels higher, and you’re likely dead. In this situation, doing any of the following absolutely trivializes the encounter—gaining a level, getting a better weapon, getting a friend to help, improving knowledge of your class.
(Although I’m primarily talking about leveling, the same can be said of raiding. Don’t know the gimmick? Wipe. Learn the strategy… Easy. The challenging part is getting everyone in your raid up to speed on the strategy.)
It’s a system that, in a way, penalizes system mastery—getting better at playing makes playing too easy. It also penalizes socializing for the same reason—having a friend along (while leveling) makes playing too easy.
I feel we could stand to shift more towards the EQ model here, where system mastery allows you the ability to solo, and a partner is still a welcome addition. Mobs taking considerably longer to kill and presenting more of a danger would go a long way towards this goal.
In WoW, solo, you can kill a level appropriate mob in 5-10 seconds with little to no thought of having to pause before moving on to the next. In EQ, it can take 2 minutes to kill a weaker mob, and you are then forced to assess whether you need to rest.
Somewhere between 5 seconds and 2 minutes is a happy medium—30 seconds? Long enough to get through an entire rotation with two people beating on the mob. Long enough that you are not punished for not soloing.
Additionally, you could offer mobs that travel in packs of larger than one. Being able to single pull mobs has a place, but being able to single pull everything outside of a dungeon demeans the experience.
Remember playing through dungeons while leveling, before you really knew what you were doing, before knowing that you were “supposed” to tank ’n’ spank? It was chaotic. It was awesome. Make that the way the game is supposed to be played.
How?
Get rid of the Trinity roles.
-Make “tanking” more about keeping yourself alive while the focus is on you, rather than about keeping the focus on you.
-Keep taunt (in fact, make it available to everyone as a skill), but do not have any aggro ensuring abilities or aggro multipliers.
-Make the “tanking” requirements less, to be doable by any martial character.
-Give all martial characters the ability to situationally tank as part of their utility abilities and cooldowns.
-Give all ranged characters the ability to root, kite or otherwise control mobs at range.
-Give everyone comparable damage (lest they be pigeonholed into a role).
-Make “healing” be ideally done as HoTs, shielding, buffs, potions, or between fights. Do not require dedicated healers.
-Give people more options for mitigating damage done to other players than just healing. (Got a shield? Use it to protect your friend. Shooting arrows? Cast a spell to give the current “tank” a short, powerful protection buff. Casting? Debuff the mob so it does very little damage.)
Roles would be dynamic instead of static. One minute you’d be DPSing something your friend was tanking, the next, you’d be tanking! But it would be ok, because you’d have the situational tanking tools you need. The ping pong would be constant, but that wouldn’t mean an automatic wipe like it always does in “trinity” based encounters. Instead, it would mean no fight would ever be the same twice.
This would preserve the feel of the PnP game, give characters improved PvP viability (especially group PvP where the strategy always boils down to “kill the healer”), and also introduce a revolutionary tactical challenge to raiding that would not relent once the strategy is learned.
Contributor
|
Under your imagined system, Dave Gross, Pathfinder Tales author and creator of Pathfinder Varian Jeggare would be unable to create a character named Varian, because Varian is the name of a famous character from the Warcraft universe.
I don't mean to step into any other part of this discussion, but "Varian" like "Radovan," "Azra," "Ivo," and virtually all of the first names of characters I introduce are actual real-world names, albeit ones less common to western fantasy readers than "Erik," "Lisa," "James," or "Dave."
Sometimes I'll change the spelling, but I love using real names as a foundation for fantasy names. Come to think of it, I did include an Ulfen hero named "Erik" in Winter Witch.
I did wince a bit months after choosing "Varian" when it finally dawned on me that the King of Stormwind shared his first name.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Under your imagined system, Dave Gross, Pathfinder Tales author and creator of Pathfinder Varian Jeggare would be unable to create a character named Varian, because Varian is the name of a famous character from the Warcraft universe.
I don't mean to step into any other part of this discussion, but "Varian" like "Radovan," "Azra," "Ivo," and virtually all of the first names of characters I introduce are actual real-world names, albeit ones less common to western fantasy readers than "Erik," "Lisa," "James," or "Dave."
Sometimes I'll change the spelling, but I love using real names as a foundation for fantasy names. Come to think of it, I did include an Ulfen hero named "Erik" in Winter Witch.
I did wince a bit months after choosing "Varian" when it finally dawned on me that the King of Stormwind shared his first name.
Right, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. In fact, I'd wager that an overwhelming percentage of fantasy and sci-fi names are either real-world names or heavily inspired by real-world names (as opposed to an appropriate-sounding jumble of syllables). And that's really where the problem with the idea of a strict name policy lies: If you go out and start arbitrarily banning popular fantasy names, you're going to end up throwing out a lot of legitimate names in the process (not to mention that the idea of judging names as legitimate or not legitimate is a little rankling to begin with).
Even "Sephiroth," one of the names that Daniel36 suggested be banned, has its roots in the Hebrew language and Kabbalah teachings. I'm sure he'd prefer the word "Sephirot" banned, too, even though it's simply an alternative Romanized spelling of the Hebrew word.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am still a fan of the idea that you choose others names. By default, there is nothing over PC's (or even NPC's) head. You can enter anything they tell you or anything you feel like knowing them as. Likewise, others would know you as the name you tell them...requiring real interaction. Without this effort, just like in RL they remain part of the background.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am still a fan of the idea that you choose others names. By default, there is nothing over PC's (or even NPC's) head. You can enter anything they tell you or anything you feel like knowing them as. Likewise, others would know you as the name you tell them...requiring real interaction. Without this effort, just like in RL they remain part of the background.
I'm still a fan of receiving a check in the mail for $1 million for logging into PFO. Think we can get that to happen?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm still a fan of receiving a check in the mail for $1 million for logging into PFO. Think we can get that to happen?Sorry, I fail to see the relevance.
You are as likely to convince Goblinworks that forced default anonymity is a good idea for their game as I am to convince them that they ought to send me $1 million for playing their game. I mean, as long as we're wishing for things, why not?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm ok with not allowing numbers or other non-letter characters used in a name. Other than that, go crazy.
Unless you want to ban kids outright, you're going to end up with names like Doobieous or Boody Licius. I seriously doubt Goblinworks is going to turn down 50 bucks for the game and 15/mo for sub becasue of a character name.
Better get used to it now.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm ok with not allowing numbers or other non-letter characters used in a name. Other than that, go crazy.
Unless you want to ban kids outright, you're going to end up with names like Doobieous or Boody Licius. I seriously doubt Goblinworks is going to turn down 50 bucks for the game and 15/mo for sub becasue of a character name.
Better get used to it now.
Broody Liches may very well turn out to be my first character name.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You are as likely to convince Goblinworks that forced default anonymity is a good idea for their game as I am to convince them that they ought to send me $1 million for playing their game. I mean, as long as we're wishing for things, why not?
Sorry, I still fail to grasp the point of your post or the validity of your analogy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You are as likely to convince Goblinworks that forced default anonymity is a good idea for their game as I am to convince them that they ought to send me $1 million for playing their game. I mean, as long as we're wishing for things, why not?Sorry, I still fail to grasp the point of your post or the validity of your analogy.
Then that's definitely a problem for you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then that's definitely a problem for you.You are as likely to convince Goblinworks that forced default anonymity is a good idea for their game as I am to convince them that they ought to send me $1 million for playing their game. I mean, as long as we're wishing for things, why not?Sorry, I still fail to grasp the point of your post or the validity of your analogy.
Yes, I am very saddened. Feel free to explain yourself further so I might better understand.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would have fun if I could log on and be a village baker, in peasant clothes, running my bakery and talking to adventurers. I want to be able to "level" as a baker, or a minstrel, or a blacksmith without killing stuff all the time. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
In the "dream MMO" that I've carried in my head for awhile, there is one single persistant world in which three games are happening at the same time:
1. The "I am an adventurer and I kill things and take their stuff" game
2. Trade Wars. A Sim-type game where players run a shop or a household and manage multiple NPCs to make money and expand.
3. Dungeon Keeper. Players run a stationary dungeon and fill it with monsters and treasure while defending it against meddlesome heroes. Maybe give them a capstone where if you get your dungeon to a certain level you can spawn wandering monsters that run off into the world (which makes people want to come and kill you).
All three games happen simultaneously. The shops can be sacked by monsters or PC armies. The adventurers can attack the dungeons or buy stuff from the player-shops. I would LOVE to raid a dungeon of intelligently-played monsters run by a Dungeon Keeper. I would also love to know that when I sell my loot to a vendor, I'm still interacting with real people because that NPC vendor is part of someone's economic sim game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes, I am very saddened. Feel free to explain yourself further so I might better understand.Then that's definitely a problem for you.You are as likely to convince Goblinworks that forced default anonymity is a good idea for their game as I am to convince them that they ought to send me $1 million for playing their game. I mean, as long as we're wishing for things, why not?Sorry, I still fail to grasp the point of your post or the validity of your analogy.
There is no chance of your forced default anonymity idea becoming reality, because it is a bad idea. The developers will look at it and say, "Hey, that's a bad idea. I don't think we're going to do that!"
There is no chance of me getting $1 million from Goblinworks, because it is a bad idea. They will see my idea and say, "Why would we give this guy a million dollars? He hasn't done anything for us!"
I was using the latter example to help demonstrate why the former is something you should probably give up on, and move on to more productive ideas.