I downloaded Dungeons and Dragons online a few days ago, and I feel like I got a crash course in how not to design an mmo.
1) There has to be a combat lock system in PFO in my opinion. When you choose to attack someone, you shouldn't be forced to play a dancing game if you payed for an rpg. Chasing after enemies, twirling in circles with them, trying to guess their next move- it really cheapens the experience. This is especially important to me because there will always be those players who are unusually good at dodging and twirling, and there could be an incentive for players to make combat look as unrealistic and wacky as possible.
2) On a related note, physically clicking over and over to perform basic attacks made me feel like I was playing some kind of arcade game. It definitely didn't feel like D&D. I hope combat in the pathfinder MMO isn't such a clickfest- A fighter should know to continue attacking automatically unless a different command is given- RPG players know to expect a different kind of action than players of faster paced games.
3) Instanced dungeons can be boring if they're all the game has to offer. After a while playing DDO, I felt like I was doing one thing: Finding a group in the game's harbor city, and then leaving that city for instanced dungeon material once I found the necessary guys. As I did the same dungeons over and over, I began to feel the futility of what I was doing. Sure, a good dungeon crawl can be fun, but none of the quests took place outside of the instances, and frankly all of the dungeons felt identical.
4) Of all the things that bothered me, one of the worst was when my sorcerer ally started chucking fireballs at a kobold I was attacking. At first I screamed "Nooooooo!", conditioned by games like Neverwinter Nights to think that I too would be caught in the blast. Then I realized I was totally unscathed- and that's when I got angry. In effect I felt like the dangerous power tool that is arcane magic became a pair of safety scissors. One of the key things that serves to balance casters and make them difficult/interesting to play is their target selection issues: Don't cast black tentacles near billy, don't cast meteor shower near jeff.This sounds like nitpicking, but it really isn't. You can't design a tactical game and take out all the um, tactics.
5) Don't penalize non-paying players to the point where they can't play one of the 7 basic races. In DDO, you gotta pay for half-orcs. That made me sad :(
Goblin Squad Member
|
I expect you'll get a lot of blowback from the crowd that wants PFO to be more "active", but I very much agree with points #1 and #2.
#3 is THE thing that has utterly ruined MMOs for me. It's like you're stuck in a Greek Hell pushing the same rock up the same hill day after day.
#4 I would prefer to see, but it's probably going to be difficult to do right. There are other things that are much higher priorities for me.
#5 I could care less. There's a saying "beggars can't be choosers".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
1. IMO both ways will have their fans and non fans, I somewhat liked it in that you could graze other enemies with an attack etc. Not quite sure where you are saying on rapid clicking, if I recall holding down the mouse would auto swing weapons and autofire arrows etc.. But that one is my personal preference, I know just as many people who liked it and disliked it, so it comes up about even.
3. To me that was a huge step over most MMO's, mainly because most MMO's that I can think of had no fun non-instanced combat. Myself if I have to solo more than 90% of the time, I don't consider that an MMO, I consider it an offline RPG with a horrible story and repetative gameplay. DDO IMO took steps foward in MMO's in that it made more or less 90% of the game better in a party, vs most MMO's in which prior to capping and hitting the raid point, instances were the 30 minute break you get from soloing every 30 hours or so.
That being said I do agree there are better ways that can be done. If more of the outside content encorages partying, team work etc... instead of depending on instances as the only reason people ever group up. This sounds to be the direction PFO is going, which I do greatly look foward to, it sounds like everything from harvesting, going into dangerous territory exploring, etc... will generally work better in a group.
4. Friendly fire is an old debate when it comes to PFO. In some ways it is essential, in some ways it could hinder the game. I suppose it is a wait and see when it comes to that.
5. I find it unlikely that races will be paid options, in that GW dosn't want to put extra money to them, but I do have to say when it comes to pure free to players, odds are pfo will not be as easy to get by as a pure F2P player as DDO did. Namely in that the biggest paid item is going to be skill training. IE the ability for your character to essentially be able to level up. Basing things on Eve's supply demand level, the price of plex was high, to the point where unless you were insanely high level and had major business connections, you had to be playing like 14 hours a day for 3 weeks to pay for a 1 month subscription within the time of a trial. Considering PFO as described will allow people to play longer than that, and basically permit f2p players to play as long as they want to earn money, when buying skill training, economically that means much higher demand for skill training, which will result in a much higher price. I imagine for most people that intend to play entirely f2p, they will likely be leveling/skill training, 1 out of every 3-4 months they play, unless for some reason there is somehow the population of ritch people who want to sell training, is actually large enough to keep up with the number of people who want to try to play entirely for free (In this economy, not very probable).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
1) There has to be a combat lock system in PFO in my opinion...
This is a matter of taste. Some people prefer a game that doesn't play itself for you. Some don't. Having said that, DDO does have a combat lock system, just not auto follow. Try the TAB key. It works better for casters and archers though, as melees still need to follow their target. But again, many people prefer it that way, so your preference is hardly the be all and end all of "how to build an MMO" (a self inflated statement).
2) On a related note, physically clicking over and over to perform basic attacks made me feel like...
You clearly missed the auto attack button. DDO has one. It's on your target examination window. There's also one you can drag onto your hotbar from your feat page. So technically two auto attack buttons.
3) Instanced dungeons...
Did you try any of the explorer areas? Hardly as in depth as the instanced quests, but isn't that what most non-instnaced, non-sandbox games offer?
4) ...In effect I felt like the dangerous power tool that is arcane magic became a pair of safety scissors...
While I agree with this point in theory, in practice you are talking about a mechanism that works as it does to prevent griefing. This topic has been discussed many many times on the DDO forums.
5) Don't penalize non-paying players to the point where they can't play one of the 7 basic races. In DDO, you gotta pay for half-orcs. That made me sad :(
Heads up then, sounds like PFO will indeed be built on a micro transaction system, aka "pay to win". For example: you will be able to have one character "un-leveling up" skills at a time for the basic game package (whether that's for a monthly fee or just the purchase cost of the game, I don't know). For extra real life money, you can pay to have more characters also able to grow their skills.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
1) Not sure what to say about DDO's combat system. It was simple. By the way, I think there is a combat lock option, it's just hidden or bugged or whatever (I couldn't figure it out.) I'd sure like to see a combat system that isn't revolved how good a player actually is skill-wise. Similarly, as someone in a area of terrible Internet, I'd sure like to have a option of combat that doesn't have an extreme amount of data transfer.
2) Another thing wrong with MMOs: Generally simplistic systems. I'm not sure how they plan to do combat, but there really isn't much to a swing of a sword. It doesn't need like 5 different buttons to perform. I can't really comment on it.
3) They have talked about it, and as far as I know, Pathfinder Online probably WILL have dungeons, and be instanced. HOWEVER, that will NOT be the only form of gameplay. There will also be setting up, maintaining, defending, and transferring material goods for market or crafting. They are aiming at making Pathfinder a Sandbox MMO (similar to Eve Online) rather than a Themepark MMO (World of Warcraft being the most infamous.)
4) And who knows how they will do Friendly Fire. Considering I believe they actually will allow evil characters (however, it is difficult.), I'm betting Friendly Fire will be there, however, that will make it so you better be darn careful, or someone is going to be very upset, and you may be in deep doodoo.
5) Yeah, I'm hoping they don't charge for any of the core seven races. Similarly, I hope they don't charge for any of the classes. That was just ridiculous. Also pretty upset with how that you actually HAVE to pay for a Rogue Hireling, or your screwed (or have to multi-class into rogue *shudder*) and that it only lasts an hour.
On a related note, I HIGHLY recommend that you go read their blog at Goblinworks. I'm not sure if you have or haven't read it, but it really sounds like a lot of the people on the forum are just saying stuff and actually have not read the blog(s).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would really like to see a Universal Fatigue system where any extraneous movement in combat - especially jumping! - moved you closer to exhaustion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would really like to see a Universal Fatigue system where any extraneous movement in combat - especially jumping! - moved you closer to exhaustion.
Fully agreed, also what would be nice is if moving in combat, did add penelties to the hit rate. I know this thread initially started as a bashing DDO thread, but one of the things they did (that lead to debate among it's fans) was that moving mid swing, did actually cause a penalty to the attack roll (IE you hit less often when moving).
I can't say that I disliked the potential of dodging in DDO, IE the ability to roll out of the way of a huge blow, or get out of the way of incoming arrows, though I also note that the twitch arguement has about equal backing on both sides. Myself I am a fan of the player skill being a factor, but I believe the best of both worlds would involve higher level of tactical sides, not so much moving in combat, but greater factors of positioning, flanking, higher ground, cover etc...
Player twitch skill is debatable if it is a good idea, myself I like it because I like less emphasis on level (skill training) and gear. I dislike the concept of a battle being decided before either player sets foot on the field, and the results of one skirmish between X and Y, are more or less indicative of how every skirmish between X and Y will be until one or both of them levels up or gets new gear.
Of course what will make both sides happy, is deeper levels of tactics, terrain advantages, cover, high ground, flanking, positioning, formations etc... and yes friendly fire would also play a huge asset in that, as obviously positioning is a whole new ball game when you are trying to come up with a formation that will allow your AoEs to hit as many of them and as few of your own as possible, while they are likely intending very much the same.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For me, it's all about the struggle between allowing players to play characters that are much more skilled than they are versus making a game that is fun and challenging for the players.
On the one hand, I'd really love to see awkward or even physically disabled players being able to effectively play extremely acrobatic and nimble characters, as well as average humans of normal intelligence being able to play brilliant Wizards capable of solving complex puzzles.
On the other hand, I'd also really love to see game systems like Clang that give players a chance to actually physically move through the actions their characters are taking, as well as for players to gain an advantage by making good decisions quickly or by being able to solve complex puzzles themselves.
The only way I see to reconcile these is to allow them to coexist, allowing players to choose which mode they want.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The biggest problem i see with active attacks has to do with latency. Not everyone is going to have the same bandwidth capacity, and particularly when you have a large population of people fighting each other. Really, at the end of the day the person with the best connectivity will dominate, and even then I suspect if its a 50 person fight these types of twitch mechanics will punish everyone with unexpected results.
I always go the impression from DDO that there wasn't a whole lot of mass combat to concern one's self with, but my experience with it is very limited.
What I learned from DDO was how to build an irritating User Experience, with some of the conventions I expected to be easy were obscured someplace in the UI. Simply not being able to easily look around my environment without wildly slashing axes all over the place started as and continued to be a massive barrier to enjoyment.
1 and 2-- have been answered by Ryan, somewhere. PFO will NOT be a twitch game.
3-- is a subjective point in and of itself, but in the context of this game, PFO will be much more than that.
4-- has been much argued but I don't believe we've heard anything about friendly fire from the devs.
5-- I whole-heartedly agree. There are other, better ways to get someone who is not subscribed (read: NOT the same as someone who is paying nothing to play) to give GW money.
|
Couldn't disagree more with points 1 and 2. I absolutely hate combat lock. Just say no to point, click, watch.
Agree on point 3 and especially on point 4 that hurt DDO big time for me.
Point 5 /meh. They gotta make money somehow not everything should be free. Plus you can earn all the races in DDO by playing the game to unlock them. I get that its not right now but its still free.
Thanks for the responses. I'm brand new to the forums here and I'm enjoying all the good conversation.
A few posters pointed out areas where I was wrong about DDO, like the fact that you don't have to keep clicking to attack. Sorry for my ignorance, I'm very new to the game.
And about complaint number 5, Nihimon was right: Beggars can't be choosers. In retrospect I was probably writing in anger, lol.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is nothing particularly wrong with the route that Turbine went with if they were making "Generic Fantasy MMO". There is something horribly wrong with the route they went when making "D&D Online". If you are going to make THAT game then it has to at least FEEL a little bit like you are playing D&D, online. D&D is definately NOT a twitch based game.
That's something that WAY, WAY too many Developers are guilty of, they take an established IP....make a generic MMO, maybe one that even has some interesting mechanics, but one that doesn't even remotely approach capturing the FEEL of the IP....and then just add some of the artwork and names of the IP, on top and call it a day.
If you can't make the game at least FEEL a bit like the IP you are using....then don't pick that IP to make an MMO out of....use something that you can actualy model with your MMO engine.
It's like saying you're going to build "Monoply Online" but the game won't feature money, or properties, or trading, or moving around the board.
Hopefully PFO will avoid that pitfall...and even if they aren't using the Pathfinder rulset, they find a way to make it reflect the FEEL of Pathfinder...else what would be the point?
I agree completely, Mel.
Beggars can't be choosers.
This statement is erroneous in the context. Subscriptions buy training time ONLY. It is entirely possible to not subscribe and actually pay MORE per month than a subscriber due to the variety of proposed MTXs. Non-subscribers are in no way "beggars." They are simply choosing a custom subscription package.
The very rare person who hopes to never pay anything will already have a very limited or challenging play experience without any further restrictions. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe specific races or "classes" are on that list of restrictions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Non-subscribers are in no way "beggars."
Who said they were?
5) Don't penalize non-paying players to the point where they can't play one of the 7 basic races. In DDO, you gotta pay for half-orcs. That made me sad :(
#5 I could care less. There's a saying "beggars can't be choosers".
Nobody said anything about "Non-subscribers". We were specifically talking about "non-paying players".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you are going to make THAT game then it has to at least FEEL a little bit like you are playing D&D, online. D&D is definately NOT a twitch based game.
Not the Pen and Paper version, no. But even that is a representation of live scenarios, and those scenarios are most definitely very action oriented and very "twitch" based.
When I DM'd I told my players to realize that the turn based system is just a representation and a way of summing up what happens. That the turn based system is not the way the encounter actually plays out. And my players liked that explanation because, you know, the idea of a bunch of aggressive warriors and monsters standing toe to toe and patiently waiting their turn to actually do anything is an absolutely ridiculous concept unless you view it as nothing more than representational.
But then again, I realize there are those who want the game to entirely play itself for them. And I can't really argue with them about that, even though I think it's retarded, because they know better than anyone else what they themselves actually want to see in a game.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
If you think that D&D combat involves waiting your turn, you haven't been using readied actions and interrupts very much. I've seen chains that resolved with "Ok, now he's over there, dazed, and everyone's had a chance to hit him at least once- I'm done, and he can finish his move action."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you think that D&D combat involves waiting your turn, you haven't been using readied actions and interrupts very much. I've seen chains that resolved with "Ok, now he's over there, dazed, and everyone's had a chance to hit him at least once- I'm done, and he can finish his move action."
Still a very representative example you give, not to mention situational. And all your example does is shift the order around of who waits when. As they've already told us here, what was meant for paper does not always translate well to computer games
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having played DDO since March of 2007, I'm surprised to see anyone on a RPG website complain about it when compared to other MMOs. I personally think DDO did more things right than any other MMO I've played, and it certainly isn't just another WoW clone like TOR.
1. One of the best things about DDO was the ability to dodge out of the way of attacks. In a game like WoW, it's an auto-hit every time you're within a certain radius. You fire an arrow or spell at someone, even if they moved behind a pillar, it would still hit them because of where they were when you started the attack animation. Sure, this encourages player skill, so less skilled players won't be as good at it. But so what? A lot of MMOs require knowledge on how the game can be broken based on what abilities to use and in what order you click them to maximize something. Is that not a skill based system also? DDO was more engaging because it used fluid combat. It wasn't just setting a macro for your character and then have it attack a mob while you made yourself a bowl of cereal.
2. The game has an auto attack button...
3. Say what you will about the instanced dungeons, but those sure beat randomly respawning mobs and quests that dealt with gathering x of these and killing x of those. You can play through most of the game, advancing in levels, and never need to repeat a dungeon or quest. And they do have the instanced areas like the Cerulean Hills that are a lot more freeform. The further into the game you get, the more unique the dungeons become. If you're doing a bunch of quests in the sewers of the harbor, though, you shouldn't be surprised if this random section of sewer is very similar to that random section of sewer.
4. Meh. I, too, have issues with this. A valid strategy for almost half the game is to cast multiple firewalls and then jump around while the mobs burn themselves to death within them.
5. Game is free to play. There has to be some incentives for premium members.
Myself if I have to solo more than 90% of the time, I don't consider that an MMO, I consider it an offline RPG with a horrible story and repetative gameplay.
AKA Star Wars: The Old Republic, where you solo the game until level 50 to get to the good content.
I stopped playing DDO a couple of years ago. It did stop being DnD. My character, a human rogue with a higher Int and Cha than Dex, that I rolled up at release was no longer a valid character. I didn't have an issue getting groups in the beginning because no one knew where the traps were, and the AC and HP bloat hadn't become an issue. Now, however, having ONLY a 16 CON is crippling, and you better have taken several Toughness feats. My AC of 55 is hit consistently, and my 170ish HPs are gone in a single monster attack. I can 1 hit kill almost everything in the game with my ungodly ability to assassinate things (DC based on rogue level and Int, and most people splash rogue or splash something else, and Int is a dump stat), but I never get a chance to because the party sorcerer has already Finger of Death'd the mob before I can sneak up to it. Any character that splashed one level of rogue and has the right loot gear can open locks and disable traps better than I can due to gear bonuses alone.
If PFO can avoid these problems with endgame, I'll be happy, but since PFO won't have an endgame, I'm already happy.
Speaking of loot and raid gear, I'd prefer if PFO didn't encourage the practice of carrying four sets of boots, three pairs of gloves, half a dozen different helms, and dozens of different weapons for every occasion. Let's face it, most MMOs practice this, but I've never played a DDO campaign where I kept a pair of boots of feather fall to slip on in place of my boots of spider climb because you never know when you might have to jump off a cliff or tower. With the way all your non-equipped loot is prone to be stolen when you die, I hope this takes care of that problem.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I almost completely agree with your observations, I have played so many MMO's and DDO is probably the only one that even after I left, most of my memories of it are of the good things. The fact that it had puzzles, the combination of doing mental tasks while fighting a boss, Voice chat actually just freeing me up to chat and have good conversation with PUGs on levels I hadn't had in any other MMO short of with the limited interaction within guilds etc... Compared to my memories of almost every other game, to which all I really remember is dull grind in leveling up, then long boring raids that went on for hours etc... DDO was probably the one MMO that when i think back to it, I think of a game, not a chore, not a task but a game that I played for fun and had fun playing.
One thing I losely agree and disagree with you on, is the 4 boots thing. On one hand I fully agree at the pain and hastle of the 4 pairs of boots, on the other hand, what I absolutely loved was the concept that there were so many gear combinations that were situationaly good. What I liked about it was the fact that prior to greensteel, there were so many weapons that were awsome at one thing, but mediocre at everything else. This greatly broke the MMO tradition of any item you find fitting into one of 2 categories, Upgrade or sell, it actually leaves the ability to find something new, the item be cool, useful and awesome, at the same time not actually make your character drastically stronger. It greatly reduced WoW's you must have X gearscore to enter this instance (now I admit they still ran into that problem with certain items that were critical, oh you don't have a weapon of type X, you won't be able to hurt harry, don't come to this instance, and I fully agree the carrying 4 boots, 6 belts, 8 wands etc... was a bit obnoxious.
IMO with that concept there are Do's and Don't that I believe pathfinder can do
Do: Offer many situationally good lateral moves. Gear that dominates when fighting demons, but sucks when fighting kobalds. Gear that gives a huge edge in one situation, and is not impressive in others. Allow gear selection to essentially temporarally specialize someone.
Don't: Encorage massive rapid change gear to be brought everywhere people go. Now the risk of losing carried items is a great hinderance to that, but further I would say, Pulling a pair of boots out of your bag, taking off your old boots, putting your new boots on and throwing your old boots into your bag, IS NOT A FREE ACTION. Changing out gear, should not be an action that you can do while swinging a sword mid fight, it should take at least 15 seconds. Now weapons, wands, scrolls etc... are probably reasonable exceptions, those are things that can reasonably be strapped to your belt, clothing, necklaces, rings etc... aren't subtle throw in your hand items though.
IMO selecting your gear before a battle, should be a strategic decision, and having a party with a specialist in X a specialist in Y, a generalist who can do OK at both etc... is far more interesting then 6 people with 5 sets of gear to temporarally make them specialists in what is about to come up. Of course the main instances not being 100% known and predicted will also help with that.
DDO's biggest problem with traps, was not as much in the trap design themselves, but in the repeated instances. Before the instance started people knew "ok there's a trap here, here and here, the first one we can ignore, second one we can go around, third one we probably need to disarm, the control box is here. Half the time they would run through it and ask the rogue to disarm it for the 15% trapfinder XP bonus and catch up to them. The level of metagaming when everyone knows the instance before they enter, is a huge issue.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you are going to make THAT game then it has to at least FEEL a little bit like you are playing D&D, online. D&D is definately NOT a twitch based game.Not the Pen and Paper version, no. But even that is a representation of live scenarios, and those scenarios are most definitely very action oriented and very "twitch" based.
When I DM'd I told my players to realize that the turn based system is just a representation and a way of summing up what happens. That the turn based system is not the way the encounter actually plays out. And my players liked that explanation because, you know, the idea of a bunch of aggressive warriors and monsters standing toe to toe and patiently waiting their turn to actually do anything is an absolutely ridiculous concept unless you view it as nothing more than representational.
But then again, I realize there are those who want the game to entirely play itself for them. And I can't really argue with them about that, even though I think it's retarded, because they know better than anyone else what they themselves actually want to see in a game.
It's the difference between playing a game where you (for example) PLAY the ROLE of a Fighter and BEING a FIGHTER. The D&D Fighter has the reflex's, coordination, agility, strength, training and experience where the physical action of combat is second nature to them. The PLAYER of the D&D Fighter doesn't. They could be a severely disabled person and not be at any significant disadvantage while playing. D&D as a game places all the physical skills within the CHARACTER, what it leaves upto the player are the decision making choices of what skills to aquire for the character and what to do with them in any given situation. That's where the "game" portion of D&D exists.
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against "twitch" style games. I play and enjoy quite a number of FPS games for example...and even have done one MMO (WWII Online) that involved those aspects of play. However it is an ENTIRELY Different GAMING experience that table-top D&D or turn based tactical games. Those games are ALSO fun in thier own way.
Again, no problem conceptualy with something like Guild Wars as an MMO which has a more action based combat system....that's it's own IP, it's not setting up any expectations in the players of what it should represent. When an MMO is based off a pre-existing IP, the it really (IMO) is incumbant upon it to try to capture the spirit and feel of that IP....and when that IP is a game itself, then that should include the spirit and feel of how that game plays. Else what's the point of using the IP...other then a blatant attempt to cash in on the name value of that IP? It'd be like making a game called Monopoly Online...that was a 1st person shooter...rather then a game about money and aquiring/trading properties.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Turn based isn't gonna happen. However faithful people think PFO should be to pen and paper games in that sense, we already know otherwise. We also know it won't be pure action oriented like a FPS. Those are both givens, and GW has given very solid reasons to avoid both.
As far as playing the role of a character vs being the character, it's not that black and white. Games are better when they successfully blur those lines and let the player get as much of a feel as possible to actually BE their character.
And yes, PFO will indeed be a different experience than the table top game. I think it's safe to say from the information we have already that at least a few people expecting a true and glorious interpretation of the "tabletop experience" and going to be disappointed. For one thing, your tabletop DM wouldnt let me interrupt your tabletop campaign in a very plot breaking manner and stab your beloved character in the face at the most inopportune time while you're already drained and weak from fighting that huge horde of orc bandits. No, your DM would at the very least try to insist you get some kind of fair warning, if not throw me out of his mother's basement.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Blurring the lines between players and characters should not be done, especially when the characters are hostile to each other. I can play a character who has deadly disputes with my friends' characters and not risk the friendships. There have been several times where taking a PC out after they have been weakened has been met with some variant of 'well played'.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Blurring the lines between players and characters should not be done, especially when the characters are hostile to each other. I can play a character who has deadly disputes with my friends' characters and not risk the friendships. There have been several times where taking a PC out after they have been weakened has been met with some variant of 'well played'.
Certainly, within the context of a game, a players goal for his character, IE that person's personal definition of success within the game, even if it comes at odds of your personal definition of success in the game should have no bearing on the RL friendship. If tim's playing the game going for being the cruelest most heartless tyrant, and I happen to be friends with Tim IRL, and he pulverizes my settlement. I see no reason why that would hurt our RL friendship any more so than if me and Tim played a FPS against eachother and he killed me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Blurring the lines between players and characters should not be done, especially when the characters are hostile to each other. I can play a character who has deadly disputes with my friends' characters and not risk the friendships. There have been several times where taking a PC out after they have been weakened has been met with some variant of 'well played'.
Of course. If you're talking about roleplaying a character's drives and emotions and such then yes, you're going to go nuts blurring the lines. As far as simulating combat and such though: completely different story. A character who plays himself for you is not worth playing. That's a movie, not a video game.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Blurring the lines between players and characters should not be done, especially when the characters are hostile to each other. I can play a character who has deadly disputes with my friends' characters and not risk the friendships. There have been several times where taking a PC out after they have been weakened has been met with some variant of 'well played'.Of course. If you're talking about roleplaying a character's drives and emotions and such then yes, you're going to go nuts blurring the lines. As far as simulating combat and such though: completely different story. A character who plays himself for you is not worth playing. That's a movie, not a video game.
One or both of us is not understanding the other. Roleplay is more meaningful in combat situations than in relaxed situations. I recall a particular Mantis samurai who blamed himself for the actions of the enemy (for allowing the general to be killed), and redeemed himself in his own mind by challenging the oni champion to a duel. One half of a combat round later, the predictable outcome came to pass: The oni was brandishing my head.
I could have chosen a course of action that would have resulted in a longer character life, and I was not bored of that character. It was simply the action that he would have taken in the circumstances, even though it isn't the ideal action.
Of course, the character development of that level is not possible in any existing or proposed video game, including PFO. Choosing to enter a hopeless fight simply lacks the pathos if there is either a mathematically zero chance of victory, or if victory depends on the player's skill in controlling the character.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you want to make sure whether you understand the context of what I'm saying or not, then it's this: I'm talking about game design in a thread that's talking about the do's and don'ts of building an MMO. I'm talking about what the turn based system developed for pen and paper actually represents and whether or not it makes sense to represent it in the same or even a similar way when try to present such scenarios digitally and over the internet with large numbers of players. And I'm talking in the context of responding to comments that suggest gameplay need not immerse the player in the intensity that some think should belong only to the character.
Beyond that, quoting the comments you're referring to helps. Sometimes hard to tell whether someone is replying to you alone, or to other comments, or just going off on a tangent.
And lastly, I think I missed where you perceive the disconnect. I think my last post was us more or less saying the same thing for half of the situation: blurring the lines for roleplaying emotions and drives = bad. But since I wasn't discussing roleplaying emotions and drives, but rather strictly about roleplaying the combat scenarios, I steered the topic back in that direction and pointed out that it's a whole other ballgame than the point you were making.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Blaeringr,
I'm talking about the spirit and feel of the game, not a verbatim translation of the ruleset. Obviously alot of things have to be modified when you translate something into a new medium in order to make it work.
One thing is clear to me though is that core gameplay of both Pathfinder and D&D is all about a players DECISION MAKING abilities. It doesn't involve things like hand-eye coordination or reaction speed, at all. So if a Fantasy MMO wants to make hand-eye coordination or reaction speed an important factor in gameplay...that's all well and good, but that's NOT remotely representing the spirit of those IP's.... properly it should be calling itself "Something Else Online".... or "Something That Doesn't Remotely Resemble D&D Online". YMMV.
@Blaeringr,
I'm talking about the spirit and feel of the game, not a verbatim translation of the ruleset. Obviously alot of things have to be modified when you translate something into a new medium in order to make it work.
One thing is clear to me though is that core gameplay of both Pathfinder and D&D is all about a players DECISION MAKING abilities. It doesn't involve things like hand-eye coordination or reaction speed, at all. So if a Fantasy MMO wants to make hand-eye coordination or reaction speed an important factor in gameplay...that's all well and good, but that's NOT remotely representing the spirit of those IP's.... properly it should be calling itself "Something Else Online".... or "Something That Doesn't Remotely Resemble D&D Online". YMMV.
+1 billion
I had the same exact thought, Grumpy but for the life of me I couldn't find the words.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There is nothing particularly wrong with the route that Turbine went with if they were making "Generic Fantasy MMO". There is something horribly wrong with the route they went when making "D&D Online". If you are going to make THAT game then it has to at least FEEL a little bit like you are playing D&D, online. D&D is definately NOT a twitch based game.
That's something that WAY, WAY too many Developers are guilty of, they take an established IP....make a generic MMO, maybe one that even has some interesting mechanics, but one that doesn't even remotely approach capturing the FEEL of the IP....and then just add some of the artwork and names of the IP, on top and call it a day.
If you can't make the game at least FEEL a bit like the IP you are using....then don't pick that IP to make an MMO out of....use something that you can actualy model with your MMO engine.
It's like saying you're going to build "Monoply Online" but the game won't feature money, or properties, or trading, or moving around the board.
Hopefully PFO will avoid that pitfall...and even if they aren't using the Pathfinder rulset, they find a way to make it reflect the FEEL of Pathfinder...else what would be the point?
To tie in with this earlier idea of translating an IP into a video-game genre, another case in point with Game Of Thrones:
Cable TV of Thrones: Why Game of Thrones Doesn't Work as a Game
There's several attempts here: single-player RPG, MMO, RTS...
So what we know so far, "twitch-FPS/actiony" combat is too extreme and TBcombat is the other extreme. Most MMOs choose the middle-ground of WOW tab-targetting:
1. It's tested to work
2. It's familiar with people (think those points were made by Ryan)
GW2 has gone for a more actiony slant (no auto-target, dodge rolls etc). But I think what GrumpyMel is suggesting: DECISION-MAKING would be the most rewarding direction for PfO given the IP-essence (!) and also longevity (chess?).
Perhaps 2 ways to encourage this:
1. Combat Zone created between combatants - slows time down = more thinking time/observation time!
2. Combat Zone allows the nature of the immediate environment to be taken into account additionally eg dex class movement might play a role within this zone etc
3. How you scale this to include many combats >1v1... but maybe technically it's more possible (more slack time to play with)?
Yeesh. Anyway, that was a curiously relevant and coincidental experience of how combat should be represented.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
1) There has to be a combat lock system in PFO in my opinion. When you choose to attack someone, you shouldn't be forced to play a dancing game if you payed for an rpg. Chasing after enemies, twirling in circles with them, trying to guess their next move- it really cheapens the experience. This is especially important to me because there will always be those players who are unusually good at dodging and twirling, and there could be an incentive for players to make combat look as unrealistic and wacky as possible.
2) On a related note, physically clicking over and over to perform basic attacks made me feel like I was playing some kind of arcade game. It definitely didn't feel like D&D. I hope combat in the pathfinder MMO isn't such a clickfest- A fighter should know to continue attacking automatically unless a different command is given- RPG players know to expect a different kind of action than players of faster paced games.
What I learned from Runescape, Wurm, and EVE...
Combat that feels just slightly more engaging the harvesting and crafting is not a good thing.
What I learned from Darkfall, and Mortal...
Nothing says an RPG can't have fast paced combat.
What I learned from Guild Wars and Skyrim...
Nothing says fast paced combat can't really enhance an RPG.
In closing:
This is not a tabletop RPG. This is not Magic The Gathering. This is not Heroes of Might and Magic. Slow paced combat is really great in some formats. Open World PVP MMOs are not one of them. In an Open World PVP game if the combat is too slow and easy to follow you will effectively be handing the game to whatever group has the largest numbers and highest stats on a silver platter. There are a lot of RPG enthusiasts who appreciate a bit of fast paced action, and there should be a great crafting system for those who don't. Don't turn PVP into this.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
1) There has to be a combat lock system in PFO in my opinion. When you choose to attack someone, you shouldn't be forced to play a dancing game if you payed for an rpg. Chasing after enemies, twirling in circles with them, trying to guess their next move- it really cheapens the experience.
2) On a related note, physically clicking over and over to perform basic attacks made me feel like I was playing some kind of arcade game.
3) Instanced dungeons can be boring if they're all the game has to offer.
4) FF
5) Don't penalize non-paying players
1) Agree combat seem to deteriate in mmos: You have certain ways to milk the combat that turn it into something part keyboard-mouse sequences, part stat analysis. MMO combat is generally not highly regarded I think. But I'm not sure about a combat-lock always being available?
2) Waiting for skills to activate, having too many skills on a hotbar is always the same context I think is the problem here, so spamming those buttons is the only finesse?3) Ideally these dungeons will be connected to PfO as resource-"sources" and context to how developed the hex is, which again helps subjectively I think (ie a reason to do these). Also what sort of skills are required for them if it's a skill game vs a class game. So could work much better in PfO by the sounds of things.
4) FF in other mmos is a problem for griefing. But, if the idea is that groups are the key to winning combats in PfO, then FF might be a counter-point to that/one big weakness to this one big strength???
5) There's a BIG difference between "good" F2P and "really bad" F2P. But I think if a mmorpg is very good, it's worth some form of sub or no payment at all given the long time investment of this genre.
This is not a tabletop RPG. This is not Magic The Gathering. This is not Heroes of Might and Magic. Slow paced combat is really great in some formats. Open World PVP MMOs are not one of them. In an Open World PVP game if the combat is too slow and easy to follow you will effectively be handing the game to whatever group has the largest numbers and highest stats on a silver platter. There are a lot of RPG enthusiasts who appreciate a bit of fast paced action, and there should be a great crafting system for those who don't. Don't turn PVP into this.
I'd like to see faster actiony combat in mmos, eg Planetside 2 seems a lot more intense, but for PfO I'd like to see more tactical combat than the current (imo) not very good tab-target combat which is I think not a very enticing middleground. I think seeing what can be achieved in the slower-paced combat lane might be the best direction to look at? ie idea of Zone during combat with different flow of time?