I don't know, I'm skeptical of this game. [at best] It seems like it's just "fanboi" bait, to me. Put out a game to get the nerds clamoring to their computers to play their nerd-fantasy with light-sabers. It just sounds like they're "talking out of both sides of their mouths". Telling people what they want to hear. I'm gonna have to just let this one sit on the shelf for a while. But, I'll keep an eye on it and maybe try it a year or so after launch. The same stance I'm taking with AoC.
What Happened With SWG Went Down YEARS AGO! Please Try To Stop Whining About It In Every Thread I Read. Mourn It, And Finally MOVE ON With Your Lives! Thanks A Heap.
Originally posted by MindTrigger Yes, labeling you a troll and moving on to better conversations is much easier than trying to explain a simple concept like how playing a combat toon and a crafter toon on the same server is *not* an attempt to circumvent player interaction, but wanting to have more than one game play experience. Why would I go try another profession on a different server when all my friends and guildmates are on my current server? In your narrow minded view of gaming, we should all just roll one class or profession, because if we roll anything else, we aren't interacting with the community completely. Being able to leverage a couple of accounts on one server is something just about *everyone* does these days. Hell, in most games now you can roll 5+ toons on the same server per paid account, unlike SWG's limit of 1 (or two now). It's possible in games like WoW and Lotro to roll one of each class, and profession on the same server, and never need to talk to another single soul in the game. This also bolsters my original point which is that it's easier to completely avoid other players in the latest MMO's than it was in older games like SWG. My rolling one combat toon and one crafter toon on the same server didn't even dent the gameplay. To answer your other question, encouraging people to group or interact with other players means rewarding them somehow, sort of like giving an XP bonus for group questing/hunting. This does not make interaction mandatory, but it does give a small benefit to those who choose to use it. I don't see how any sane person would have a problem with encouraging player interaction through some means, considering the *entire* point of the MMORPG genre is to bring thousands of players together in an online world so they can interact. Trying to say that encouraging players to interact equals a penalty to those who don't, is asinine. That is like saying a company that is offering me better pay for a job to encourage me to work for them instead of another company, is equal to forcing me to work for them. It would be my choice where to work, and it's up to me to weigh the pros and cons of each choice. I really don't see the point of this argument. I'm sitting here telling you that I had incredible community interaction in SWG because of the systems they had in place, which countless members of this website would empathize with, and you are trying to tell me that I didn't, because I rolled a combat toon and a crafter toon on the same server. Where exactly are you going with this? I do not want to painstakingly break down everything I am trying to say to you, because you exploit any possible hole I leave in my words to start a new argument. I think I have explained my position more than clearly. If you have come to the conclusion that I am 100% for forced grouping and player interaction, then so be it. That's your opinion, and you are welcome to it. I disagree with you. Perhaps you would like to argue now that I don't disagree with you, and that I am only rationalizing. Wait, you already did that.
You had incredible community interaction in SWG because of the systems they had in place... or because you were able to meta-game the systems they had in place when you didn't like them?
You never crafted for one character using the other? You never collected resources for one character using the other? You never shared currency, buffs, lots, or even took advantage of your "multiple paid accounts" to pad your guild/city's population? What, do you think I was born yesterday? Why do you think they imposed a one character per server limitation in the first place?
And what's your rationale? That everyone was doing it? That you can do that and more in today's "simple games for simple people"? That's your defense? Why not just say you were paying more in subscription fees, therefore shouldn't be held to the same standards as those paying less?
Anyhow, I'll attempt to find some common ground. You want skill-based leveling? I don't have a problem with that, assuming it's thoroughly tested and exploit-free. We don't need another game where combining a select handful of skills = god mode. Furthermore, it also needs to be accessible (i.e., you won't need a doctorate in cryptology to make heads or tails of the skill descriptions) and flexible (some form of "try before you buy" and/or re-specification if the skill doesn't live up to expectation).
Full PvP looting? Sure, why not? Assuming that PvP is strictly consensual to begin with, either via dedicated PvP servers and/or separate-but-equal PvP areas/zones. Games like EVE Online and Lineage II are great for PvP enthusiasts, but I believe Bioware would alienate a large portion of their potential audience by focusing exclusively on that.
A player-driven economy with components such as item decay? Here's where we're going to have to differ, considerably. If it's an opt-in system, wherein I can choose not to participate if I wish, AND not have my progress gated or significantly diminished, then fine. City of Heroes/Villains managed to accomplish this. I'd be content with something similar. But the Ayn Rand inspired, laissez-faire capitalism all too prevalent in most MMO player-driven economies? Forget about it. I get enough grief from that when I log out of my computer (I think even Alan Greenspan would concur). There needs to be either extensive oversight and regulation, or a viable alternative.
Incentives and/or "encouragements" for socialization and cooperation? Believe it or not, again I don't have a problem with this... assuming it's a genuine CHOICE and the ratio of risk vs. reward isn't broken in the process. What I mean by that is I don't want to see two (or more) people group up, trivialize content intended for solo play, and reap twice as much (if not more) benefit. The game must optimize challenges and rewards to be commensurate with one another.
Additionally, I hope for goodness sake they don't implement the "holy trinity" EQ model of "tank, healer, nuke". Boy, is that played out. Once again, I point to City of Heroes for doing a fairly admirable job of trying to break from that mold.
Comments
I don't know, I'm skeptical of this game. [at best] It seems like it's just "fanboi" bait, to me. Put out a game to get the nerds clamoring to their computers to play their nerd-fantasy with light-sabers. It just sounds like they're "talking out of both sides of their mouths". Telling people what they want to hear. I'm gonna have to just let this one sit on the shelf for a while. But, I'll keep an eye on it and maybe try it a year or so after launch. The same stance I'm taking with AoC.
What Happened With SWG Went Down YEARS AGO! Please Try To Stop Whining About It In Every Thread I Read. Mourn It, And Finally MOVE ON With Your Lives! Thanks A Heap.
You had incredible community interaction in SWG because of the systems they had in place... or because you were able to meta-game the systems they had in place when you didn't like them?
You never crafted for one character using the other? You never collected resources for one character using the other? You never shared currency, buffs, lots, or even took advantage of your "multiple paid accounts" to pad your guild/city's population? What, do you think I was born yesterday? Why do you think they imposed a one character per server limitation in the first place?
And what's your rationale? That everyone was doing it? That you can do that and more in today's "simple games for simple people"? That's your defense? Why not just say you were paying more in subscription fees, therefore shouldn't be held to the same standards as those paying less?
Anyhow, I'll attempt to find some common ground. You want skill-based leveling? I don't have a problem with that, assuming it's thoroughly tested and exploit-free. We don't need another game where combining a select handful of skills = god mode. Furthermore, it also needs to be accessible (i.e., you won't need a doctorate in cryptology to make heads or tails of the skill descriptions) and flexible (some form of "try before you buy" and/or re-specification if the skill doesn't live up to expectation).
Full PvP looting? Sure, why not? Assuming that PvP is strictly consensual to begin with, either via dedicated PvP servers and/or separate-but-equal PvP areas/zones. Games like EVE Online and Lineage II are great for PvP enthusiasts, but I believe Bioware would alienate a large portion of their potential audience by focusing exclusively on that.
A player-driven economy with components such as item decay? Here's where we're going to have to differ, considerably. If it's an opt-in system, wherein I can choose not to participate if I wish, AND not have my progress gated or significantly diminished, then fine. City of Heroes/Villains managed to accomplish this. I'd be content with something similar. But the Ayn Rand inspired, laissez-faire capitalism all too prevalent in most MMO player-driven economies? Forget about it. I get enough grief from that when I log out of my computer (I think even Alan Greenspan would concur). There needs to be either extensive oversight and regulation, or a viable alternative.
Incentives and/or "encouragements" for socialization and cooperation? Believe it or not, again I don't have a problem with this... assuming it's a genuine CHOICE and the ratio of risk vs. reward isn't broken in the process. What I mean by that is I don't want to see two (or more) people group up, trivialize content intended for solo play, and reap twice as much (if not more) benefit. The game must optimize challenges and rewards to be commensurate with one another.
Additionally, I hope for goodness sake they don't implement the "holy trinity" EQ model of "tank, healer, nuke". Boy, is that played out. Once again, I point to City of Heroes for doing a fairly admirable job of trying to break from that mold.