Its more an explanation why things are as they are, which are maybe interesting for gaming historians. The great questions, what will come after release are still clouded in mystery. I can understand and accept MMOs arent released with the complete scope of things like a many years old MMO. So gamers comparing it to their todays experiences with WOW or LOTRO or EQ2 are just doing a new game no fair credit. MMOs never launch complete, its just too much a matter of constant work.
While it seems fair to compare what POTBS will launch with against how other games were when they launched, there is a difference now. Time.
Given the choice of playing a new game that lacks content and features versus playing an established game feature and content rich, what is the incentive to pay to wait for a game to catch up. If Flying labs wants to get customers, and I'm sure they do, then they should only release the game when it is able to compete in the market place. SOE has made it crystal clear that they don't have that option though.
Making posts appologizing for the state of the game before it even hits shelves isn't very good marketing, but it is nice to see the feedback. I respect it more than say Richard Garriott giving reasons why his game isn't doing well after the fact and soft handedly blaming beta testers, but that doesn't change the chances of the game going over well. At least POTBS has station pass to fall back on?
Personally I think the people have had enough of games releasing and paying for what it might be like months/years down the road.
...Making posts appologizing for the state of the game before it even hits shelves isn't very good marketing,...
There's a difference between an explanation of the state of things and an apology. Some of these were design decisions that you don't have to agree with, but they're not going to change. And others are simply "promises" of what they'll be changing/fixing in the future.
There will never be a perfect game--all (mmo or not) games release somewhat dated because they take so long to develop that time and technology pass them by somewhat. And every MMO releases with the usual promises of what they will be doing in the future.
In truth, it comes down to: Do you trust the Dev team to actually do what they promise? If you do, then you subscribe, if you don't, then you keep looking.
Apply lemon juice and candle flame here to reveal secret message.
Poor choice of words on my part, sorry for that. The devs words are somewhat subject to interpretation, but at least they are being proactive.
However, I don't suggest to anyone that they subscribe based on promises of what a developer talks about many months out from launch. I don't think it even comes down to a question of believing what a dev promises. If you like the game as it comes then by all means subscribe, but paying for potential is something that doesn't make sense, especially when the devs pretty much confirm it isn't <<insert your own view here>> yet.
Certainly nice to see the honesty. It is refreshing in the mmo industry.
I have to echo the questions over the wisdom of admitting a game isn't "complete" right in the middle of the biggest marketing push. Leaving the "completion" date open-ended lets anyone speculate on how long before the game is monthly fee worthy (6 months seems to be the guess here). Of course, it's hard to predict when it will be "complete" with the missing items you mention...still, it might help with the pr if you had a rough guesstimate that wasn't too far away from launch. Just a suggestion.
On a side note, while CoH/CoV has pretty much all instanced missions, those missions are scattered about zones with roaming enemies and other players. You could easily spend a session in CoH with several pick up groups, simply clearing zones and meeting other players, without any instances whatsoever. At least, that was my experience with it.
Some of you might remember Pirates - The REAL Pirates on C64 and later on Amiga 500- not the cartoony awful remake. The key to the overwhelming success of that game was a combination of innovative gameplay mechanics which allowed 2 absolutely critical conditions: a sense of freedom and immersion. Now, some devs hate that word, immersion, but we the players want it, we want it badly. The sense of freedom goes without saying.
Anyway, here's what I'd like to see added/improved:
- player housing...there's really no way around it. It goes to support game community, sense of immersion and microplaying(the old swg crowd could spend hours on end decorating their houses). It provides a powerful platform for networking and a sense of belonging.
- Graphics...I'm not really that much into the whole graphics race. Gameplay mechanics and well -thought out concepts rock my world. However, I hear the sea is a mirror, the weather is non-existent and the day/night cycle ignored. That's definately a downside. Again, immersion, or the lack thereof, springs to mind.
- Instancing... can't....breathe!!.....must have...realtime interaction! I wouldn't want a game without SOME instances, but this.... this is just wayyyyy too much. I haven't met one single player in WoW that actually liked the battlegrounds - oh yeah sure, they did it, but they yearned for live action. PvP on the map is talked about for hours - who the hell remembers his last battleground experience??
Having said all that, I think it shows courage and confidence that FLS goes out and says they are aware of some issues and that they want us to know they are listening. Many have said so before, but I get a feeling that they are somewhat genuine given their response time and reaction patterns. Will I buy it? Most likely, but thats only half the prize for an MMO company. The real issue will be retention of customerbase and that's where FLS has to move fast and be VERY clear in their signals they will be sending out - no one wants another Order 66 event !
...Making posts appologizing for the state of the game before it even hits shelves isn't very good marketing,...
There's a difference between an explanation of the state of things and an apology. Some of these were design decisions that you don't have to agree with, but they're not going to change. And others are simply "promises" of what they'll be changing/fixing in the future.
There will never be a perfect game--all (mmo or not) games release somewhat dated because they take so long to develop that time and technology pass them by somewhat. And every MMO releases with the usual promises of what they will be doing in the future.
In truth, it comes down to: Do you trust the Dev team to actually do what they promise? If you do, then you subscribe, if you don't, then you keep looking.
I agree. This devlog simply seemed to say, "People don't like these couple of things. But they're not changing. We will be adding some things, maybe (if they make it through the design teams -- big maybe)."
However, I must say, I still have hopes for the perfect MMO. Just the idealist in me, but it seems possible.
I personally will be waiting a least 3 months after release to try this game.
Oh, regarding his frequent references to CoH/CoV, did you read the previous interview with the creator of the company? He cited that game as his favorite MMO, so duh it's gonna be like that -- The constant instancing is one example, although it appears PotBS has taken it to another level.
MMO game companies need to emulate Blizzard's dev process with SC2 right now... the only company to TRULY take into consideration and repeatedly modify their game mechanics, physics, units, content, and gameplay simply based on user responses. That's pulling employees out of nowehere for free if you ask me, and is more than priceless for a game dev company, especially MMOs.
Cinori Aluben - CSM6 2011 Fix The Little Things First! www.littlethingsfirst.com EVE-Online
What about allowing the leveling up process to stay fairly quick, but come up with a lot of group-oriented high end content for players to use? What's that? Oh, too hard you say, okay go with the other MMO models then. Give them the grind and spend all their time getting to the top and then quitting when there's nothting to do at the end.
I don't mean to sound jaded...well, maybe I do...but I'm trying to make a point here.
Poor choice of words on my part, sorry for that. The devs words are somewhat subject to interpretation, but at least they are being proactive.
However, I don't suggest to anyone that they subscribe based on promises of what a developer talks about many months out from launch. I don't think it even comes down to a question of believing what a dev promises. If you like the game as it comes then by all means subscribe, but paying for potential is something that doesn't make sense, especially when the devs pretty much confirm it isn't <<insert your own view here>> yet.
No big.
Software today isn't like it was in the past--and certainly not like the oft-cited example of buying a car. Software today is constantly updated and changed because of access to the Internet. Is that good or bad? I don't know--there's a bit of both there.
I do agree that one buys the game based on whether you like what it offers on launch, but I think one subscribes (after that initial 30 days) based on what's promised. In that time, most of us have reached or nearly reached end-game.
Many people (not referring to you, Daffid011) commenting here have clearly not played the game or even researched it (at least, those are the comments that stick out). Why bother commenting or becoming involved in something that you clearly have no actual interest in?
There are things I'd have done differently, for sure. But they're not game-breaking--and I'm willing to see how the game will play out based on their design choices. It's not like the game is going to cost an arm and a leg--or that you have to buy a year's subscription at launch.
What would I have really really wanted? Pre-cu SWG style on the high seas. In fact, give me pre-cu SWG-style in any setting and I'd be pretty happy. Unfortunately, I don't have tens of millions sitting around, so I've gotta play what's produced if I want to play at all. Or I could troll the forums all day crying that nothing is exactly the way I want.
Apply lemon juice and candle flame here to reveal secret message.
It wasn't ready for open beta, now you'll have less subscribers when the game is released. You should have done all of these things in the closed beta, and asked the community if it was ready.
The problems with station should have been fixed as well before open beta, nag sony about it.
I for one had high expectations, but you let me down.
What about allowing the leveling up process to stay fairly quick, but come up with a lot of group-oriented high end content for players to use? What's that? Oh, too hard you say, okay go with the other MMO models then. Give them the grind and spend all their time getting to the top and then quitting when there's nothting to do at the end.
I don't mean to sound jaded...well, maybe I do...but I'm trying to make a point here.
Your example offers nothing for soloers. Soloers make up about 40% of the market.
Most the the above I do agree with, PotBS 'lacks' things and clunks along to paraphase, much like TR atm both will only hold the committed fanbase UNTIL x y and z are placed in the game and polished as it stands, however once they have it, they'll do well..
PotBS wont be a smash hit on release however IF they devs quickly add the stuff they are contenplating for 'end game' within a month or two it'll probly gain favour with the players..
TBH PotBS (like TR again) seems to have been pushed out eaily because of the potental juggernoughts being released further on, but it doesn't help it to 'lack' content considering two MMOs a few months later claim to have 'full content', players would rather save their money until then then risk not 'doing anything' on an 'unfinished' game
Most the the above I do agree with, PotBS 'lacks' things and clunks along to paraphase, much like TR atm both will only hold the committed fanbase UNTIL x y and z are placed in the game and polished as it stands, however once they have it, they'll do well.. PotBS wont be a smash hit on release however IF they devs quickly add the stuff they are contenplating for 'end game' within a month or two it'll probly gain favour with the players.. TBH PotBS (like TR again) seems to have been pushed out eaily because of the potental juggernoughts being released further on, but it doesn't help it to 'lack' content considering two MMOs a few months later claim to have 'full content', players would rather save their money until then then risk not 'doing anything' on an 'unfinished' game
Well, thats the big question I have. Games like VG and Tabula Rasa are/were based on the concept to make a "basic" game now and add necessary things later. Now sure, almost all MMOs didnt start with all features right away. The question is, how much do they need? Often I feel MMOs who start too low somehow never recover from a mediocre start, thats what I am unsure about, be it PotBS, TR or if a game like VG will ever really recover, even IF they manage to add/change a lot of things. Sometimes I feel at a certain point a MMO never really recovers. But maybe... who knows.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
Most the the above I do agree with, PotBS 'lacks' things and clunks along to paraphase, much like TR atm both will only hold the committed fanbase UNTIL x y and z are placed in the game and polished as it stands, however once they have it, they'll do well.. PotBS wont be a smash hit on release however IF they devs quickly add the stuff they are contenplating for 'end game' within a month or two it'll probly gain favour with the players.. TBH PotBS (like TR again) seems to have been pushed out eaily because of the potental juggernoughts being released further on, but it doesn't help it to 'lack' content considering two MMOs a few months later claim to have 'full content', players would rather save their money until then then risk not 'doing anything' on an 'unfinished' game
Well, thats the big question I have. Games like VG and Tabula Rasa are/were based on the concept to make a "basic" game now and add necessary things later. Now sure, almost all MMOs didnt start with all features right away. The question is, how much do they need? Often I feel MMOs who start too low somehow never recover from a mediocre start, thats what I am unsure about, be it PotBS, TR or if a game like VG will ever really recover, even IF they manage to add/change a lot of things. Sometimes I feel at a certain point a MMO never really recovers. But maybe... who knows.
Sorry to answer a question with another question however by 'will ever recover' when has a MMO reached 'recoverable' status? is it when it has 'x millions' of subs or is it when it makes profit?
The latter is more true, I would use EvE as an example it's been near death but stll continues with only (what was considered a normal subcription base for 'old times') 30k of players online max, but then again thats a special example as they don't have to pay for exturnal expences, but it's still a good example, personally I think 'success' should be deemed as 'time active' not the inital or current subcriber base.
I mean games like DDO although deemed ' a massive bomb' by a lot of players is still plugging along, whereas AA is now shutdown after a year.. which of the two is more successful? In the end it's both publisher and dev's 'goals' that deem a game a 'success' and 'recoverable', if both want 'x millions' as like WoW but don't get that then it's detented to close however if the the idea is to make a game to pull a niche market and make a slight profit then theres a high chance it'll bounce back (hell Vanguard is doing that right now). Point being it's more about what playerbase your looking for then real profit with MMOs, thats the true trick to these things which a lot of dev companies seem to either have or don't.
He could have just as easily mentioned any of a slew of other MMO's with the same features. We have instanced missions like Anarchy Online, blah, blah and focused mission content for teams like WoW, blah, blah. He at least decided to choose the game that was the most like fun and the least like work.
Im currently enjoying the game.. Mostly because it is different. And Im still exploring aspects of it.
What I dont like, well, its to easy. Where is the danger? I switched to pvp flag once I hit level 5, but where is it? All I see is other players killing NPC.
While Ship combat, is IMO fun and requires strategy, even against NPC. I would love to see huge or small PvP battles that I can join.
To much instancing aswell. Instancing should be avoided at all costs. MMORPGs are about playing with and against other players, its not about protecting the singleplayer mind. Its about making people interact.
I enjoyed the game overall, only got to about lvl25(2-3 days). One thing I noticed was ,as they mentioned, quests are the same for all nations they just have a few changes to em, mainly names. Which made starting a new char extremely boring. So I look forward to those additions they mentioned.
Big thing I would like to see added would be (and I think he said something about it), persistant areas. An area you sail into that pulls you out of OS mode and puts you in contact with other ships as well as obstacles. Like a area with reefs between islands that you have to visualy navigate to avoid sinking your own ship, while keeping an eye out for other players hostile or not.
And I know their is hardly much reason to do truely OS areas like that but a weather system could fill that viod easliy. Could have squalls and hurricanes. The way I would suggest would be simple to do, just have clouds drifting on random patterns(that look good not cheesy) and when they merge it would create a zone that would pull you from OS mode into a storm where the outter fringes are easier to navigate and less damaging but if you screw up and go into it or have to try to push on through you risk damage or being sunk if you dont use real sailing skill. Now I don't think it should be happening all over the pace all the time but a few good storms here and there are realistic and and a hurricane scattered now and then would be nice. So two regular clouds merging could form a small storm. Two storm clouds merging could form a hurricane. Now that is just a quickly thought up idea I am sure with some good thought a much better method could be concieved but there it is my two bits.
Overall, good game and look forward to seeing it get better.
This game is going to flop, far far too easy to level. I do not understand what the developers were thinking, but unless they make huge changes in how fast you level, this game will be a waste of time for everyone.
I dunno I kinda liked the fact that you could progress fast and get into the larger ships. TBH getting kinda sick of the time sink aspect most MMO's throw at ya now days.
But if they do leave it where you can get into the high lvls fast then they need to look more to adding player driven content to keep the experiance fresh and changing.
I mean it is mainly about player battles, guild fleet battles, controlling territory as well as the economy. Why do you really need to drag the low end through the dirt and keep players down? The lower end quests and all seemed more like a long tutorial to learning how to cooperate as a team in fleet battles and learning the ins and outs of sailing and avatar combat.
The real challenge is being able to earn money to replace lost ships after huge battles and being able to afford to maintain the economy in your port and in ports you are trying to conquer. Honestly I don't see how lvls really play into that at all.
I know some will say that everyone will be sailing in SoL's and noone will want to use the smaller ships...but thats not true. Especially when it comes to fleet battles. Having those smaller faster and more manuverable ships plays a large part in weither you win or lose. All it would take is one or two terrible and expensive losses of an entire fleet of SoL's to a more well balanced and actually cheaper fleet of skilled players and they will rethink their ship deployment in the future.
So IMO I hope they put more into player driven content and strategies than they do into draging the lvl grind out. (we have enough of those games out there IMO)
I think they should do something with guilds and SoL's to make it a bit more interesting. I think that no individual players should be able to sail a SoL. I think it should be a guild ship only, as they would not have sailed alone they would have needed protection in their vulnerable areas from the faster and more manuverable ships, else they would soon find themselves a very large floating unmanuverable target.
So I think that the SoL's should be guild ship that requires multiple players to operate and would require compliment ships, should not sail out alone.
The SoL should be operated by a player navigator, it could have 2 players to man the guns(or more per deck and side), a player to man the sails(making repairs and boosting speed when needed), and a player (or two)to control and boost crew morale as well as handle boarding parties.
And yeah I know that sailing arround all over the map like that would be boring but I don't think it should be used like that. I think it should be used mainly as a port taker or defender. And would obviously require planning as to when and where to use it. So you might send out scout ships to scout a port , see that the enemy has a SoL deployed and decide to bring in yours. So you coordinate with you guild decide who will man what and sail out to encounter the enemy at their port.
Also this would allow them to add more in the skill department in the way of specialization. You could choose to be skilled in many areas( for controling smaller compliment ships) or focus on one so to be a more valuable member of the SoL crew. (as always, changable with respec)
It should take a year to max out. Personally I would have enjoyed a seamless persistent world with lengthy travel times as you described originally. Instancing ruins the game, period.
Sounds like you want to play Vanguard.
I do not want to take a year to max out. I like the quick progression so everyone is at the same level and the fun starts. Leveling is not fun. I accept it since I like MMORPGs but hate to do it.
If you guys are leveling so fast why don't you take some time off from gaming and go to the gym. If you are reaching max level fast, even in a fast leveling game, you do not have kids, job, mortgage, and are probably overweight.
---------- "Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
Ok, you can all stop the emo/kneejerk, drama now....
[quote]
There is NO GLOBAL XP NERF planned. What you're playing is fundamentally what we're launching. Don't worry. [/quote]
No I think that is what people are worried about. Not necessarily the XP-specific issue, but the underlying idea behind that statement: They're not going to change anything, no matter what the players (who form the user-base, consumers, & indirect advertisers) say. That is a sad way to hype a game.
Originally posted by U-Turn
I do not want to take a year to max out. I like the quick progression so everyone is at the same level and the fun starts. Leveling is not fun. I accept it since I like MMORPGs but hate to do it. If you guys are leveling so fast why don't you take some time off from gaming and go to the gym. If you are reaching max level fast, even in a fast leveling game, you do not have kids, job, mortgage, and are probably overweight. /pizza ftl
I think half of what you're saying is true, and share your view on balance of life and video games. However, I also think you misinterpret the point of the video game (MMO), as well as are judgemental to many people. It is potentially a true statement for a small minority of true PowerPlayers, but you broadcast the net a little too far.
But, going to the gym is not a bad idea. Try Gymnastics... talk about seeing video game stuff come to life
Cinori Aluben - CSM6 2011 Fix The Little Things First! www.littlethingsfirst.com EVE-Online
It should take a year to max out. Personally I would have enjoyed a seamless persistent world with lengthy travel times as you described originally. Instancing ruins the game, period.
Sounds like you want to play Vanguard.
I do not want to take a year to max out. I like the quick progression so everyone is at the same level and the fun starts. Leveling is not fun. I accept it since I like MMORPGs but hate to do it.
If you guys are leveling so fast why don't you take some time off from gaming and go to the gym. If you are reaching max level fast, even in a fast leveling game, you do not have kids, job, mortgage, and are probably overweight.
/pizza ftl
If a game is too easy and you max out quickly, then it has a short lifespan as you will become bored with it sooner. The problem is that this game isn't fun, and therefore you don't like the early parts of the game. If a game is fun from the start, then you would want the leveling process to last as long as possible, because there is no reason to reach the end quickly.
Does it make sense to design a game where the players are urged to rush past most of the content to reach the end before having fun? Of course not.
I am amazed that you release a game that takes 11 days to max out, and then you admit it needs to be nerfed because there is not much to do at max level. Do you realize how stupid that sounds? What happened to your QA department? Do you even have any paid testers? It should take a year to max out.
ya well WoW should not have been relased then since you can max it out in 14 days although i think the record when it had a lvl 60 cap was 8 days
Magic is impressive, but now Minsc leads! Swords for everyone!
I am amazed that you release a game that takes 11 days to max out, and then you admit it needs to be nerfed because there is not much to do at max level. Do you realize how stupid that sounds? What happened to your QA department? Do you even have any paid testers? It should take a year to max out.
ya well WoW should not have been relased then since you can max it out in 14 days although i think the record when it had a lvl 60 cap was 8 days
Personally I think WoW is too easy but most people who play WoW don't max out that fast. It's a game designed for casual players who typically take much longer, many months, to max out. By most accounts, players in PotBS are saying the leveling process is too fast. Also WoW developers, unlike FLS, don't claim there isn't much to do at max level, since it is a raid centric PVE game with endgame PVP design as well.
Comments
While it seems fair to compare what POTBS will launch with against how other games were when they launched, there is a difference now. Time.
Given the choice of playing a new game that lacks content and features versus playing an established game feature and content rich, what is the incentive to pay to wait for a game to catch up. If Flying labs wants to get customers, and I'm sure they do, then they should only release the game when it is able to compete in the market place. SOE has made it crystal clear that they don't have that option though.
Making posts appologizing for the state of the game before it even hits shelves isn't very good marketing, but it is nice to see the feedback. I respect it more than say Richard Garriott giving reasons why his game isn't doing well after the fact and soft handedly blaming beta testers, but that doesn't change the chances of the game going over well. At least POTBS has station pass to fall back on?
Personally I think the people have had enough of games releasing and paying for what it might be like months/years down the road.
There will never be a perfect game--all (mmo or not) games release somewhat dated because they take so long to develop that time and technology pass them by somewhat. And every MMO releases with the usual promises of what they will be doing in the future.
In truth, it comes down to: Do you trust the Dev team to actually do what they promise? If you do, then you subscribe, if you don't, then you keep looking.
Apply lemon juice and candle flame here to reveal secret message.
Poor choice of words on my part, sorry for that. The devs words are somewhat subject to interpretation, but at least they are being proactive.
However, I don't suggest to anyone that they subscribe based on promises of what a developer talks about many months out from launch. I don't think it even comes down to a question of believing what a dev promises. If you like the game as it comes then by all means subscribe, but paying for potential is something that doesn't make sense, especially when the devs pretty much confirm it isn't <<insert your own view here>> yet.
Certainly nice to see the honesty. It is refreshing in the mmo industry.
I have to echo the questions over the wisdom of admitting a game isn't "complete" right in the middle of the biggest marketing push. Leaving the "completion" date open-ended lets anyone speculate on how long before the game is monthly fee worthy (6 months seems to be the guess here). Of course, it's hard to predict when it will be "complete" with the missing items you mention...still, it might help with the pr if you had a rough guesstimate that wasn't too far away from launch. Just a suggestion.
On a side note, while CoH/CoV has pretty much all instanced missions, those missions are scattered about zones with roaming enemies and other players. You could easily spend a session in CoH with several pick up groups, simply clearing zones and meeting other players, without any instances whatsoever. At least, that was my experience with it.
Some of you might remember Pirates - The REAL Pirates on C64 and later on Amiga 500- not the cartoony awful remake. The key to the overwhelming success of that game was a combination of innovative gameplay mechanics which allowed 2 absolutely critical conditions: a sense of freedom and immersion. Now, some devs hate that word, immersion, but we the players want it, we want it badly. The sense of freedom goes without saying.
Anyway, here's what I'd like to see added/improved:
- player housing...there's really no way around it. It goes to support game community, sense of immersion and microplaying(the old swg crowd could spend hours on end decorating their houses). It provides a powerful platform for networking and a sense of belonging.
- Graphics...I'm not really that much into the whole graphics race. Gameplay mechanics and well -thought out concepts rock my world. However, I hear the sea is a mirror, the weather is non-existent and the day/night cycle ignored. That's definately a downside. Again, immersion, or the lack thereof, springs to mind.
- Instancing... can't....breathe!!.....must have...realtime interaction! I wouldn't want a game without SOME instances, but this.... this is just wayyyyy too much. I haven't met one single player in WoW that actually liked the battlegrounds - oh yeah sure, they did it, but they yearned for live action. PvP on the map is talked about for hours - who the hell remembers his last battleground experience??
Having said all that, I think it shows courage and confidence that FLS goes out and says they are aware of some issues and that they want us to know they are listening. Many have said so before, but I get a feeling that they are somewhat genuine given their response time and reaction patterns. Will I buy it? Most likely, but thats only half the prize for an MMO company. The real issue will be retention of customerbase and that's where FLS has to move fast and be VERY clear in their signals they will be sending out - no one wants another Order 66 event !
There will never be a perfect game--all (mmo or not) games release somewhat dated because they take so long to develop that time and technology pass them by somewhat. And every MMO releases with the usual promises of what they will be doing in the future.
In truth, it comes down to: Do you trust the Dev team to actually do what they promise? If you do, then you subscribe, if you don't, then you keep looking.
I agree. This devlog simply seemed to say, "People don't like these couple of things. But they're not changing. We will be adding some things, maybe (if they make it through the design teams -- big maybe)."However, I must say, I still have hopes for the perfect MMO. Just the idealist in me, but it seems possible.
I personally will be waiting a least 3 months after release to try this game.
Oh, regarding his frequent references to CoH/CoV, did you read the previous interview with the creator of the company? He cited that game as his favorite MMO, so duh it's gonna be like that -- The constant instancing is one example, although it appears PotBS has taken it to another level.
MMO game companies need to emulate Blizzard's dev process with SC2 right now... the only company to TRULY take into consideration and repeatedly modify their game mechanics, physics, units, content, and gameplay simply based on user responses. That's pulling employees out of nowehere for free if you ask me, and is more than priceless for a game dev company, especially MMOs.
Cinori Aluben - CSM6 2011
Fix The Little Things First!
www.littlethingsfirst.com
EVE-Online
What about allowing the leveling up process to stay fairly quick, but come up with a lot of group-oriented high end content for players to use? What's that? Oh, too hard you say, okay go with the other MMO models then. Give them the grind and spend all their time getting to the top and then quitting when there's nothting to do at the end.
I don't mean to sound jaded...well, maybe I do...but I'm trying to make a point here.
No big.
Software today isn't like it was in the past--and certainly not like the oft-cited example of buying a car. Software today is constantly updated and changed because of access to the Internet. Is that good or bad? I don't know--there's a bit of both there.
I do agree that one buys the game based on whether you like what it offers on launch, but I think one subscribes (after that initial 30 days) based on what's promised. In that time, most of us have reached or nearly reached end-game.
Many people (not referring to you, Daffid011) commenting here have clearly not played the game or even researched it (at least, those are the comments that stick out). Why bother commenting or becoming involved in something that you clearly have no actual interest in?
There are things I'd have done differently, for sure. But they're not game-breaking--and I'm willing to see how the game will play out based on their design choices. It's not like the game is going to cost an arm and a leg--or that you have to buy a year's subscription at launch.
What would I have really really wanted? Pre-cu SWG style on the high seas. In fact, give me pre-cu SWG-style in any setting and I'd be pretty happy. Unfortunately, I don't have tens of millions sitting around, so I've gotta play what's produced if I want to play at all. Or I could troll the forums all day crying that nothing is exactly the way I want.
Apply lemon juice and candle flame here to reveal secret message.
It wasn't ready for open beta, now you'll have less subscribers when the game is released. You should have done all of these things in the closed beta, and asked the community if it was ready.
The problems with station should have been fixed as well before open beta, nag sony about it.
I for one had high expectations, but you let me down.
Your example offers nothing for soloers. Soloers make up about 40% of the market.
Most the the above I do agree with, PotBS 'lacks' things and clunks along to paraphase, much like TR atm both will only hold the committed fanbase UNTIL x y and z are placed in the game and polished as it stands, however once they have it, they'll do well..
PotBS wont be a smash hit on release however IF they devs quickly add the stuff they are contenplating for 'end game' within a month or two it'll probly gain favour with the players..
TBH PotBS (like TR again) seems to have been pushed out eaily because of the potental juggernoughts being released further on, but it doesn't help it to 'lack' content considering two MMOs a few months later claim to have 'full content', players would rather save their money until then then risk not 'doing anything' on an 'unfinished' game
Bring on the WARRRRGGHH!
Well, thats the big question I have. Games like VG and Tabula Rasa are/were based on the concept to make a "basic" game now and add necessary things later. Now sure, almost all MMOs didnt start with all features right away. The question is, how much do they need? Often I feel MMOs who start too low somehow never recover from a mediocre start, thats what I am unsure about, be it PotBS, TR or if a game like VG will ever really recover, even IF they manage to add/change a lot of things. Sometimes I feel at a certain point a MMO never really recovers. But maybe... who knows.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
Well, thats the big question I have. Games like VG and Tabula Rasa are/were based on the concept to make a "basic" game now and add necessary things later. Now sure, almost all MMOs didnt start with all features right away. The question is, how much do they need? Often I feel MMOs who start too low somehow never recover from a mediocre start, thats what I am unsure about, be it PotBS, TR or if a game like VG will ever really recover, even IF they manage to add/change a lot of things. Sometimes I feel at a certain point a MMO never really recovers. But maybe... who knows.
Sorry to answer a question with another question however by 'will ever recover' when has a MMO reached 'recoverable' status? is it when it has 'x millions' of subs or is it when it makes profit?
The latter is more true, I would use EvE as an example it's been near death but stll continues with only (what was considered a normal subcription base for 'old times') 30k of players online max, but then again thats a special example as they don't have to pay for exturnal expences, but it's still a good example, personally I think 'success' should be deemed as 'time active' not the inital or current subcriber base.
I mean games like DDO although deemed ' a massive bomb' by a lot of players is still plugging along, whereas AA is now shutdown after a year.. which of the two is more successful? In the end it's both publisher and dev's 'goals' that deem a game a 'success' and 'recoverable', if both want 'x millions' as like WoW but don't get that then it's detented to close however if the the idea is to make a game to pull a niche market and make a slight profit then theres a high chance it'll bounce back (hell Vanguard is doing that right now). Point being it's more about what playerbase your looking for then real profit with MMOs, thats the true trick to these things which a lot of dev companies seem to either have or don't.
Bring on the WARRRRGGHH!
He could have just as easily mentioned any of a slew of other MMO's with the same features. We have instanced missions like Anarchy Online, blah, blah and focused mission content for teams like WoW, blah, blah. He at least decided to choose the game that was the most like fun and the least like work.
Im currently enjoying the game.. Mostly because it is different. And Im still exploring aspects of it.
What I dont like, well, its to easy. Where is the danger? I switched to pvp flag once I hit level 5, but where is it? All I see is other players killing NPC.
While Ship combat, is IMO fun and requires strategy, even against NPC. I would love to see huge or small PvP battles that I can join.
To much instancing aswell. Instancing should be avoided at all costs. MMORPGs are about playing with and against other players, its not about protecting the singleplayer mind. Its about making people interact.
My cool sig: Turrets suck.
I enjoyed the game overall, only got to about lvl25(2-3 days). One thing I noticed was ,as they mentioned, quests are the same for all nations they just have a few changes to em, mainly names. Which made starting a new char extremely boring. So I look forward to those additions they mentioned.
Big thing I would like to see added would be (and I think he said something about it), persistant areas. An area you sail into that pulls you out of OS mode and puts you in contact with other ships as well as obstacles. Like a area with reefs between islands that you have to visualy navigate to avoid sinking your own ship, while keeping an eye out for other players hostile or not.
And I know their is hardly much reason to do truely OS areas like that but a weather system could fill that viod easliy. Could have squalls and hurricanes. The way I would suggest would be simple to do, just have clouds drifting on random patterns(that look good not cheesy) and when they merge it would create a zone that would pull you from OS mode into a storm where the outter fringes are easier to navigate and less damaging but if you screw up and go into it or have to try to push on through you risk damage or being sunk if you dont use real sailing skill. Now I don't think it should be happening all over the pace all the time but a few good storms here and there are realistic and and a hurricane scattered now and then would be nice. So two regular clouds merging could form a small storm. Two storm clouds merging could form a hurricane. Now that is just a quickly thought up idea I am sure with some good thought a much better method could be concieved but there it is my two bits.
Overall, good game and look forward to seeing it get better.
This game is going to flop, far far too easy to level. I do not understand what the developers were thinking, but unless they make huge changes in how fast you level, this game will be a waste of time for everyone.
I dunno I kinda liked the fact that you could progress fast and get into the larger ships. TBH getting kinda sick of the time sink aspect most MMO's throw at ya now days.
But if they do leave it where you can get into the high lvls fast then they need to look more to adding player driven content to keep the experiance fresh and changing.
I mean it is mainly about player battles, guild fleet battles, controlling territory as well as the economy. Why do you really need to drag the low end through the dirt and keep players down? The lower end quests and all seemed more like a long tutorial to learning how to cooperate as a team in fleet battles and learning the ins and outs of sailing and avatar combat.
The real challenge is being able to earn money to replace lost ships after huge battles and being able to afford to maintain the economy in your port and in ports you are trying to conquer. Honestly I don't see how lvls really play into that at all.
I know some will say that everyone will be sailing in SoL's and noone will want to use the smaller ships...but thats not true. Especially when it comes to fleet battles. Having those smaller faster and more manuverable ships plays a large part in weither you win or lose. All it would take is one or two terrible and expensive losses of an entire fleet of SoL's to a more well balanced and actually cheaper fleet of skilled players and they will rethink their ship deployment in the future.
So IMO I hope they put more into player driven content and strategies than they do into draging the lvl grind out. (we have enough of those games out there IMO)
I think they should do something with guilds and SoL's to make it a bit more interesting. I think that no individual players should be able to sail a SoL. I think it should be a guild ship only, as they would not have sailed alone they would have needed protection in their vulnerable areas from the faster and more manuverable ships, else they would soon find themselves a very large floating unmanuverable target.
So I think that the SoL's should be guild ship that requires multiple players to operate and would require compliment ships, should not sail out alone.
The SoL should be operated by a player navigator, it could have 2 players to man the guns(or more per deck and side), a player to man the sails(making repairs and boosting speed when needed), and a player (or two)to control and boost crew morale as well as handle boarding parties.
And yeah I know that sailing arround all over the map like that would be boring but I don't think it should be used like that. I think it should be used mainly as a port taker or defender. And would obviously require planning as to when and where to use it. So you might send out scout ships to scout a port , see that the enemy has a SoL deployed and decide to bring in yours. So you coordinate with you guild decide who will man what and sail out to encounter the enemy at their port.
Also this would allow them to add more in the skill department in the way of specialization. You could choose to be skilled in many areas( for controling smaller compliment ships) or focus on one so to be a more valuable member of the SoL crew. (as always, changable with respec)
Just a crazy Idea, but would be cool IMO.
Sounds like you want to play Vanguard.
I do not want to take a year to max out. I like the quick progression so everyone is at the same level and the fun starts. Leveling is not fun. I accept it since I like MMORPGs but hate to do it.
If you guys are leveling so fast why don't you take some time off from gaming and go to the gym. If you are reaching max level fast, even in a fast leveling game, you do not have kids, job, mortgage, and are probably overweight.
/pizza ftl
Ok, you can all stop the emo/kneejerk, drama now....
[quote]Guys, you really don't need to worry about this.
The leveling rate we have now is what we intend for launch.
Any changes we make will be to address specific situations like a mission that is way too farmable, or a region in the curve that needs adjustment.
There is NO GLOBAL XP NERF planned. What you're playing is fundamentally what we're launching. Don't worry. [/quote]
Source <-------------------- DEV POST.
----------
"Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"No, your wrong.." - Random user #123
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
How are you?" -Me
No I think that is what people are worried about. Not necessarily the XP-specific issue, but the underlying idea behind that statement: They're not going to change anything, no matter what the players (who form the user-base, consumers, & indirect advertisers) say. That is a sad way to hype a game.
I think half of what you're saying is true, and share your view on balance of life and video games. However, I also think you misinterpret the point of the video game (MMO), as well as are judgemental to many people. It is potentially a true statement for a small minority of true PowerPlayers, but you broadcast the net a little too far.
But, going to the gym is not a bad idea. Try Gymnastics... talk about seeing video game stuff come to life
Cinori Aluben - CSM6 2011
Fix The Little Things First!
www.littlethingsfirst.com
EVE-Online
Sounds like you want to play Vanguard.
I do not want to take a year to max out. I like the quick progression so everyone is at the same level and the fun starts. Leveling is not fun. I accept it since I like MMORPGs but hate to do it.
If you guys are leveling so fast why don't you take some time off from gaming and go to the gym. If you are reaching max level fast, even in a fast leveling game, you do not have kids, job, mortgage, and are probably overweight.
/pizza ftl
If a game is too easy and you max out quickly, then it has a short lifespan as you will become bored with it sooner. The problem is that this game isn't fun, and therefore you don't like the early parts of the game. If a game is fun from the start, then you would want the leveling process to last as long as possible, because there is no reason to reach the end quickly.
Does it make sense to design a game where the players are urged to rush past most of the content to reach the end before having fun? Of course not.
ya well WoW should not have been relased then since you can max it out in 14 days although i think the record when it had a lvl 60 cap was 8 days
Magic is impressive, but now Minsc leads! Swords for everyone!
ya well WoW should not have been relased then since you can max it out in 14 days although i think the record when it had a lvl 60 cap was 8 days
Personally I think WoW is too easy but most people who play WoW don't max out that fast. It's a game designed for casual players who typically take much longer, many months, to max out. By most accounts, players in PotBS are saying the leveling process is too fast. Also WoW developers, unlike FLS, don't claim there isn't much to do at max level, since it is a raid centric PVE game with endgame PVP design as well.