Goblin Squad Member
|
I believe death penalties were introduced to increase the PvE difficulty so you don't agro too many mobs, but I guess it servers no purpose when your fighting players (it's challenging enough).
Death penalties existed from the start in very early online multiplayer PvE games (think MUD's/MUSH's like Gemstone3 by Simutronics) for the very same reason they existed in many PnP Campaigns to give players a reason to want to avoid death, to make them CARE about it, to instill a sense of Drama about it... to differntiate between victory and defeat...to make using strategy and playing well meaningfull and to make players want to work together.
It also avoided the "thousand blind monkeys hammering away on a keyboard will eventualy figure out how to write a novel" approach to gameplay that is often symptomatic in games that don't have them.
It was not about drawing too much "aggro"... those games didn't really even have much of a concept of "aggro"... you entered a room, the mobs in that room randomly attacked the players in it...that's pretty much it.
Note that most of todays PvP based games actualy DO have rather significant "Death Penalties" for thier context. Thinking about games like the Battlefield series (if we look at non-MMO's). What happens when you die.... you loose your position on the battlefield, which you may have worked rather hard to get into, you get sent back to an uncontested spawn point which is likely some distance away from where you were fighting...and is in a spot known to the enemy....and you get put on a short time-out before you can respawn. Those are actualy very significant penalties in terms of the game...since it's a short duration, match based, team game of territory control. You're being out of action for a short period of time and moved back further into your territory are rather significant penalties in regards your team winning the game.
The designers of those games don't need to impliment any greater penalties then that...they wouldn't make sense in that context. They aren't RPG's...so they don't want you to care about your character...you don't have one. The world isn't persistant...so nothing that happens can or would have an impact beyond the end of the match...and the "thousand blind monkey" factor is not an issue since you are playing intelligent opponents not an AI that you can learn the "trick" of beating.
In contrast in many of todays PVE Themepark MMO's, "death" has become so meaningless that it has now become an accepted gameplay strategy to "beat" certain types of content. For example...want to avoid a good chunk of the monsters in the instance...jump off the cliff and die rather then take the "slow" route down...self-rez...little to no penalty....go right to the "Boss" encounter to get at the "Phat Loot" or complete the Quest that was your entire purpose for doing the instance in the first place. To me, that's just plain wrong. YMMV.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I 100% agree with you Onishi, but I think it is also important to mention that, as Mel said, none of us have access to market research...and even if we did, it could always be wrong. Likewise, I agree many ideas have been dropped from previous games...but it is possible that these features were dropped not because they were an inherently bad idea, but rather because the devs could not get it implemented in a way that was perfect for their game. It does not follow that these ideas could not work, and even work well, in a different game.
As contributors to this project, in our limited way, I think it is important that we not discard or destroy any ideas, rather figure out how to make them better...just in case Goblinworks decides to use them. For instance, in a discussion about Friendly Fire, we should not even be discussing whether or not to have it...that is not our decision. Instead, we should be pointing out our concerns and trying to think up ways to address those concerns.
I was very impressed by the conversation on crafting. While I am not a fan of the mini-game idea...it is not for me to say "no, just no". Rather, it was my place to point out what I did not like and offer solutions on how those concerns could be addressed. I could not think of any solutions to my concerns, therefore I could not contribute constructively, therefore I stayed out of it.
Take another example, the default anonymity...it was an offered solution to an issue raised about how MMORPGs and P&PRPGs are different and about apparent telepathy via non-local chat channels (since we are trying to make a better MMORPG here, and I did not bring up the issues). In MMOs people can see your name and usually class/level floating over your head, to many who RP, this is a major violation because it is forced metagaming. Likewise, there is no rationale beside convenience for non-local chat channels. These concerns were raised and I offered a solution. I never claimed it was a perfect solution nor that it should be implemented...I was exploring the idea as a solution to those issues. Constructive feedback would have entailed not only pointing out the criticisms (which some did), but offering solutions. Simply discarding the solution once again leaves the initial concerns about metagaming and telepathy unresolved...which might be a game breaker for others (it is not for me).
But, coming full circle...what may be a game killing concern for some, may not be for others. Case in point, who is PFO target audience? PFO is a RPG and there are no RP-PvP focused games that I know of, with mechanics specifically aimed at interesting and empowering that crowd. If the idea of forced anonymity (which seems like a "high RP" mechanic to me) is an inconvenience to non-RPers, I am not too concerned. Saying they should drop it because it is an inconvenience is like saying we should drop PvP in EVE because it is an inconvenience to non-PvPers...if PFO goes with an RP focus.
I have to admit though, the idea of forced anonymity was initially only an idea to discuss, but it is growing on me, for the very reasons others have pointed out that it is not viable. I would like the ability to lie about who I am...kill a guard and put on his uniform to sneak in a place, pretend to be a courier, etc. Players would have to think up creative solution on how to identify official couriers, just as they had to in RL. But...once again, I am not demanding forced anonymity be implemented...I am only exploring the idea.
And, I am not trying to restart the debate on default anonymity here, just using it as an example to illustrate my point.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
....
Bottom line, people should keep throwing ideas out, yet also acknowledge that not every idea is great, not every idea will fall into the realm of positive change, and not every idea fits in with the things planned that we don't even know about. Do not consider it a personal attack, nor consider it always "Well because this idea is unpopular everyone must want a WoW clone" etc... That is the point of discussion, Ideas are to be posted, others are supposed to either expand upon them, or point out the holes within them.
I actualy don't think we disagree at all in that regards. Basicaly what I believe I'm doing is trying to work within the bounds of what we do know. Filling in the blanks (which may not even be fully settled on by Goblinworks yet) with what I think might work, might be interesting or might be a good fit....obviously colored by my personal preferences...and offering criticisms where I think they may be warranted.
You are absolutely right...just because WOW does something is not a reason not to do it....but neither is it a reason to do it.
Note I'm glad that you pointed out the dark/vision obstruction example. That discussion actualy caused me to modify my position due to the technical considerations. Rather then "Lets make real darkness" which I still think would be cool, but admit is probably not practical in this situation. I've gone to "Are there some workable things we can mechanicaly that simulate some of the effects darkness would have."? I think that position does dovetail with the #3 goal... I mean Goloreon does have a real night not just a pseudo-night correct? Or am I misunderstanding something about the setting?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Note I'm glad that you pointed out the dark/vision obstruction example. That discussion actualy caused me to modify my position due to the technical considerations. Rather then "Lets make real darkness" which I still think would be cool, but admit is probably not practical in this situation. I've gone to "Are there some workable things we can mechanicaly that simulate some of the effects darkness would have."? I think that position does dovetail with the #3 goal... I mean Goloreon does have a real night not just a pseudo-night correct? Or am I misunderstanding something about the setting?
I agree and have likewise been convinced. I am not convinced however that there are no possible solutions that would enable the limitations of darkness, only that we have not thought of them...and until we do, we should think of other solutions such as mechanical limitations.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I already brought Farmville as an example to point out that millions of subscribers/players does not make a game necessarily interesting.
And I'm telling you that it does. Or, at the very least, makes that game compelling. All I'm telling you to do is don't ignore that.
Does wow and farmville provide fun ? Yes it does, but it's a kind of fun that's addictive and unhealthy and I'm talking here about people that spend to much time playing these games.
There will be people who spend too much time playing PFO. This sub-forum is a glass house in that regard, so put the stones down.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It appears Scott is espousing the virtues of the standard MMO (and, as he quite rightly points out, there is a huge popularity to it and it does cater to the vast majority of players) while others would like to see something original in its implementation despite the likelihood of its financial unsustainability.
I'll clarify that I'm only espousing the virtues of popular MMOs as far as they remain relevant to the sort of game the designers have proposed creating. I'm not here to try and get PFO made into a WoW-clone (whatever that is); I want it to be unique and compelling, and I think a lot of people are sort of running wild with the "unique" side of that equation and not really considering how compelling the play experience will be as a result.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm quite sure SWTOR will fail from 3 reasons:
1) They spent way too much money and the income needs to be very large to turn into profit
They're not going to have any problem whatsoever with this. Their pre-orders were through the roof, and the game has enough content to keep even casual players entertained (and subscribing) for months.
2) Players will burn through the content like there's no tomorrow and a lot of players will finish everything in 1-2 months. And they released the game during holidays when people are in vacation.
I've been playing pretty heavily since before the game was released, two weeks ago. In that time, I've barely reached the halfway point in a single class's progression. I'm sure it's not even the halfway point, time-wise, because gaining levels becomes increasingly difficult (in terms of XP necessary) as you level.
But we'll say, conservatively, that I'm halfway through one class in two weeks. In a month, I will have completed that class.
There are eight classes in the game, each with its own unique mechanics, story, crew, starship, and missions. You are playing through a different game each time you create a character in a new class.
At the rate I'm going (which is, again, a pretty good clip and probably faster than your typical casual player), it will take me eight months to finish all of the stories the game has to offer.
This says nothing of the end-game content, or PvP content, or even any of the Flashpoints along the way (which I haven't done yet). I'm sure that the total amount of content in the game at release is enough to justify a year's worth of unique experiences, even without the inevitable content that will be added via content patches and expansions.
I don't think you really have any idea what you're talking about.
3) And when the voice overred content is finished, players will have to resort to repeatable activities like raids, arenas, etc but these are similar to WoW and people will get bored fast.
Just like they got bored of end-game content in WoW, right?
I'm being sarcastic. People play end-game content in WoW for years.
This is why I'm saying PvE is not good for long term play, because like any good story or movie, it needs to end at some point. If it doesn't end it will be boring, and if it ends people want more. But to make more, you need to spend more time/money on PvE. It's a very vicious cycle.
Yes, an extremely vicious cycle. So vicious that participating in it nets you millions of dollars. How terrible.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It is clear you only see the dollars.
Not at all. You mentioned a "vicious cycle", and it was unclear how, exactly, it was vicious.
I mean, is it vicious because end-game content is bad, or boring? No, clearly a lot of people enjoy end-game content very much.
Is it vicious because you can't make any money on it? No, WoW is insanely profitable.
I think the only reason you're calling it "vicious" is because you personally don't like end-game content or the idea of core progression.
Also, it kind of bothers me that you're having trouble seeing the connection between "This game makes millions of dollars," and "This game must have something compelling to offer."
Please stop posting in my thread.
When you stop posting anything worth replying to, I'll leave your thread alone. But as long as you (or anyone) posts something I want to reply to, you're stuck with me.
It's not personal, it's just that everything you post is backed up by financial reasons with a complete tunnel vision for everything else.
Mmmm, nope, I don't think so.
I think you just don't like the things that I am saying because they make your argument look kind of silly.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@lungdisc, Your opinions are valued, please keep sharing them. We are all trying to make this endeavor turn out better, some people are just more...certain in their opinions about what will work and not than others. Even if they do not agree with you, just remember there is probably a huge silent majority here reading...that may very well agree with everything you say.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@lungdisc, Your opinions are valued, please keep sharing them. We are all trying to make this endeavor turn out better, some people are just more...certain in their opinions about what will work and not than others. Even if they do not agree with you, just remember there is probably a huge silent majority here reading...that may very well agree with everything you say.
Actually, I'm pretty sure most of what we're seeing is the vocal minority pushing for their sort of wild and crazy views.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This may be true, but we are vocal due to being underserved.@lungdisc, Your opinions are valued, please keep sharing them. We are all trying to make this endeavor turn out better, some people are just more...certain in their opinions about what will work and not than others. Even if they do not agree with you, just remember there is probably a huge silent majority here reading...that may very well agree with everything you say.Actually, I'm pretty sure most of what we're seeing is the vocal minority pushing for their sort of wild and crazy views.
A fair point, but I think the danger in that is that the vocal minority, lacking experience with the things they haven't been served, has things that they think they want without having any clue as to whether they actually want those things and all of the consequences thereof.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@lungdisc, Your opinions are valued, please keep sharing them. We are all trying to make this endeavor turn out better, some people are just more...certain in their opinions about what will work and not than others. Even if they do not agree with you, just remember there is probably a huge silent majority here reading...that may very well agree with everything you say.
I find it a more than a tad hypocritical to remind lungdisc that their opinions are valued and encourage them to continue sharing them right after they told someone to stop posting on this thread.
A fair point, but I think the danger in that is that the vocal minority, lacking experience with the things they haven't been served, has things that they think they want without having any clue as to whether they actually want those things and all of the consequences thereof.This may be true, but we are vocal due to being underserved.@lungdisc, Your opinions are valued, please keep sharing them. We are all trying to make this endeavor turn out better, some people are just more...certain in their opinions about what will work and not than others. Even if they do not agree with you, just remember there is probably a huge silent majority here reading...that may very well agree with everything you say.Actually, I'm pretty sure most of what we're seeing is the vocal minority pushing for their sort of wild and crazy views.
First off Scott, let's not forget that you're a vocal minority here as well. That being said, this vocal minority is proposing ideas that they think would bring something to an MMORPG, not necessarily PFO. If the Dev's think it's an interesting idea they may spend some time implementing it into the alpha build where it will be test, adjusted and either approved or rejected. The only way we find out if things work or don't is by trying and testing them. You often come off as "if it's tried and tested" in other MMO's it = good. If it hasn't been in an MMO or you no longer find (like vision limiting night/darkness) in an MMO since the introduction of WoW it = bad.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@lungdisc, Your opinions are valued, please keep sharing them. We are all trying to make this endeavor turn out better, some people are just more...certain in their opinions about what will work and not than others. Even if they do not agree with you, just remember there is probably a huge silent majority here reading...that may very well agree with everything you say.I find it a more than a tad hypocritical to remind lungdisc that their opinions are valued and encourage them to continue sharing them right after they told someone to stop posting on this thread.
I would say the same thing to SB if I feared he might leave due to what he might observe as griefing from a troll...including in the case where he was asked to leave a thread. Contrary to how I might be perceived and the fact that I do not often, if ever, agree with his manner of discourse, I do value SB as a member of this community. He speaks from a certain perspective that should be heard. However, as I have already pointed out, SB seem to have many more levels in "forum chat defense" than I do, and I have no fear that anyone in this forum can run him off.
I think the danger in that is that the vocal minority, lacking experience with the things they haven't been served, has things that they think they want without having any clue as to whether they actually want those things and all of the consequences thereof.
I have actually considered this point since you have used it several times and I concluded it is either true, or it is a fallacy. Either way, it does not support your position. To explain, if it is true for the stating, then the reciprocal would also be:
I think the danger in that is that those arguing against the "vocal minority", having experience only with the things they have been served, have things that they think they want simply because it is what know, without having any clue as to whether they actually disagree with the ideas advocated and all of the consequences thereof.
I will admit your point might be right, I might not enjoy the game as I have suggest it might be, but I do know I enjoy my P&PRPG more than any MMO I have ever played...and all of my suggestions would fit right into my P&PRPG game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A fair point, but I think the danger in that is that the vocal minority, lacking experience with the things they haven't been served, has things that they think they want without having any clue as to whether they actually want those things and all of the consequences thereof.
Not to mention, it is the consequences I do want and am designing for.
I don't care about darkness or slow travel, I do want people to build roads, towns/cities, and inns in a manner that looks familiar to me, the player so me, the character can understand the rationales...and these things came to be IRL because of the existence of night, a time when it was difficult/unsafe to travel, and the requirement for slow travel.
I don't care if people have to use torches or arrows, but I do care that that market is available for those who actually want to craft and sell these items...as was mentioned elsewhere, in EVE ammo is one of the places beginning crafters can actually sell their wares.
Etc...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
First off Scott, let's not forget that you're a vocal minority here as well.
I'm vocal. I don't believe my thinking is in the minority, however.
That being said, this vocal minority is proposing ideas that they think would bring something to an MMORPG, not necessarily PFO. If the Dev's think it's an interesting idea they may spend some time implementing it into the alpha build where it will be test, adjusted and either approved or rejected. The only way we find out if things work or don't is by trying and testing them. You often come off as "if it's tried and tested" in other MMO's it = good. If it hasn't been in an MMO or you no longer find (like vision limiting night/darkness) in an MMO since the introduction of WoW it = bad.
Actually, it's more along the lines of "This idea is bad and here is why, and oh by the way everyone knows it's bad which is why the big players won't touch it with a ten foot pole."
It's not bad because other MMOs don't do it. It's bad, and that's why other MMOs don't do it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I will admit your point might be right, I might not enjoy the game as I have suggest it might be, but I do know I enjoy my P&PRPG more than any MMO I have ever played...and all of my suggestions would fit right into my P&PRPG game.
And that's the dangerous part - people like certain things from their tabletop game, and come in here with an attitude of "It worked well in tabletop play, it should work well in a video game, too!"
That's not a good place to start. Instead, start from a position of, "This worked well in tabletop play, but will probably not transfer perfectly to a video game medium. It should be analyzed and either discarded or modified in order to best serve the medium."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Not to mention, it is the consequences I do want and am designing for.
I know that. I'm saying that you think you want those consequences, but you don't actually have any experience with them. You might think that a particular feature sounds cool, but later discover that you hate it after having to deal with the hassle it creates month after month.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
First off Scott, let's not forget that you're a vocal minority here as well.I'm vocal. I don't believe my thinking is in the minority, however.
That being said, this vocal minority is proposing ideas that they think would bring something to an MMORPG, not necessarily PFO. If the Dev's think it's an interesting idea they may spend some time implementing it into the alpha build where it will be test, adjusted and either approved or rejected. The only way we find out if things work or don't is by trying and testing them. You often come off as "if it's tried and tested" in other MMO's it = good. If it hasn't been in an MMO or you no longer find (like vision limiting night/darkness) in an MMO since the introduction of WoW it = bad.Actually, it's more along the lines of "This idea is bad and here is why, and oh by the way everyone knows it's bad which is why the big players won't touch it with a ten foot pole."
It's not bad because other MMOs don't do it. It's bad, and that's why other MMOs don't do it.
no idea is bad of itself. the big boys are not putting some ideas into their games because they want to have as many subs as possible. but just because idea doesn't work in some games, it doesn't mean it doesn't work at all.
there has been niche products in every product and service imaginable. being a niche product is not bad; it simply means that product is targeted at specific audience.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
no idea is bad of itself.
I don't really believe that.
I don't think you really believe it, either.
the big boys are not putting some ideas into their games because they want to have as many subs as possible.
Yes, some design decisions are motivated by an eye for subscription volume.
Others are motivated by an eye for producing a game that is not awful.
but just because idea doesn't work in some games, it doesn't mean it doesn't work at all.
Certainly. When I criticize an idea, it's because I don't think it will work well in PFO - at least, as far as we understand it at this point.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...
I don't think you really believe it, either.
stop doing that. i'm fine with you having your opinion. have decency to allow me have my own. otherwise, why bother discussing anything with me? you can't know what i believe or not. you can only know why i say. either go with that, or let it go.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I will admit your point might be right, I might not enjoy the game as I have suggest it might be, but I do know I enjoy my P&PRPG more than any MMO I have ever played...and all of my suggestions would fit right into my P&PRPG game.And that's the dangerous part - people like certain things from their tabletop game, and come in here with an attitude of "It worked well in tabletop play, it should work well in a video game, too!"
That's not a good place to start. Instead, start from a position of, "This worked well in tabletop play, but will probably not transfer perfectly to a video game medium. It should be analyzed and either discarded or modified in order to best serve the medium."
Once again you are arguing with a statement not made. No where did I say because an idea works well in my P&PRPG, it should work well in an MMO.
|
It appears Scott is espousing the virtues of the standard MMO (and, as he quite rightly points out, there is a huge popularity to it and it does cater to the vast majority of players) while others would like to see something original in its implementation despite the likelihood of its financial unsustainability.I'll clarify that I'm only espousing the virtues of popular MMOs as far as they remain relevant to the sort of game the designers have proposed creating. I'm not here to try and get PFO made into a WoW-clone (whatever that is); I want it to be unique and compelling, and I think a lot of people are sort of running wild with the "unique" side of that equation and not really considering how compelling the play experience will be as a result.
Absolutely - and I probably could have worded it better (of course, in the context of the discussion, I think it was more a problem with inferring than implying). I wasn't suggesting that you are a "WoW fanboi" as someone else put it... simply that you were pointing out that what works in WoW works for a reason (compelling). Your clarification is exactly how I understood your position so sorry if I contributed to anyone else's misunderstanding of your purpose. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@lungdisc, Your opinions are valued, please keep sharing them. We are all trying to make this endeavor turn out better, some people are just more...certain in their opinions about what will work and not than others. Even if they do not agree with you, just remember there is probably a huge silent majority here reading...that may very well agree with everything you say.Actually, I'm pretty sure most of what we're seeing is the vocal minority pushing for their sort of wild and crazy views.
No offense Scott, but that's the rhetorical equivalent of asking someone if they've "stopped beating thier wife yet".
It's an all too standard tactic on MMO forums to label someone as a "vocal minority" or "niche" in order dismiss thier arguements or opinions without addressing them on thier merits. It's pretty much an ad hominem. Furthermore it's usualy done without any data to support it. On any given issue, unless you have survey or poll data to back it up...you really don't know what the majority or minority opinions are since they are based on the constituancy being addressed.
Remember that Goblinworks are not making a generic MMO. They are making a very specific MMO designed for a specific target audience. It's entirely possible that you don't fit well into that audience or that your preferences ARE in fact the minority ones for the audience the game is targeted at.
I think we'd all be a bit better served if everyone dropped the "your opinions are minority or niche tactics"... at the very least unless we have a better understanding of the target audience for PFO and perhaps some community poll or survey results.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First off Scott, let's not forget that you're a vocal minority here as well.I'm vocal. I don't believe my thinking is in the minority, however.
That being said, this vocal minority is proposing ideas that they think would bring something to an MMORPG, not necessarily PFO. If the Dev's think it's an interesting idea they may spend some time implementing it into the alpha build where it will be test, adjusted and either approved or rejected. The only way we find out if things work or don't is by trying and testing them. You often come off as "if it's tried and tested" in other MMO's it = good. If it hasn't been in an MMO or you no longer find (like vision limiting night/darkness) in an MMO since the introduction of WoW it = bad.Actually, it's more along the lines of "This idea is bad and here is why, and oh by the way everyone knows it's bad which is why the big players won't touch it with a ten foot pole."
It's not bad because other MMOs don't do it. It's bad, and that's why other MMOs don't do it.
The "big players" don't touch certain ideas for a variety of reasons, many of which don't have anything to do with thier merits...
- It may be because they are not a good fit for thier particular game designs or audiences.
- It may be due to the fact that they (or thier investors) as risk averse so it's difficult for them to impliment ideas that don't have a long track record behind them because if a game performs poorly while following a "common wisdom" formula they can blame market forces...if a game performs poorly while trying something innovative, the blame will fall on them.
- It may be because many of the decision makers in those big houses don't have any game development background...thier backgrounds are in things like finance or producing mountwash for Proctor & Gamble...and the marching orders they give their Development teams boil down to "Copy WoW but don't LOOK like you're trying to copy them too closely..we don't want any legal trouble."
It also may be the case that you are being rather selective in what the "big players" are doing....since at least 1 big player, EVE, is doing some of the things that you say no one does....and is being more succesfull then the majority of MMO's that aren't breaking those rules.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A lot of the suggestions Scott opposes have been tried in games before. Ultima Online and EverQuest grew directly out of the thousands of MUDs that came before it. Things that work in tabletop, or small population MUDs, don't always work in massive games. When the GM to active player ratio is small, a GM can put the brakes on abuses and bizarre rule interactions. When the system has to stand on its own.
So for any suggestion, ask two questions:
1) What is the worst way this can be abused? Even if you suppose that the Internet A~@$*%$ Theory only actually applies to 0.1% of people, that's still thousands of players trying to be jerks in your game. Don't make it easy for them to screw with other people.
2) Will this task be annoying and frustrating if you have to do it every day for months and months? A lot of realism is tedious and boring. Even stuff you might do in a table top game is often hand waved after a while.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I will admit your point might be right, I might not enjoy the game as I have suggest it might be, but I do know I enjoy my P&PRPG more than any MMO I have ever played...and all of my suggestions would fit right into my P&PRPG game.And that's the dangerous part - people like certain things from their tabletop game, and come in here with an attitude of "It worked well in tabletop play, it should work well in a video game, too!"
That's not a good place to start. Instead, start from a position of, "This worked well in tabletop play, but will probably not transfer perfectly to a video game medium. It should be analyzed and either discarded or modified in order to best serve the medium."
Actualy Scott...you are making a false assumption that we haven't had experience of any of these ideas at work in other games...and seen them work well.
Your definition of MMO's to draw examples from seems constricted entirely to constricted to WoW as far as I can tell.
For example, WWII Online uses darkness as an integral game play component...and it works very well there. That is not to argue that it would work equaly as well in PFO.... but the idea that no MMO's use it or that we don't have an experience of implimentations of such mechanics are patently false.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Not to mention, it is the consequences I do want and am designing for.I know that. I'm saying that you think you want those consequences, but you don't actually have any experience with them. You might think that a particular feature sounds cool, but later discover that you hate it after having to deal with the hassle it creates month after month.
Please forgive us for not accepting that you know our tastes better then we do ourselves.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A lot of the suggestions Scott opposes have been tried in games before. Ultima Online and EverQuest grew directly out of the thousands of MUDs that came before it. Things that work in tabletop, or small population MUDs, don't always work in massive games. When the GM to active player ratio is small, a GM can put the brakes on abuses and bizarre rule interactions. When the system has to stand on its own.
So for any suggestion, ask two questions:
1) What is the worst way this can be abused? Even if you suppose that the Internet A~+&+++ Theory only actually applies to 0.1% of people, that's still thousands of players trying to be jerks in your game. Don't make it easy for them to screw with other people.
2) Will this task be annoying and frustrating if you have to do it every day for months and months? A lot of realism is tedious and boring. Even stuff you might do in a table top game is often hand waved after a while.
Deinol,
Those are well put points. Two things to consider though...
1) Just because something has the potential to be abused is not an arguement for not doing it at all...were that the case we wouldn't have ANY games or online services at all...or an internet for that matter. It's an arguement that mechanisms need to be in place to deal with the potential abuse.
2) Annoyance and Frustration are very often subjective though. For instance many people consider walking an "annoyance" while other consider it a pastime and may try to do it every day for enjoyment. Some people are taking thier own subjective annoyances and projecting them out as universal preferences which MAY or MAY NOT hold true for the intended audience of PFO as a whole.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There's a difference between eliminating all abuse and limiting potential abuse. I maintain that "friendly fire" adds a lot of potential abuse for very little gain.
That's a fair opinion....however from my perspective the gain is rather substantial....and since PFO seems to be following the FFA PvP model...I don't see much potential for abuse that isn't already there.
How do you distinguish between freind and foe in a FFA PvP game when every other player character is a potential enemy at any potential moment in the game?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How do you know who is a friend? People in your group or guild. That was easy.
I know Eve has friendly fire potential. But Eve is all ranged. You never need to get that close to an enemy ship. Pathfinder will presumably have a fair number of melee characters. But this isn't really the place to debate it, there is a whole other thread for that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...
I don't think you really believe it, either.
stop doing that. i'm fine with you having your opinion. have decency to allow me have my own. otherwise, why bother discussing anything with me? you can't know what i believe or not. you can only know why i say. either go with that, or let it go.
Fine.
"You should kill everyone."
That's an idea.
According to you, it's not bad. I'm telling you to kill everyone, but I guess it's not a bad idea, right?
Tell me that you still believe no idea is bad.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No offense Scott, but that's the rhetorical equivalent of asking someone if they've "stopped beating thier wife yet".
It's an all too standard tactic on MMO forums to label someone as a "vocal minority" or "niche" in order dismiss thier arguements or opinions without addressing them on thier merits.
Not when they've all but told you straight up that they're habitual wife-beaters.
I constantly hear people saying "I want this feature, and because I'm in the minority no one caters to me!"
You can't have it both ways. You're either a minority or not.
Also, no one is ignoring any of the "merits" of your arguments. If we were, you might have a point, but I think people have done a pretty good job of scrutinizing your arguments up and down.
Besides, you're really going to take me to task for labeling KitNyx for being part of a vocal minority, but say nothing to KitNyx himself? Remember, he was the one who said that lungdisc's (and presumably KitNyx's too) opinions were supported by the "huge silent majority," which in turn means that he believes those who disagree with lungdisc to be part of a vocal minority. No one was talking about minorities or majorities until he brought them to the table, and I'm the one you decide to take to task over it? You're going after me because you don't like my opinions, and ignoring KitNyx because you agree with him more often.
Either drop it, or go after KitNyx for the same. Anything else and you will deserve to be labeled a hypocrite.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Please forgive us for not accepting that you know our tastes better then we do ourselves.Not to mention, it is the consequences I do want and am designing for.I know that. I'm saying that you think you want those consequences, but you don't actually have any experience with them. You might think that a particular feature sounds cool, but later discover that you hate it after having to deal with the hassle it creates month after month.
You're forgiven.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How do you know who is a friend? People in your group or guild. That was easy.
I know Eve has friendly fire potential. But Eve is all ranged. You never need to get that close to an enemy ship. Pathfinder will presumably have a fair number of melee characters. But this isn't really the place to debate it, there is a whole other thread for that.
Geeze why does this arguement need to keep coming up, first off FFA PVP is a rediculous term to use. Free for all implies nobody sided with anybody. IE mass carnage and blind mass murders. Obviously running a city is a complicated task that will require large teams to be performed, back in the topic about this, I already explained a system that more or less covered every possibility I could think of for determining friends from foes now this issue is not a technical one but a practical one, and this whole discussion is meaningless right now because depending on he combat system, the PVE, how sieges work etc... friendly fire can do anything from making melees unusable in PVP and making wizards useless in PVE. To actually offering a good balance. Without even a glimse at the system in the game, we need far more information to fairly argue this topic and really should let it drop.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Besides, you're really going to take me to task for labeling KitNyx for being part of a vocal minority, but say nothing to KitNyx himself? Remember, he was the one who said that lungdisc's (and presumably KitNyx's too) opinions were supported by the "huge silent majority," which in turn means that he believes those who disagree with lungdisc to be part of a vocal minority. No one was talking about minorities or majorities until he brought them to the table, and I'm the one you decide to take to task over it? You're going after me because you don't like my opinions, and ignoring KitNyx because you agree with him more often.
Wow SB, I said no such thing, I was offering moral support and said there might be a silent majority that agrees with him (lungdisc) and stays silent because they don't want to be attacked by you. I never said there was one. And if you say no one talked about majorities until I brought it up, you are wrong...almost daily I am told by you that something I say is not in line with the majority of gamers or games.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...
"You should kill everyone."
That's an idea.
According to you, it's not bad. I'm telling you to kill everyone, but I guess it's not a bad idea, right?
Tell me that you still believe no idea is bad.
in the context of deathmatch, it works perfectly fine. personally, i can stomach it for about couple of hours a year (like, mindless Half-Life romp). but i do know people that don't mind doing it for years.
no idea is bad of itself.
Jagga, Scott is being literal-est rather than taking a second to try to decipher your intent. Clearly there are bad ideas, sticking your hand in a garbage disposal while it's running, for example, is a bad idea. I think most of us got your intent, it's just an easy way for Scott to derail the conversation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
no idea is bad of itself.Jagga, Scott is being literal-est rather than taking a second to try to decipher your intent. Clearly there are bad ideas, sticking your hand in a garbage disposal while it's running, for example, is a bad idea. I think most of us got your intent, it's just an easy way for Scott to derail the conversation.
Perhaps you should take a second to decipher mine.
Jagga Spikes used the "No idea is bad of itself," line as a defense against my calling certain ideas bad.
Well, he can have it one of two ways.
He can either hold the position that no idea is inherently bad, and have to defend that position (something that I believe is both practically and morally untenable), or he can hold the position that some ideas are inherently bad, but that some ideas can be good or bad depending on context. While the latter position is reasonable (and one that I daresay everyone holds), it also can't be used as a defense here unless I was calling ideas bad without context (and, even then, it could only be used if the idea wasn't one of those inherently bad ideas). Since all these discussions are taking place in the context of PFO's development, he really can't make use of the "But it might be good in context!" defense. We're applying context (as best we're able), and still finding it lacking.
No one's trying to derail the conversation. If I had been, I wouldn't have written the rest of that post. I just prefer to stick to actual arguments, rather than trite half-truths like "No idea is bad of itself."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Wow SB, I said no such thing, I was offering moral support and said there might be a silent majority that agrees with him (lungdisc) and stays silent because they don't want to be attacked by you. I never said there was one. And if you say no one talked about majorities until I brought it up, you are wrong...almost daily I am told by you that something I say is not in line with the majority of gamers or games.
Not in this discussion.
Also, the distinction between arguing against one's assertions and attacking that person is non-trivial. It's easy to confuse the two, but don't.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...hold the position that no idea is inherently bad, and have to defend that position (something that I believe is both practically and morally untenable)
i still do. context is what gives value to ideas. nothing has value of itself. neither "sticking your hand in a garbage disposal", nor "garbage disposal (is) running" are bad. and, if we are talking extremes, even "sticking your hand in a garbage disposal while it's running" isn't bad, if alternative is worse.
...context of PFO's development
just a reminder. context described as "open-world sandbox with theme-park elements" and strong emphasis on PVP, led by people that draw considerable inspiration from EVE.
friendly fire, full loot, permanent damage to character, environmental effects, limited access to resources, uneven combat numbers, limited safe-zones (at best), no punishment for scamming or theft (within game rules), etc.
none of these are bad ideas. they just do not fit in some (even most) games.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
He can either hold the position that no idea is inherently bad, and have to defend that position (something that I believe is both practically and morally untenable), or he can hold the position that some ideas are inherently bad, but that some ideas can be good or bad depending on context.
Nice try, look at the logic of this statement again. Holding a negative position is functionally equivalent to no position. A "not chair" is the same thing as there being no chair, so a claim that a not chair exists...is equivalent to no claim about a chair at all. You, on the other hand...are making a claim, a positive claim. You are claiming there is such a thing as bad ideas, that there is a chair, therefore the burden of proof falls upon you to support your claim. Unless of course, you are trying to make the claim that bad ideas are self-evident (something that I believe is both practically and morally untenable).
Also, the distinction between arguing against one's assertions and attacking that person is non-trivial. It's easy to confuse the two, but don't.
Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about here.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
no idea is bad of itself.Jagga, Scott is being literal-est rather than taking a second to try to decipher your intent. Clearly there are bad ideas, sticking your hand in a garbage disposal while it's running, for example, is a bad idea. I think most of us got your intent, it's just an easy way for Scott to derail the conversation.Perhaps you should take a second to decipher mine.
Jagga Spikes used the "No idea is bad of itself," line as a defense against my calling certain ideas bad.
Well, he can have it one of two ways.
He can either hold the position that no idea is inherently bad, and have to defend that position (something that I believe is both practically and morally untenable), or he can hold the position that some ideas are inherently bad, but that some ideas can be good or bad depending on context. While the latter position is reasonable (and one that I daresay everyone holds), it also can't be used as a defense here unless I was calling ideas bad without context (and, even then, it could only be used if the idea wasn't one of those inherently bad ideas). Since all these discussions are taking place in the context of PFO's development, he really can't make use of the "But it might be good in context!" defense. We're applying context (as best we're able), and still finding it lacking.
No one's trying to derail the conversation. If I had been, I wouldn't have written the rest of that post. I just prefer to stick to actual arguments, rather than trite half-truths like "No idea is bad of itself."
Scott, as far as I can tell, the only context you seem to be applying is "What Scott Betts personaly finds enjoyable in a game". That's fine, and I don't have a problem with it...it's no different really then what anyone else here is doing... but you seem to fail to appreciate that what Scott Betts personaly finds enjoyable in a game may not even be remotely related to what PFO's design goals or intended audience are. You seem to fail to recognize that what others here personaly find enjoyable in a game is every bit as viable a context to evaluate an idea under as what Scott Bett's does.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Scott, as far as I can tell, the only context you seem to be applying is "What Scott Betts personaly finds enjoyable in a game".Because I've said so, or because you assume that to be the case?
It really doesn't matter, actually. You'd be wrong either way.
Scott has repeatedly, probably in other threads, mentioned that there are things he would like in a game that he doesn't think should be in the game. He would enjoy a very hardcore game, but he'd rather see PFO be an enduring and lasting success.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A fair point, but I think the danger in that is that the vocal minority, lacking experience with the things they haven't been served, has things that they think they want without having any clue as to whether they actually want those things and all of the consequences thereof.Not to mention, it is the consequences I do want and am designing for.
I don't care about darkness or slow travel, I do want people to build roads, towns/cities, and inns in a manner that looks familiar to me, the player so me, the character can understand the rationales...and these things came to be IRL because of the existence of night, a time when it was difficult/unsafe to travel, and the requirement for slow travel.
I don't care if people have to use torches or arrows, but I do care that that market is available for those who actually want to craft and sell these items...as was mentioned elsewhere, in EVE ammo is one of the places beginning crafters can actually sell their wares.
Etc...
Coming from the opposite direction from WOW (i.e. from EVE), I have some experience with new features that don't do what people clamouring from them thought would do.
When we ask some feature we want the consequences we think they will bring into the game but sadly more often than not the consequences are different from what we think.
"Real" darkness will almost certainly bring hackers.
Slow travel (I am in favour of that) will require roads to move at a faster pace. Good.
But why I should build a road for the use of other players?
Build a tool bridge to get it stolen the first time I go offline?
Or have players to hating me as I am imposing a tool on theirs travels? Begin ostracised by the player community would be a big drawback.
So every time a new mechanic is proposed the drawbacks should be analysed. People supporting it generally don't do that. They are sure it will work at they envision it. BS (and I too, for my part) generally play the devil advocate on that and the guys suggesting the new idea take that as a personal insult. Lung "get off my thread, it is my precious" it a bit typical of that.
Remember that Pathfinder on line will not be the "real world", it is a make believe world were people can be resurrected, players have multiple avatars, RL consequences can be avoided or limited and people log to play.
All the above sum up in changing the consequences of RL difficulties and how people react to them.