Goblin Squad Member
|
Ah, but see...you have not seen the requests for something that requires us to think more? Obviously there are some who feel that is fun.So you're telling me that you like challenge, because challenge is fun?
So challenge because you like challenge?
So challenge for the sake of challenge?
Do you see where this is going?
You can find it fun. That's great. It's still challenge for its own sake.
That's an intellectualy dishonest arguement....and I believe you are intelligent enough to recognize when you are applying nihilistic logic.
Specificaly he's advocating for challenge because he finds it entertaining. If there was something that made it not entertaining for him then he wouldn't be advocating for it anymore.
That's challnge for the sake of entertainment not challenge for it's own sake. No one here is arguing that the player must resolve the value of PI to the 99th digit before he's allowed to perform an attack.
You need to balance your level of challenge, because past a certain point it's no longer fun. Where that point is varies from individual to individual. But I think that there are plenty of ways to inject challenge into the game that also make it enjoyable to a wide range of people, rather than making it frustrating to a wide range of people.
Great, then I believe we are all pretty much in agreement on that point. What we are disagreeing on is the specifics of what constitutes a fun challenge.
For instance, I don't find the way most of todays MMO's seek to introduce challenge in "boss fights" fun. Where you fail because you hit a single wrong key or mis-time a single choreographed move. Though I do recognize that other people seem to enjoy "Dance Dance Revolution".
I much prefer games that challenge a player by asking them to think tacticaly and strategicaly games that challenge the brain not just the reflexes. I happen to think there is a fair sized audience out there for that. YMMV.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Something that drove a lot of people away from WoW
I'm sure Blizzard is just overwhelmed with guilt.
was as each expansion came out, Blizzard kept dropping the bar on a lot of things, but a lack of difficulty was one of the main reasons people were giving as their reasons to quit,
I know a lot of people who used "lack of difficulty" as an excuse to quit. I always found it curious how few of them had a respectable number of heroic achievements under their belts.
As another example, while solo-play should allow you to adventure with some success, it should also be very difficult to do for lower-level Players.
So that their introduction to your game sucks, or what?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Something that drove a lot of people away from WoWI'm sure Blizzard is just overwhelmed with guilt.
No it's pretty apparent they don't give a damn about their customers anymore.
was as each expansion came out, Blizzard kept dropping the bar on a lot of things, but a lack of difficulty was one of the main reasons people were giving as their reasons to quit,I know a lot of people who used "lack of difficulty" as an excuse to quit. I always found it curious how few of them had a respectable number of heroic achievements under their belts.
Okay now you're just being snarky
As another example, while solo-play should allow you to adventure with some success, it should also be very difficult to do for lower-level Players.So that their introduction to your game sucks, or what?
No, again, you're putting words into my mouth to try and be as negative as possible, but at the same point I should have been more specific.
At lower levels players should be encouraged to play together and work together to ensure not only their survival, but also to increase the odds of their pay-off being bigger and building bonds between players.
When WoW dropped the Realm Barriers and created the Looking For Group across Servers (and now Looking For Raid) function, yes it certainly allowed more people to experience the Content, but it also took a great deal of the Fantasy out of a Fantasy Game. No longer were instance runs a chance to prove yourself on the realm, you were being thrust up against Hardcore PvPers and Trolls who played purely to derail groups.
In a game like Pathfinder Online where the number of players is minimal and set to slowly grow, making it quite easy for Players to come together, especially at lower levels, can help bring back that sense of camaradie/rivalry that so many of us look back on the WoW eras of Vanilla and Burning Crusade with so much fondness and rose-tinted Glasses firmly welded to our faces.
Running around in the starting 'region' shouldn't be too much of a hassle, but certain types of enemies that roam around the borders between that 'first' region and the 'next' should require either a great deal of skill and personal power or a few friends to safely deal with (either beating to a pulp or driving off), and hopefully Pathfinder Online can come up with some sort of selling point that makes it more enjoyable/profitable to 'Party Up'.
Perhaps grouping up should grant a small chance for rarer items to drop or even grant slightly more XP than running it solo? I always enjoyed group quests in WoW but when the power-levels of the PCs went to the stupidly high levels of Wrath and Cataclysm, there wasn't any real point. We were Gods, and the world was our B~~*$, and the only challenge was getting into the latest PvP gear first so we could sink our Owned flags into the other players. I want to see Pathfinder Online dodge that like Neo dodging Nerf-Pellets, simply because it turned what little community spirit was left in the Roleplay Realms I was still on into dust.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Scott, you seem to be under the assumption that Goblinworks cannot look back upon how many years of MMOs out there and think, "Game becomes too easy, people become bored, but if it becomes too hard, our casuals will quit, and eventually the hard-cores too."
That's pretty much the bottom line.
Every Geekend, gathering with guildies from around the country (and Britain and Canada), someone drunkenly brings up Verant's 'vision' and how much 'fun' it was spending seventeen hours dying over and over trying to get into Fear long enough to loot the corpse that has your equipment on it and gate out safely, and everyone else reminds him that everybody (including him, at the time) *hated that* and it's why we left EQ for DAoC, EQ2, etc. and why EQ is a ghost-town and Blizzard execs are rolling around in solid gold bathtubs filled with yet more gold.
Yes, there's a small sub-set of players who will smash their faces into brick walls over and over and over again, and take some sort of pride in how hard the challenges they've overcome were. There's a martyr-y side to all of us that likes to compare tales of woe, like my eight day camp for the bear that dropped the Shaman helmet piece, which required logging on every eight hours to kill placeholders (because if you didn't, they stayed up and the bear *never* spawned), which pretty much meant that, to hold the area and ensure you got a single thing, you couldn't do anything else in the game for a week. But that's just attempting to justify after the fact why you put up with that crap. 'It must have been worth it! That hat had +5 wisdom!' (And was obsolete ten levels later, and vastly inferior to trash drops that you threw away in Kunark...)
But there's a much, much larger audience of people who pay their 20 bucks a month to be entertained, and not to be frustrated.
And, best of all, even games as 'easy' as WoW can introduce the occasional raid or encounter or scenario that is ridiculously hard or requires mind-bogging dedication (woo, I got my mana elemental pet, after a week of camping!), so that both types of player can find things to enjoy.
As long as the hardcore stuff isn't frontloaded into the beginning of the game and doesn't cause 90% of the playerbase to get discouraged and give up before they hit 5th level and move on to games that provide a sense of accomplishment and entertainment for their investment of time and money, it's all good.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's an intellectualy dishonest arguement....and I believe you are intelligent enough to recognize when you are applying nihilistic logic.Give me your compelling reasons for why upping the challenge level on something makes it inherently more fun.
Why do you insist in talking about absolutes?
I'm sure upping the challenge level on piloting the space shuttle doesn't make it more fun.
But we aren't talking about things in general, we are talking about a very specific thing PFO.
Now, why do I want PFO to be a bit more intellectualy challenging then most of the current crop of MMO's?
Because most of todays MMO's are so mind numbingly simple that you can play them with your brain completely turned off. To me that's boring as heck.
Now I actualy do occasionaly enjoy turning off my brain and playing a mindless game or two when I'm in the mood...but I'm sick and tired of that being pretty much the only option availble in MMO gaming.
Note, I don't think todays MMO's are completely divorced of any kind of challenge. Some of them can be rather challenging in terms of choreography in boss fits...a single wrong keystroke, don't move the mouse quickly enough, an untimely bit of lag..can cause the failure of the raid. Now that's the sort of challenge I don't enjoy... and don't want to see in PFO.
I'd like to see the players make a few mechanical mistakes in a fight and still have a chance of victory. I would, however, like to see them forced to use thier brains somewhat in order to win....rather then just repititively run through a script that's already been written for them.
Things like differences between night and day and freindly fire add more complexity to the sorts of gameplay decisions players need to make....meaning more thougt required in order to make good decisoions, meaning a more interesting game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Things like differences between night and day and freindly fire add more complexity to the sorts of gameplay decisions players need to make....meaning more thougt required in order to make good decisoions, meaning a more interesting game.
I would think though that adding something like friendly fire would add more to "a single wrong keystroke, don't move the mouse quickly enough, an untimely bit of lag..can cause the failure of the raid" than anything else.
If anything would cause a failed raid, I would imagine a friendly fire fireball could be the cause of it, either because of a wrong keystroke or because of a bit of lag.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Things like differences between night and day and freindly fire add more complexity to the sorts of gameplay decisions players need to make....meaning more thougt required in order to make good decisoions, meaning a more interesting game.I would think though that adding something like friendly fire would add more to "a single wrong keystroke, don't move the mouse quickly enough, an untimely bit of lag..can cause the failure of the raid" than anything else.
If anything would cause a failed raid, I would imagine a friendly fire fireball could be the cause of it, either because of a wrong keystroke or because of a bit of lag.
Blazej,
That depends more on how combat is implimented. Is it "twitch" based combat? Is it manual aiming?
I am assuming (perhaps wrongly) that the UI/combat controls will allow the player sufficient control that they won't UNINTENTIONALY target something with a spell or attack.
"Friendly Fire" situations should be the result of the player making a conscious decision to use an ability that he/she knows has the potential to harm freindly targets.
Some players may decide to make those sort of attacks anyway...knowing the risks...it may not even be a bad decision depending upon the situation.
I remember distinctly at least one situation in a PnP game where we instructed the mage to deliberately target a fireball centered on us. We were being swarmed by a mass of opponents who individualy did not have many hit points but were deployed around us in great numbers and were capable of damaging us with thier attacks. We figured each of us individualy had enough hit points to survive the blast while our opponents individualy did not.
Now if freindly fire didn't exist under those mechanics it would be a no brainer decision. There would never be a reason not to toss a fireball into a melee with freindlies. By having freindly fire mechanics it became a judgement call....does the benefit the fireball does by knocking out the hostiles outweigh the harm it will do by damaging the friendlies.... that's something a player may actualy have to think about.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Some people run marathons . . . for fun.That's an intellectualy dishonest arguement....and I believe you are intelligent enough to recognize when you are applying nihilistic logic.Give me your compelling reasons for why upping the challenge level on something makes it inherently more fun.
Because they enjoy the challenge. Thanks.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No it's pretty apparent they don't give a damn about their customers anymore.
Ah, yes.
The "Blizzard isn't giving me the things I want, therefore they must be ignoring all their customers!" logic.
You are not the center of Blizzard's universe, and nor should you be. They have other customers to cater to, and the fact that they retain millions of customers after more than seven years on the market is pretty solid evidence that they are catering to their customers' desires in at least an adequate fashion.
Okay now you're just being snarky
Not just being snarky. Plenty of people used an imagined "lack of challenge" as an excuse to quit. However, many of them clearly had never bothered to try and conquer the most difficult challenges the game has to offer. They just looked for an excuse that sounded good and ran with it. They're humans, and humans don't always say what they mean. If a lack of challenge were really the issue, they would have already completed many of the game's challenges.
For many (most) of these people, the issue was probably something else. Disinterest after years of playing the same game. The arrival of a newer game to occupy their time. Real world pressures that restricted their ability to play. So on and so forth.
No, again, you're putting words into my mouth to try and be as negative as possible, but at the same point I should have been more specific.
At lower levels players should be encouraged to play together and work together to ensure not only their survival, but also to increase the odds of their pay-off being bigger and building bonds between players.
When WoW dropped the Realm Barriers and created the Looking For Group across Servers (and now Looking For Raid) function, yes it certainly allowed more people to experience the Content, but it also took a great deal of the Fantasy out of a Fantasy Game. No longer were instance runs a chance to prove yourself on the realm, you were being thrust up against Hardcore PvPers and Trolls who played purely to derail groups.
I used the random group functions for years, and never felt like it did anything but improve my play experience.
In a game like Pathfinder Online where the number of players is minimal and set to slowly grow, making it quite easy for Players to come together, especially at lower levels, can help bring back that sense of camaradie/rivalry that so many of us look back on the WoW eras of Vanilla and Burning Crusade with so much fondness and rose-tinted Glasses firmly welded to our faces.
I agree, it should be silly easy to group up at any level. But that doesn't mean that the game should be punishing to those who choose not to, especially at lower levels. Lower levels are where you make or break customers.
Running around in the starting 'region' shouldn't be too much of a hassle, but certain types of enemies that roam around the borders between that 'first' region and the 'next' should require either a great deal of skill and personal power or a few friends to safely deal with (either beating to a pulp or driving off), and hopefully Pathfinder Online can come up with some sort of selling point that makes it more enjoyable/profitable to 'Party Up'.
This sounds like a good idea, but would be better if it were optional. Provide incentives to group up, and make grouping up very easy, but don't punish those who choose not to by making it difficult for them to progress. Provide opportunities for groups to shine if they wish.
Perhaps grouping up should grant a small chance for rarer items to drop or even grant slightly more XP than running it solo?
Both of these are good suggestions. I haven't considered them in real depth, but I think they probably have merit and are worth elaborating on. Why not start a thread discussing incentives for group play? That sounds like a really worthwhile topic for discussion.
|
I don't need a game to beat me up and exhaust me mentally to have fun. I think challenge can be good, but in the end it matters less to me than the social interaction, visual aesthetics, and core mechanics.
Actually, I take it back. I don't want get my ass kicked. I got enough of that growing up. I want to be a Hellknight warrior in their bad ass armor who doesn't take shit from minions of chaos.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Blazej,
That depends more on how combat is implimented. Is it "twitch" based combat? Is it manual aiming?
I am assuming (perhaps wrongly) that the UI/combat controls will allow the player sufficient control that they won't UNINTENTIONALY target something with a spell or attack.
"Friendly Fire" situations should be the result of the player making a conscious decision to use an ability that he/she knows has the potential to harm freindly targets.
Some players may decide to make those sort of attacks anyway...knowing the risks...it may not even be a bad decision depending upon the situation.
I remember distinctly at least one situation in a PnP game where we instructed the mage to deliberately target a fireball centered on us. We were being swarmed by a mass of opponents who individualy did not have many hit points but were deployed around us in great numbers and were capable of damaging us with thier attacks. We figured each of us individualy had enough hit points to survive the blast while our opponents individualy did not.
Now if freindly fire didn't exist under those mechanics it would be a no brainer decision. There would never be a reason not to toss a fireball into a melee with freindlies. By having freindly fire mechanics it became a judgement call....does the benefit the fireball does by knocking out the...
I understand the goal, but I'm not sure what the flow of combat would be to allow an user interface for a fireball that wouldn't also allow you to unintentionally catch someone with the blast. I'm imagining this as a real-time game where you hit the button to cast the fireball and select the location of the fireball. At the very least, I imagine both lag and movement from enemies, allies, and neutral people getting in the way of this. Even without lag the person might still cast a spell not seeing the warrior charging into melee. With lag and people changing positioning, you might hit nothing or a bunch or your allies at times.
The only way I can see it working that way in my head right now is if the server itself was deciding on where to place the fireball. You would select the enemies, say you want to fireball them, then the server would correctly place the fireball to hit only them. But then the spell would fizzle if it couldn't be placed safely, or you might still miss an enemy because it could only include two of the enemies without also having your ally in the blast. And if you were fine with hitting allies, that would another option you have to select (probably you would have a friendly fireball that isn't given permission to hit allies and another that was allowed to hit allies) as you are casting the spell. That though, to me, seems to remove a bit of the thought from the process as you just are letting the computer pick the best way to hit your targets.
How do you imagine the flow of combat in Pathfinder Online to allow for thought out tactics mid-battle and lack of fireballs hitting allies?
As for your example, in that situation in the PnP game, how long did anyone have to think about that fireball smashing into the party? Even it were just 30 seconds, I certainly feel that is a much longer time in the heat of a real-time battle than it would be in a turn based PnP game. I've run into similar situations as well in my PnP games, but the players like to think about it and not do something hasty and dangerous like that. They quickly confirm that is the right choice, but if only a minute passes before that decision it met, that would be a very brief amount of time in comparison to other times it has happened.
It could be the game might be slower paced for this similar sort of thing to happen in the online game, but I would say that it would mean, that people are taking a minute or two break between each significant action in battle so that they have that time to plan and know that are doing stuff mostly correct in the battle.
Even then though, I don't think that PnP and a real-time game are equivalent as far as thinking go. In the PnP, you have plenty of time to make almost any decision you want, the only limitation is when it begins to annoy the other people at the table. Making the right decision there is relatively easy even if it took thought. In the real-time game though, the battle isn't waiting for you to make your decision, there making the right decision is much much harder in comparison because you have to make it quickly. Even if both situations require the same amount of thought, the real-time game is going to be harder.
In my *opinion*, I enjoy overcoming challenges. The larger the challenge overcome - the larger the sense of accomplishment. Additionally, coming up against challenges and failing usually fuels my drive and initiative to try various tactics or improve my dynamics - it almost never means that I walk away or feel disappointed.
I think when you look at the desired and actual challenge levels on various MMOs - you are seeing the split in culture today between the entitled (I want to achieve things easily and then be told how awesome-sauce I am) and the competitors (I want to try with failure being a real possibility, but in the end the challenging aspect is more important than the outcome).
For the competitors, upping the challenge provides a higher sense of accomplishment. The challenge for the developer is to make the challenge within the range of achievable, yet not a cake walk.
For the entitled - any competition where every person doesn't get a participation award is deemed unfair.
In the end, Goblinworks will build PFO and based on the level of challenge they infuse the encounters and obstacles with they will determine the type of audience attracted.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In my *opinion*, I enjoy overcoming challenges. The larger the challenge overcome - the larger the sense of accomplishment. Additionally, coming up against challenges and failing usually fuels my drive and initiative to try various tactics or improve my dynamics - it almost never means that I walk away or feel disappointed.
I think when you look at the desired and actual challenge levels on various MMOs - you are seeing the split in culture today between the entitled (I want to achieve things easily and then be told how awesome-sauce I am) and the competitors (I want to try with failure being a real possibility, but in the end the challenging aspect is more important than the outcome).
For the competitors, upping the challenge provides a higher sense of accomplishment. The challenge for the developer is to make the challenge within the range of achievable, yet not a cake walk.
For the entitled - any competition where every person doesn't get a participation award is deemed unfair.
In the end, Goblinworks will build PFO and based on the level of challenge they infuse the encounters and obstacles with they will determine the type of audience attracted.
I think it's very possible (and perhaps even necessary) to make a game that appeals to both groups. I also think that calling one of the groups "entitled" is perhaps a bit derogatory. Go with "casual" or the like.
FACT: Casual gamers are typically older than traditional computer gamers,[2] and more often female,[3] with over 74% of casual gamers being female.(source)
I don't know about you guys but I don't want to play games with a bunch of girls! ....oh wait....
FACT: Casual gamers are typically older than traditional computer gamers,[2] and more often female,[3] with over 74% of casual gamers being female.(source)
I don't know about you guys but I don't want to play games with a bunch of girls! ....oh wait....
You see, as on certain parts of the Series of Tubes, the appeal is in convincing the girls to do hardcore.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Apologies for anyone offended by the 'entitled'. I actually didn't intend at all for that to be likened to casual gamers. I was speaking more to the difficulty for difficulty's sake vs difficulty = rewarding more than anything.
Rather than the casual vs. hardcore axis I was speaking to the responses of gamers to MMOs. If you look at any MMO forum there are the entitled posters and the posters who want to achieve a competitive game without throwing away the challenge or balance. You can see this at many PnP games as well.
I actually think you can be a casual gamer and be competitive or hardcore and feel entitled. They are not mutually exclusive in any sort of stereotypical manner.
As for the integration of the game to support casual and hardcore gamers, I fully agree with Scott Betts that the success of PFO will somewhat lie in it's strategy in how it intends and is capable of catering to both.
In reality PFO will play the PnP role of DM/GM and have the responsibility of providing an entertaining experience for the players across varying customer segments, time availability, skill sets, and backgrounds. They cannot possibly cater to the Hello Kitty MMO crowd and the original EQ/UO pvp loot dead gear off players crowd with equal fanfare - but there is a healthy middle in between. Like Berik said - you can bring something to the table for a wide group of people. I know as my wife and I had children our time schedules and obligations changed our playing habits - the games that were able to be flexible and provide fun across the hardcore/casual axis are still in our arsenal.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Apologies for anyone offended by the 'entitled'. I actually didn't intend at all for that to be likened to casual gamers. I was speaking more to the difficulty for difficulty's sake vs difficulty = rewarding more than anything.
Rather than the casual vs. hardcore axis I was speaking to the responses of gamers to MMOs. If you look at any MMO forum there are the entitled posters and the posters who want to achieve a competitive game without throwing away the challenge or balance. You can see this at many PnP games as well.
I actually think you can be a casual gamer and be competitive or hardcore and feel entitled. They are not mutually exclusive in any sort of stereotypical manner.
As for the integration of the game to support casual and hardcore gamers, I fully agree with Scott Betts that the success of PFO will somewhat lie in it's strategy in how it intends and is capable of catering to both.
In reality PFO will play the PnP role of DM/GM and have the responsibility of providing an entertaining experience for the players across varying customer segments, time availability, skill sets, and backgrounds. They cannot possibly cater to the Hello Kitty MMO crowd and the original EQ/UO pvp loot dead gear off players crowd with equal fanfare - but there is a healthy middle in between. Like Berik said - you can bring something to the table for a wide group of people. I know as my wife and I had children our time schedules and obligations changed our playing habits - the games that were able to be flexible and provide fun across the hardcore/casual axis are still in our arsenal.
I think it's upto Goblinworks to determine exactly what audience they are trying to target with the games. There is a real danger in Developers (of any products really, not just games) of trying to appeal to too broad a spectrum of audience and end up with a product that end up satisfying no one well.
That's an especialy bad strategy in a market that's crowded with offerings... as it's difficult to differentiate yourself from the competition if you aren't able to focus your resources into being more appealing in at least some cohesive catagory.
Personaly, I think the best thing Goblinworks could do is sit down and very clearly map out who they want their target audience to be and what they have to do to satisfy that audiences preferences....and pretty much write off anyone that doesn't fall within that audience.
Ultimately they shouldn't listen to any of us, if our suggestions aren't matching up with the flavor of game they want to build and the target audience they want to appeal to.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Blazej,
That depends more on how combat is implimented. Is it "twitch" based combat? Is it manual aiming?
I am assuming (perhaps wrongly) that the UI/combat controls will allow the player sufficient control that they won't UNINTENTIONALY target something with a spell or attack.
"Friendly Fire" situations should be the result of the player making a conscious decision to use an ability that he/she knows has the potential to harm freindly targets.
Some players may decide to make those sort of attacks anyway...knowing the risks...it may not even be a bad decision depending upon the situation.
I remember distinctly at least one situation in a PnP game where we instructed the mage to deliberately target a fireball centered on us. We were being swarmed by a mass of opponents who individualy did not have many hit points but were deployed around us in great numbers and were capable of damaging us with thier attacks. We figured each of us individualy had enough hit points to survive the blast while our opponents individualy did not.
Now if freindly fire didn't exist under those mechanics it would be a no brainer decision. There would never be a reason not to toss a fireball into a melee with freindlies. By having freindly fire mechanics it became a judgement call....does the benefit the fireball does by knocking out the...
I understand the goal, but I'm not sure what the flow of combat would be to allow an user interface for a fireball that wouldn't also allow you to unintentionally catch someone with the blast. I'm imagining this as a real-time game where you hit the button to cast the fireball and select the location of the fireball. At the very least, I imagine both lag and movement from enemies, allies, and neutral people getting in the way of this. Even without lag the person might still cast a spell not seeing the warrior charging into melee. With lag and people changing positioning, you might hit nothing or a bunch or your allies at times.
The only way I can...
I'm not entirely sure what combat model the Dev's will go with PFO. But essentialy I imagine that you'll pick a target (mob/player) rather then place your fireball manualy...and your UI will display some sort of overlay displaying the burst radius for the fireball...perhaps with some sort of color code hint to indicate whether freindlies are in radius.
It's possible that lag might occasionaly end up catching a freindly in the zone....but that's really no different then lag causing a healer to miss a critical heal or a tank to miss a taunt...or CC to miss freezing a boss, etc in most of todays MMO's
Yes, people will have to get used to thinking on thier feet and making quick decisions rather then spending minutes debating a decision such as in PnP....but it's a dynamic that actualy does work and is not as hard to get used to as one might think. Look at some of the more tactical FPS style games (WWII Online and I've heard Planetside have some rather in depth tactics) or some of the better RTS games....or even something like Mount & Blade.
They all are pretty decent tacticaly....but combat isn't really much slower (if at all) then the typical fantasy MMO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
On the topic of incentivizing group play...
Yes. Do this.
EQ2 already has a similar mechanic.
Solo: decent XP.
Group of 2: Slightly better.
Full group of six: Faster progress is noticable.
Full group of six in a "dungeon": Optimum experience, fastest progress.
Notice that solo play still gets decent XP?
I prefer a solo play style, in taht I have time to play when I have time to play. I do not want to rely on others to progress, but I'm ok with relying on others to progress faster.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
On the topic of incentivizing group play...
Yes. Do this.
EQ2 already has a similar mechanic.
Solo: decent XP.
Group of 2: Slightly better.
Full group of six: Faster progress is noticable.
Full group of six in a "dungeon": Optimum experience, fastest progress....
i'd agree with all but last: dungeon shouldn't award fastest progress. it diminishes importance of open-world. example, Warhammer Online gave large rewards for instanced battlegrounds, which left open world empty.
that, of course, if you meant instanced dungeon (where other people can't bother you). tho, i really can't see "classic" dungeons be shared. maybe that could be "themepark elements"?
I removed a post and the replies to it. Veiled insults as still insults.
Also, flag it and move on.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aion has an interesting wrinkle in this regard. There are open world "dungeons" that aren't instanced. I.e., several quests taking place in a village, encampment, cave complex, or whatever filled with elite and boss mobs. This resulted in some seriously crazy PvP in the bowels of the area for the right to fight whatever boss you happened to be in front of, or even for a mining node or quest item. It's a super contentious way to set up a zone, but it was also really fun and you *never* felt safe in those areas. Aion had factions, it might not work in an "us vs. the world" type game. However; in a PvP leaning game contention is kind of the point, right?
I hope PFO avoids using instances as much as possible, it tend to fragment the player base and makes it much less of an MMO feel.
One thing I'd like to see an MMO get away from is mechanics that automaticaly make it a bad thing for players who aren't grouped up with each other to cooperate in fighting the same mobs/bosses.
I can see the... "you have other people in the area, you might have to share the loot"... downside of having multiple groups (or multiple players not grouped) work in the same area... that makes sense in a competitive game.... but it should never be the, oh these people tagged "our boss/mob" now we can't get credit for killing him (exp/quest wise).
Essentialy you should always feel happy to see other players fighting monsters or hostile forces in your area...it makes your job easier and gives you more chance of success against them. It also shouldn't matter who killed or "tagged" a mob....as long as you were in the area and participating in some manner you should share the credit for killing the mob. What should matter is that if other people are there....you might have to share whatever material wealth is in the area with them.
That way you play off competition (i.e. some other guy will get part of the loot) with cooperation (i.e. having these folks here makes it easier to defeat these monsters, and the most important thing is that the monsters get defeated not that x group scored the first hit on them). Makes for a richer play experience and deeper consideration of how to react to others in the area.
Sometimes the enemy of your enemy can be your freind, at least in the limited context of making sure your enemy is defeated.
I believe change on a small scale that impacts events over time is good, as it still allows players to experience the major events and share experiences. If you make all the bosses one time events, then they better be few and far between the main game content that is available to everyone, otherwise some players will feel left out. I also believe you can have a system that is very detailed, but also takes a simplistic approach for others as long as there is not a big gap. For example, when crafting items, there should be a quick and dirty method, and an advanced method for those that want to spend the time. But the difference in quality should not exceed a 25 percent threshold on whatever metrics or statistics that apply to the character or item.
A great game that is fun to play brings all types of players to the table, but it is not a balance that is easily obtained. Where you may forgo this type of balance in a RPG when considering homebrew campaigns, you do not have that luxury in online games.
Otherwise, all the talk of "sandbox" versus "theme park", versus any other term, are marketing ploys in my mind, to help sell the game. A game that appeals to the masses with have a little bit of everything.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aion has an interesting wrinkle in this regard. There are open world "dungeons" that aren't instanced. I.e., several quests taking place in a village, encampment, cave complex, or whatever filled with elite and boss mobs. This resulted in some seriously crazy PvP in the bowels of the area for the right to fight whatever boss you happened to be in front of, or even for a mining node or quest item. It's a super contentious way to set up a zone, but it was also really fun and you *never* felt safe in those areas. Aion had factions, it might not work in an "us vs. the world" type game. However; in a PvP leaning game contention is kind of the point, right?I hope PFO avoids using instances as much as possible, it tend to fragment the player base and makes it much less of an MMO feel.
One thing I'd like to see an MMO get away from is mechanics that automaticaly make it a bad thing for players who aren't grouped up with each other to cooperate in fighting the same mobs/bosses.
I can see the... "you have other people in the area, you might have to share the loot"... downside of having multiple groups (or multiple players not grouped) work in the same area... that makes sense in a competitive game.... but it should never be the, oh these people tagged "our boss/mob" now we can't get credit for killing him (exp/quest wise).
Essentialy you should always feel happy to see other players fighting monsters or hostile forces in your area...it makes your job easier and gives you more chance of success against them. It also shouldn't matter who killed or "tagged" a mob....as long as you were in the area and participating in some manner you should share the credit for killing the mob. What should matter is that if other people are there....you might have to share whatever material wealth is in the area with them.
That way you play off competition (i.e. some other guy will get part of the loot) with cooperation (i.e. having these folks here makes it easier to defeat these monsters, and...
I absolutely agree, I think that is the biggest killer of realism and the story of anything resembling story in MMO's. "Please help me, this tyrinical beast is wrecking havoc on my people", get there, see someone else killing it, watch it die. OK we have to wait for it to respawn. Since you know the darn thing is going to re-appear a few minutes after you kill it, that isn't exactly very conductive to a story.
Personally as a sand box with persistance, I would rather gains for leveling not be based on "quests" that self reset for each player, but perhaps quests could be substituted with random events, that effect the entirety of your area. If progress is a skill system that levels up over time regardless of your actions, or even if it could get a bonus based on the welfare of your hometown. Thus rather then getting XP for being in the group that struck the killing blow to the dragon, instead all active players who were registered to the town gained some tangible benefit to the dragon being killed (and possibly the government of the town itself could offer some cash to the team that hunted the dragon). Throw out the repeatable tedious quest and XP system that just isn't possible to make believable or workable with a 1,000:1 or larger PC:GM ratio.
Possibly allow many random events going on that take numerous players to complete. Perhaps in a day the town could be suffering from a serious plague, workers will die and the population will drop unless X amount of herbs can be gathered or possibly picked up from a distant nation. Bandits/beasts could need to be cleared etc...
Rather then thinking individual quests, the game could focus more on big picture events that require a nation to work together. The nation itself could decide to remove people who are not contributing to the well-being of the town in some way if leaching is the fear, or it can reward those who contribute the most depending on how that town chooses it's policies.
I'm thinking a list of say 100ish random events that can hit different kingdoms on different days, might be a far more workable system to actually permit persistence, than auto resetting goals for individuals and small teams.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I absolutely agree, I think that is the biggest killer of realism and the story of anything resembling story in MMO's. "Please help me, this tyrinical beast is wrecking havoc on my people", get there, see someone else killing it, watch it die. OK we have to wait for it to respawn. Since you know the darn thing is going to re-appear a few minutes after you kill it, that isn't exactly very conductive to a story.
Oh gods yes. I'd rather see if the monster is killed, the quest is over for everyone, meaning that people will be encouraged to group up to see it die and there can be a fair bit of PC Rivalry if Bands/Guilds of Adventurers start butting heads. They can either start to spread out to try and avoid the clashes or hit each other head on, or even actively join forces into Guild Alliances and then expand out even further!
Personally as a sand box with persistance, I would rather gains for leveling not be based on "quests" that self reset for each player, but perhaps quests could be substituted with random events, that effect the entirety of your area. If progress is a skill system that levels up over time regardless of your actions, or even if it could get a bonus based on the welfare of your hometown. Thus rather then getting XP for being in the group that struck the killing blow to the dragon, instead all active players who were registered to the town gained some tangible benefit to the dragon being killed (and possibly the government of the town itself could offer some cash to the team that hunted the dragon). Throw out the repeatable tedious quest and XP system that just isn't possible to make believable or workable with a 1,000:1 or larger PC:GM ratio.
Also quite solid. While the people who did the 'work' get some benefit, the other people who signed up and made at least a token effort should also be rewarded slightly, if not in loot or XP then a minor reputation bump perhaps? You might not have been the hero that day, but the townsfolk saw you step up to the plate when the call was given, and they know they can count on you in the future.
Possibly allow many random events going on that take numerous players to complete. Perhaps in a day the town could be suffering from a serious plague, workers will die and the population will drop unless X amount of herbs can be gathered or possibly picked up from a distant nation. Bandits/beasts could need to be cleared etc...
Rather then thinking individual quests, the game could focus more on big picture events that require a nation to work together. The nation itself could decide to remove people who are not contributing to the well-being of the town in some way if leaching is the fear, or it can reward those who contribute the most depending on how that town chooses it's policies.
Nerdgasm in progress, this is awesome. Players should be contributing somehow to their society, even if it is just feeding NPC beggars are taking hires as laborers and being deputized by the Guards for a day.
On the other hand, how would the 'Nation' decide that Player X isn't 'contributing'? A tithe system? Admittedly being taxed in game raises my eyebrows, but it's not too far out of line for a developing Kingdom, and also underpins the economy of the game. Dodge your taxes, and not only will you be dodging guards and tax collectors, but if enough players start doing it, we could see a real problem with the local economy as the Kingdom is forced to raise taxes on the folk who do pay, just to keep the engine running...
I'm thinking a list of say 100ish random events that can hit different kingdoms on different days, might be a far more workable system to actually permit persistence, than auto resetting goals for individuals and small teams.
I started a thread on something similar to this, about natural disasters and seasons of plenty, but some people pointed out having to log in every day to deal with a crisis became a drag. Rather, those 100ish random events could be randomly scripted events that can open up quests or reveal otherwise unknown resource nodes or specialty vendors.
I do still pine for the idea of random forest fires, minor earth-quakes, Drake migrations and roaming baccahaln revels as well as days of perfect weather and bounty, but the risk of players logging in 12 hours after their last time online and finding that the game, rather than another Player, has decided "Dohoho! Time for a Tornado!" and has flattened New Sheplandville while they were away sort of kills that idea dead.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I started a thread on something similar to this, about natural disasters and seasons of plenty, but some people pointed out having to log in every day to deal with a crisis became a drag. Rather, those 100ish random events could be randomly scripted events that can open up quests or reveal otherwise unknown resource nodes or specialty vendors.
I do still pine for the idea of random forest fires, minor earth-quakes, Drake migrations and roaming baccahaln revels as well as days of perfect weather and bounty, but the risk of players logging in 12 hours after their last time online and finding that the game, rather than another Player, has decided "Dohoho! Time for a Tornado!" and has flattened New Sheplandville while they were away sort of kills that idea dead.
well perhaps this is for that thread, but I would imagine as long as no 1 person is necessary to deal with said threat, I don't really see the issue. Earthquakes to an extent I can see the issue, if you are requiring people to protect their own buildings, but a town, say 500 people live in the town, 300 of them don't sign on that day, as long as 200 of them can take care of the problem and protect the whole town. it is workable. Now if you have a town where you don't expect to have hardly anyone sign on more then once a week... well your town should be taken by a rival group anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For me it feels like the developers of standard MMO's are constantly bombarded from users who cry out when they have made a PC build choice that isn't good.
For some reason the developers are then forced to streamline everything so that you can't go wrong...then just to make everyone happy they also have to erase every difference that the classes had...or heck...lets just make one class to rule them all...
For me D&D is too make your choices and then stand for them...be it good or bad...we don't play a bard to be good in battle...we do it because we want to be cool...
Nobody is asking for the Labours of Hercules here. We're asking for gameplay a notch or three above what current MMOs serve us.
I get your point but your phrasing turns me off a little.
I am asking for gameplay that has very little in common with MMO's of today.
No notch up or down. Just different.
(I didn't say indie...but we're getting warmer now...)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree, Superfly (god, there's a word I never thought I'd use again .... SUPERFLY!), but what we want is probably not what we're going to get, due to programming, funding and other limiting factors.
If we ask for something out of the ball-park money wise or that would require coding that would make the programmers' heads explode, we'll simply be ignored. If we don't ask for anything different, we'll just end up with something that's bland and boring. It comes down to trying to phrase our ideas in a manner that's both understandable to all and sundry and, arguably most important, in a manner that is realistically doable.
I want full modification potential of the races, landscape, buildings, weapons and armor. I want to be able to add tattoos and piercings later in the game if I so wish, and to be able to pick and design a variety of ornamentation to go on everything I own.
I'll be satisfied with being able to choose a small number of skins for each 'grade' of weapons and armor and an even smaller selection of furniture and building materials. I will naturally want more, but I will also be paying for the full game and all the mod-cons to get as many of those as I can.
TANGENT
Going off on a tangent here, but would anyone rage too hard if paying Customers got options for a slightly stronger build than free-to-play Customers? Free-to-Play get 15-point builds and Paid Customers get 20-point builds? Or faster leveling or some other form of reward for 'supporting' the Game, as it were? Or does this lead to a two-level Player Field here, in which Free-To-Play get the Cheap Seats and Paying Customers get First Class in terms of playability (5 more points does not seem like much on paper, but we all know in game this can be a hideous amount of power in the hands of a Min-Maxer).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For me it feels like the developers of standard MMO's are constantly bombarded from users who cry out when they have made a PC build choice that isn't good.
For some reason the developers are then forced to streamline everything so that you can't go wrong...then just to make everyone happy they also have to erase every difference that the classes had...or heck...lets just make one class to rule them all...
This is actually a good observation. This has happened.
Don't know if it's completely unavoidable, in any MMO really, seeing as how if you don't keep your subscriber base happy, they will leave.In the effort of making a video game, business decisions still need to be made. The idea is to not only make a game people want to play, but one people will pay to play.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Nobody is asking for the Labours of Hercules here. We're asking for gameplay a notch or three above what current MMOs serve us.
I get your point but your phrasing turns me off a little.
I am asking for gameplay that has very little in common with MMO's of today.
No notch up or down. Just different.
(I didn't say indie...but we're getting warmer now...)
I 100% agree. I am not asking for anything harder than any other MMO. If I decide to be a crafter and want to craft for new players...I can use local materials in an area already devoid of monsters, that sounds pretty casual to me. I could even travel protected roads and sell my wares in several locations...all in safety (except for the occasional PvP raid which will probably be inevitable...and well within the lore of the area). This sounds really casual to me, go out and harvest...come back and craft, then play merchant and hawk my wares, all at my own pace.
As you say...different. Current games entertain via "content" usually instantiated as missions or quests. For me I hope the mechanics of the game allow players to decide their own destiny and follow their own play style. It should also empower them to create their own content, read missions and quests, for others to enjoy. This reduces the amount of content the devs have to implement and allows them to focus instead on the mechanics, which will further empower the players and provide them with the options necessary for this style of game. Furthermore, this allows the devs to focus on a rich world...since the players themselves would create the majority of content (for themselves through free choice of goals and for others through distributable missions).
If they provided the above without friendly fire, meaningful darkness, day/night cycles, slow travel, relative distances, limits to local chat channels, default anonymity or even the need to count arrows, I would be happy. This, in addition to an actual "living, evolving ecosystem" would be much different than anything currently available. Any of the options they also implement would just be icing on an already yummy cake.
I stand corrected, not harder or more challenging, only different in a way that lets one choose their play style...which would include more challenging.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just wanted to share an amusing story that illustrates how different people enjoy different things. My wife finally got to sit down today to start her Skyrim game. She is...umm...catching fireflies. She is loving the game and only wants to collect bugs. I...well...was not sure how to advise her on progression, but if it is entertaining her...
I suppose allowing progression of an alchemical reagent harvesting skill would have made this the perfect game for her (she is not such a fan of fighting stuff...but she would love to tag along with someone who would want to fight stuff and not harvest). Either way, she is happy catching her bugs and searching the caves for glowing mushrooms.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For me it feels like the developers of standard MMO's are constantly bombarded from users who cry out when they have made a PC build choice that isn't good.
For some reason the developers are then forced to streamline everything so that you can't go wrong...then just to make everyone happy they also have to erase every difference that the classes had...or heck...lets just make one class to rule them all...
As to the first part of your post:
Making each character option that is presented as viable roughly as strong as each other character option that is presented as viable is just good game design. Your customers have every right to complain if you tell them "Pick from these classes, they're all awesome!" and then find out later that one class leaves the others in the dust (or worse, that one class just sucks compared to all the others).
As to the second part of your post:
Lay off the hyperbole. I don't know of any major game in which the classes do not contain meaningful differences.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For me it feels like the developers of standard MMO's are constantly bombarded from users who cry out when they have made a PC build choice that isn't good.
For some reason the developers are then forced to streamline everything so that you can't go wrong...then just to make everyone happy they also have to erase every difference that the classes had...or heck...lets just make one class to rule them all...
As to the first part of your post:
Making each character option that is presented as viable roughly as strong as each other character option that is presented as viable is just good game design. Your customers have every right to complain if you tell them "Pick from these classes, they're all awesome!" and then find out later that one class leaves the others in the dust (or worse, that one class just sucks compared to all the others).
As to the second part of your post:
Lay off the hyperbole. I don't know of any major game in which the classes do not contain meaningful differences.
Assuming it's a class based system I'll actualy agree with Scott in that each class be roughly as viable as one another. When it comes to skill based or build your own style system.... or class based system where you are picking from a menu of customization options (such as feats in D&D) all bets are off though.
It should be entirely possible to pick feats that don't complement each other well or don't mesh with your class or play style well. For me that is part of the "game" portion of the game....where the player is making character build decisions...and those decisions could be either good or bad...just like any other decision that involves strategy in game play.