I think you are missing the point. People are not actually playing today's games. Most people are dead tired of it already. The whole point is people having to interact, giving them tools for that is the pre-requisite. People are there to interact, thats where the genre structures itself. What it lacks is ability for people to interact, they often find themselfs limited by the lack of tools.
In virtual world, if you are being oppresed or annoyed you quit because you reached the bottleneck of the design. Would the game be designed to allow people to interact with whatever annoys them, they would just deal with it using the tools at their disposal.
Someone playing Super Mario would quit the game because at some point they fall into a hole. But if the designer gave them the ability to jump across the hole, they would keep playing. The same thing. You are saying that people would RATHER NOT PRESS JUMP, AND QUIT RIGHT AWAY.
People would not quit right away, they would try things, ask for help. Even if they quit, at some point they would discover what idiots they were "dude, your trolling the game, but it is your fault because all you had to do was JUMP". And in the game, people would be informed about the jump "tool" alongside many of the other tools.
Open your eyes, start trying.
There is a world of difference between obstacles in a game and faulty design. This isn't a hole you can just "jump" over. If you were to mistakenly simplify it to that level, you'd be better to say, it's a hole every 3 feet (times the number of other players that want to ruin your day, times the number of ways this "system" allows them to do it).
That's not a challenge, its an annoyance, and any decent designer would know that.
And yes, if MMOs had evolved from UO instead of evolving from EQ, they would be far better by now.
Freedom is a chatbox where you can type whatever you like with others and pretend it's all happening.
Everything else is a designed experience. Freedom - like "balance" - is a retarted concept that has no place in good design.
A multitude of carefully constructed and consequenced choice options that when aggregated among the population totals to the desired world state is the way to good MMO design.
Oh and "lol" at "freedom to pursue those accountable for mistakes" - it made me think about that WoW designer that amidst the RealID debacle posted his RL info on the forums and immediately got stalked.
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall Currently Playing: ESO
Everything else is a designed experience. Freedom - like "balance" - is a retarted concept that has no place in good design.
A multitude of carefully constructed and consequenced choice options that when aggregated among the population totals to the desired world state is the way to good MMO design.
So if two damage classes deal 1000 and 2000 dps, respectively, then a game shouldn't strive for balance?
If a class has Ability A which is the only ability you need to spam to optimize DPS, that's somehow better gameplay than a class whose abilities are in balance with one another, so that you have to make the right choice for the right situation?
Balance is central to good game design. Without presenting players with a series of balanced decisions, the decisions will be totally uninteresting.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Everything else is a designed experience. Freedom - like "balance" - is a retarted concept that has no place in good design.
A multitude of carefully constructed and consequenced choice options that when aggregated among the population totals to the desired world state is the way to good MMO design.
So if two damage classes deal 1000 and 2000 dps, respectively, then a game shouldn't strive for balance?
no. if you already have one class that does 2000dps, you don't need a 2nd. people who want to do 2000 dps will play the first. as long as each class / ability is useful for something that benefits the player and world, there is no reason for everyone to be equal at everything. also, even your example is predicated on a game where dps amount matters and is the only thing that matters.
EVE works just fine without balance. some people fly tiny little ships, some fly massive capital ships. as long as there is use for both, there is no need for them to be equal. I started my MMO career in AO and i don't think i even heard the term "balance" for the 3 years i played. One class was good because it had runspeed buffs, one because it turned people into birds, another game xp buffs another helped equip better equipment... all of them dealt various amounts damage.. all were useful.
yes, if you have a game that has 4 scout classes and the only thing to do in the game is dps mobs on raids, then yes you need them to be relatively equal otherwise no one will play some of them, but that goes back to why you did design your game that way in the first place? anyhow... this is kinda off-topic here.
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall Currently Playing: ESO
If everyone copied UO instead of EQ you would have already had your freedom.
If everyone choose to play UO over EQ, devs would've copied UO. That didn't happen. Players value gameplay.
UO was about the gameplay, it certainly wasn't about the graphics, and at the time everyone did play it.
But people don't slowly mass-exodus away from a game (like they did with UO) if it offers superior gameplay. If it was genuinely more fun than EQ, people would've stayed with UO.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Everything else is a designed experience. Freedom - like "balance" - is a retarted concept that has no place in good design.
A multitude of carefully constructed and consequenced choice options that when aggregated among the population totals to the desired world state is the way to good MMO design.
So if two damage classes deal 1000 and 2000 dps, respectively, then a game shouldn't strive for balance?
as long as each class / ability is useful for something that benefits the player and world, there is no reason for everyone to be equal at everything. also, even your example is predicated on a game where dps amount matters and is the only thing that matters.
If you need to, imagine that instead of DPS I used the term Usefulness, which is a sum total of a playstyle's damage, mitigation, healing, and utility capabilities. I merely used DPS to explain things in the simplest terms possible.
If there are real challenges in a game, people will want to optimize their chances for success by combining the strongest of available playstyles. This is particularly horrible in a game where your playstyle is a Day 1 decision (like in AO.) If one class is known for providing less Usefulness to a party than another, that player is screwed.
It's less painful in a game like EVE where your playstyle can change simply by switching ships (but in that case, why waste dev hours on the crap stuff nobody uses?)
I mean if there are more expensive ships and higher level weapons, that's fine. But at any given level (or any given cost) the choices should be balanced. Balance is crucial. Heck, at the very least balance is critical for designing the Usefulness Per Cost of those ships (and their equipment) in EVE.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Eve could use more balance because it would make it more enjoyable to those who care about balance. SInce you, arieste, obviously don't, and many Eve players don't, or just don't understand the need for it, more balance would only be a good thing for Eve. Since we're talking about CCP: Do it more frequently!
Do you know why some ships are more popular than others? -Because, population aside, they are better than others! This is not about roles! Capital ships serve a different role than small tackling ships. It's about what is the best ship for the role from all the other ships that were intended to fill it?
It is not about DPS. Doing DPS is just another role. Axehilt's example could've easily been over healing, scouting or other support. Or even ability to solo a bunch of mobs.
Good balance is essential in good design. Choices mean nothing if some are clearly wrong and some are clearly right. In a game that has bad balance, your choices are often: A) shoot yourself in the leg, shoot yourself in the head, C) shoot the enemy. That's really no choice at all!
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
If everyone copied UO instead of EQ you would have already had your freedom.
MMO School of Design Decisions evolved from Everquest, rather than Ultima Online.
But it has nothing to do with ultimate or limited freedom. The design didnt evolved with freedom,but the opposite, the complete removal of it in all aspects.
Its like we are still in the medieval times of Virtual Societies Design, cant find a cure, cut it out.
If everyone copied UO instead of EQ you would have already had your freedom.
MMO School of Design Decisions evolved from Everquest, rather than Ultima Online.
But it has nothing to do with ultimate or limited freedom. The design didnt evolved with freedom,but the opposite, the complete removal of it in all aspects.
Its like we are still in the medieval times of Virtual Societies Design, cant find a cure, cut it out.
That's hardly 'medieval'. If something is killing a patient and you do not have a direct cure, an amputation is prefered if it will save the patient.
If certain 'freedoms' are killing a game, it is preferable to remove those 'freedoms' to save the game if a better solution is not present.
Comments
There is a world of difference between obstacles in a game and faulty design. This isn't a hole you can just "jump" over. If you were to mistakenly simplify it to that level, you'd be better to say, it's a hole every 3 feet (times the number of other players that want to ruin your day, times the number of ways this "system" allows them to do it).
That's not a challenge, its an annoyance, and any decent designer would know that.
And yes, if MMOs had evolved from UO instead of evolving from EQ, they would be far better by now.
If everyone choose to play UO over EQ, devs would've copied UO. That didn't happen. Players value gameplay.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Freedom is a chatbox where you can type whatever you like with others and pretend it's all happening.
Everything else is a designed experience. Freedom - like "balance" - is a retarted concept that has no place in good design.
A multitude of carefully constructed and consequenced choice options that when aggregated among the population totals to the desired world state is the way to good MMO design.
Oh and "lol" at "freedom to pursue those accountable for mistakes" - it made me think about that WoW designer that amidst the RealID debacle posted his RL info on the forums and immediately got stalked.
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO
Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall
Currently Playing: ESO
So if two damage classes deal 1000 and 2000 dps, respectively, then a game shouldn't strive for balance?
If a class has Ability A which is the only ability you need to spam to optimize DPS, that's somehow better gameplay than a class whose abilities are in balance with one another, so that you have to make the right choice for the right situation?
Balance is central to good game design. Without presenting players with a series of balanced decisions, the decisions will be totally uninteresting.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
no. if you already have one class that does 2000dps, you don't need a 2nd. people who want to do 2000 dps will play the first. as long as each class / ability is useful for something that benefits the player and world, there is no reason for everyone to be equal at everything. also, even your example is predicated on a game where dps amount matters and is the only thing that matters.
EVE works just fine without balance. some people fly tiny little ships, some fly massive capital ships. as long as there is use for both, there is no need for them to be equal. I started my MMO career in AO and i don't think i even heard the term "balance" for the 3 years i played. One class was good because it had runspeed buffs, one because it turned people into birds, another game xp buffs another helped equip better equipment... all of them dealt various amounts damage.. all were useful.
yes, if you have a game that has 4 scout classes and the only thing to do in the game is dps mobs on raids, then yes you need them to be relatively equal otherwise no one will play some of them, but that goes back to why you did design your game that way in the first place? anyhow... this is kinda off-topic here.
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO
Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall
Currently Playing: ESO
UO was about the gameplay, it certainly wasn't about the graphics, and at the time everyone did play it.
But people don't slowly mass-exodus away from a game (like they did with UO) if it offers superior gameplay. If it was genuinely more fun than EQ, people would've stayed with UO.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Because they have no choice. Once EQ came out, it immediately becomes more popular.
And many (including me) were turned off by the free for all ganging in UO and the horribly boring clicking on a stone 10000 times to level mining.
If you need to, imagine that instead of DPS I used the term Usefulness, which is a sum total of a playstyle's damage, mitigation, healing, and utility capabilities. I merely used DPS to explain things in the simplest terms possible.
If there are real challenges in a game, people will want to optimize their chances for success by combining the strongest of available playstyles. This is particularly horrible in a game where your playstyle is a Day 1 decision (like in AO.) If one class is known for providing less Usefulness to a party than another, that player is screwed.
It's less painful in a game like EVE where your playstyle can change simply by switching ships (but in that case, why waste dev hours on the crap stuff nobody uses?)
I mean if there are more expensive ships and higher level weapons, that's fine. But at any given level (or any given cost) the choices should be balanced. Balance is crucial. Heck, at the very least balance is critical for designing the Usefulness Per Cost of those ships (and their equipment) in EVE.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Eve could use more balance because it would make it more enjoyable to those who care about balance. SInce you, arieste, obviously don't, and many Eve players don't, or just don't understand the need for it, more balance would only be a good thing for Eve. Since we're talking about CCP: Do it more frequently!
Do you know why some ships are more popular than others? -Because, population aside, they are better than others! This is not about roles! Capital ships serve a different role than small tackling ships. It's about what is the best ship for the role from all the other ships that were intended to fill it?
It is not about DPS. Doing DPS is just another role. Axehilt's example could've easily been over healing, scouting or other support. Or even ability to solo a bunch of mobs.
Good balance is essential in good design. Choices mean nothing if some are clearly wrong and some are clearly right. In a game that has bad balance, your choices are often: A) shoot yourself in the leg,
shoot yourself in the head, C) shoot the enemy. That's really no choice at all!
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
MMO School of Design Decisions evolved from Everquest, rather than Ultima Online.
But it has nothing to do with ultimate or limited freedom. The design didnt evolved with freedom,but the opposite, the complete removal of it in all aspects.
Its like we are still in the medieval times of Virtual Societies Design, cant find a cure, cut it out.
That's hardly 'medieval'. If something is killing a patient and you do not have a direct cure, an amputation is prefered if it will save the patient.
If certain 'freedoms' are killing a game, it is preferable to remove those 'freedoms' to save the game if a better solution is not present.