The first question was answered OK I thought, the cash shop question seemed to have been ducked a bit more. I am just assuming "no" though.
Yeah, he definitely dodged that one...
"I'll just create this false dichotomy between the game being good and discussing other payment model possibilities."
Please. We know there was 10,000 meetings on this - just say "No, we wanted to go with subs only, because we think that's going to work better for us." or "all possibilities are still on the table" etc.
But in a time where huge P2P Games successfully add a cash shop, it whould be to risky to just say "no". because if they add paid servertransfers, face/name/gener/race changes for a fee then someone will say "but you said "no"!". I dont like that sort of extras - WoW started it and Aion and WAR follow now.
First they have to deliver a fun and polished game - then we will see how many players they will get.
The have a great team with so many highly experienced ppl that i dont think that the game will suck
------------------------------------- Playing: Overwatch, Genshin Impact, Black Desert Mobile, Hundred Soul, Cyberpunk 2077 Inactive: WAR, DAoC, RIFT, GW1/2, TSW, Age of Wulin, Black Desert, Blade & Soul, Skyforge
I don't know, outside of the different visual looks and different mobs the Rifts seem pretty static and not have that much variation like a GW2 Dynamic Event has - a Life Rift will always be sort of the same when it pops up. Now if they would vary it even in 5-6 different scenarios and all kinds of different mob setups for each Rift type, that'd make a major difference. Besides the Class system and Rifts, RIft doesn't seem to offer that much new.
Not that that is needed: when I'm going to play it, it'll be because it looks like a solid MMORPG with some twists and most importantly a EQ-style of visuals and world.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
I don't know, outside of the different visual looks and different mobs the Rifts seem pretty static and not have that much variation like a GW2 Dynamic Event has - a Life Rift will always be sort of the same when it pops up. Now if they would vary it even in 5-6 different scenarios and all kinds of different mob setups for each Rift type, that'd make a major difference. Besides the Class system and Rifts, RIft doesn't seem to offer that much new
The beauty of the engine they have built is that moving forward the scenario you mentioned with different setups (bossesmobs) will be doable almost on the fly without major patches and updates. At launch I would expect a certain amount to be "static" encounters because well its launch and they are more concerned with it being clearn and a full experience. The underlying technology of Rift is where the true innovation is for this game lies.
The thing that has me and many of my guild looking closely at this game is the flexibility that the Soul Tree system allows to completely customize your characters. In short, you can pick three classes from within your Calling (Rogue, Warrior, Cleric, or Mage) and vary your offense, defense, spells, crowd control abilities, ranged versus melee ability, and about anything else that interests you.
Based on the information given on Rift.com these can be varied also, so one character does not always have to fit the exact same setup, and can be changed if the player is unhappy with it.
I have a lot of information I have gathered on this system on my website as well.
You know maybe its because Im hyped about this game, so Im more biased towards it.
What stuck out to me in that article/interview was they more or less they said; all the focus isnt about just making money, our focus is on making a great game that will make us money.
Which seems to break the trend that a lot of MMO have been heading towards.
You can ignore anything I wrote below this. Its just me being and asshole, even if it is relevant. I just cant help it sometimes.
Almost all MMOs coming out seem to have the - Dont attract subscribers to your game by making it great. Just give them a quick thrill, make your buck and then let then let them try something else. Kinda like a whore, just without the STD's. Well maybe with the STD's. I did feel kinda itchy after subbing to CO for a few months.
"I understand that if I hear any more words come pouring out of your **** mouth, Ill have to eat every fucking chicken in this room."
My most fun times playing EQ2 was when Hartsman was running it. He did a great job with reviving EQ2 after he took over after its bad launch in my opinion. It sucked when he left. Still on the fence about this one though.
I'm not that into Rift at all and this interview didn't change my mind (nor the comments in this thread).
1. For all the innovation of the classes, it is still following a Holy Trinity setup. That makes grouping in general annoying and especially with friends. It would be far more exciting if they were actually mixing up the basic combat system beyond what WoW has, but as best I can tell they are not. I do not enjoy the overspecialization of the Holy Trinity nor how it requires all enemies to be completely morons.
2. Rifts aren't that dynamic compared to GW2. They don't have a web of interactions with other dynamic events and despite what one person here said, that's not something you can easily patch into the game...that requires a lot of content work. Since this is the second thing that makes it unique...I can't say it feels like it is nearly as well done as it could be. Anyhow, Rifts seem and sound like little more than randomly generated content...which is typical mediocre.
3. It's a subscription game. I am pretty sure I am done with subs*. They are extremely overpriced. Servers are cheap to run and you don't get nearly enough content considering you pay 180 bucks a year They also provide a financial incentive to add as much grind to the fun to stretch it out as they can manage. I'd be tempted to consider a sub that was maybe no more than 5 bucks a month, but not more than that. It's frankly a complete rip-off.
The way to he dodged the first question also did not impress me. While what he said was a bit interesting in terms of how design works, it didn't do anything to sell me on the game.
*TOR MIGHT be an exception, only because I can probably do the single player story for a few characters for a few months and get the content of several games out of it (but it wouldn't be anything I played for longer than that). Hence I can avoid the Holy Trinity and just treat it mostly like a traditional RPG. That said, I am not very excited about TOR anymore either.
I'm not that into Rift at all and this interview didn't change my mind (nor the comments in this thread).
1. For all the innovation of the classes, it is still following a Holy Trinity setup. That makes grouping in general annoying and especially with friends. It would be far more exciting if they were actually mixing up the basic combat system beyond what WoW has, but as best I can tell they are not. I do not enjoy the overspecialization of the Holy Trinity nor how it requires all enemies to be completely morons.Not sure what there is besides Tank/DPS/Healer?I mean you could drop either one to the left and right of DPS. But you do have to have some form of DPS, and some kind of damage mitigation/absorption. Healing thru damage is really just a different type of tanking. But I do agree A.I. in games could be a whole lot better. If thats what your "complete morons" is referring to.
2. Rifts aren't that dynamic compared to GW2. They don't have a web of interactions with other dynamic events... No, Im pretty sure the Devs said Fire Rifts will fight Life Rifts, will fight Death Rifts, will Fight Telara natives and so on and so on. No reason to think they're lying. Thats really a silly assessment when you think about it.
...and despite what one person here said, that's not something you can easily patch into the game...that requires a lot of content work. Since this is the second thing that makes it unique...I can't say it feels like it is nearly as well done as it could be. Anyhow, Rifts seem and sound like little more than randomly generated content...which is typical mediocre. Which may be so, I'm not 100% convinced it will be as good as it can be either.
3. It's a subscription game. I am pretty sure I am done with subs*. They are extremely overpriced. Have I missed something? Is their sub fee going to be like $17.99 or $19.99 or $24.99?
Servers are cheap to run... No they arnt, and neither is bandwidth.
...and you don't get nearly enough content considering you pay 180 bucks a year. Hmm, and purchashing content in micro-transactions is better? Not sure what your point is. You cant put companies like Trion, Blizzard, CCP in the same catagory as Cryptic, if thats what youre implying.
They also provide a financial incentive to add as much grind to the fun to stretch it out as they can manage. I'd be tempted to consider a sub that was maybe no more than 5 bucks a month, but not more than that. It's frankly a complete rip-off. *shrug* I have no problem subbing to a game that provides new content as part of my $15, inbetween major expansions (paid and unpaid). But I do have a problem paying $15 a month and then turning around and having to buy (being charged for) content that should be part of my sub fee, a'la Chapions Online and Star Trek Online.
The way to he dodged the first question also did not impress me. While what he said was a bit interesting in terms of how design works, it didn't do anything to sell me on the game. You read something completley different than I did. He was about as non-evasive as Ive seen a delevoper respond. It wasnt the same canned shit line(s) that a lot of interviewee give.
*TOR MIGHT be an exception, only because I can probably do the single player story for a few characters for a few months and get the content of several games out of it (but it wouldn't be anything I played for longer than that). Hence I can avoid the Holy Trinity and just treat it mostly like a traditional RPG. That said, I am not very excited about TOR anymore either. Im sure TOR has the Holy Trinity of Tank/DPS/Healer. And why would you pay $15 a month (and I have this gut feeling they are going to try for $17.99), plus box price to play a MMO as a single player game? Thats just kinda dumb and a waste of money wouldnt you say? Especially since you just gripped about sub fees and how they should be no more than $5. You kind of seem to be contradicting yourself in the same post. *shrug*
"I understand that if I hear any more words come pouring out of your **** mouth, Ill have to eat every fucking chicken in this room."
I'm not that into Rift at all and this interview didn't change my mind (nor the comments in this thread).
1. For all the innovation of the classes, it is still following a Holy Trinity setup. That makes grouping in general annoying and especially with friends. It would be far more exciting if they were actually mixing up the basic combat system beyond what WoW has, but as best I can tell they are not. I do not enjoy the overspecialization of the Holy Trinity nor how it requires all enemies to be completely morons.Not sure what there is besides Tank/DPS/Healer?I mean you could drop either one to the left and right of DPS. But you do have to have some form of DPS, and some kind of damage mitigation/absorption. Healing thru damage is really just a different type of tanking. But I do agree A.I. in games could be a whole lot better. If thats what your "complete morons" is referring to.
The most laughable myth Trinity advocates hold to is that there are no other options for group combat dynamics when other games with multiple players have been doing them for years. While sure, people have to take damage, deal damage, and heal damage, that doesn't mean a system has to be specialized into those roles and especially not to a ludicrous degree like the Holy Trinity does. D&D (tabletop) is one of dozens of alternative methods to group combat that isn't Holy Trinity.
2. Rifts aren't that dynamic compared to GW2. They don't have a web of interactions with other dynamic events... No, Im pretty sure the Devs said Fire Rifts will fight Life Rifts, will fight Death Rifts, will Fight Telara natives and so on and so on. No reason to think they're lying. Thats really a silly assessment when you think about it.
That's not a web of interactions, that's "if you happen to be bump into X....FIGHT!" You aren't seriously trying to say that compares to GW2's system, are you?
...and despite what one person here said, that's not something you can easily patch into the game...that requires a lot of content work. Since this is the second thing that makes it unique...I can't say it feels like it is nearly as well done as it could be. Anyhow, Rifts seem and sound like little more than randomly generated content...which is typical mediocre. Which may be so, I'm not 100% convinced it will be as good as it can be either.
3. It's a subscription game. I am pretty sure I am done with subs*. They are extremely overpriced. Have I missed something? Is their sub fee going to be like $17.99 or $19.99 or $24.99?
Servers are cheap to run... No they arnt, and neither is bandwidth.
Yes, they ARE cheap to run. That's why tons of games out there provide free multi-player with the servers being hosted by the company. No additional cost and they do it for years easily (with some games doing it for over a decade). Bandwidth and processing power are extremely cheap compared to what is needed. It's a myth that these things cost a lot of money to run.
...and you don't get nearly enough content considering you pay 180 bucks a year. Hmm, and purchashing content in micro-transactions is better? Not sure what your point is. You cant put companies like Trion, Blizzard, CCP in the same catagory as Cryptic, if thats what youre implying.
Microtransactions done right are microtransactions you never have to get. If they stick to cosmetic stuff then that makes sense. As for additional content, at a reasonable price that's not a bad thing. Additional content does cost money of course, just not the ridiculous amount of money per year that you pay into an MMO.
Even Blizzard and CCP laugh and take the vast majority of the sub money to the bank. Blizzard especially of course, since the content they put out is such a joke compared to their vast number of subs. The amount of content either one puts out does not amount to 3-4 games of content per year.
They also provide a financial incentive to add as much grind to the fun to stretch it out as they can manage. I'd be tempted to consider a sub that was maybe no more than 5 bucks a month, but not more than that. It's frankly a complete rip-off. *shrug* I have no problem subbing to a game that provides new content as part of my $15, inbetween major expansions (paid and unpaid). But I do have a problem paying $15 a month and then turning around and having to buy (being charged for) content that should be part of my sub fee, a'la Chapions Online and Star Trek Online.
I'm not advocating some stupid crap like STO or CO as you should be able to tell since I'm against subs in general.
The way to he dodged the first question also did not impress me. While what he said was a bit interesting in terms of how design works, it didn't do anything to sell me on the game. You read something completley different than I did. He was about as non-evasive as Ive seen a delevoper respond. It wasnt the same canned shit line(s) that a lot of interviewee give.
He was asked what makes their game different and unique. Instead of answering the question he just talked in general terms about development. That's not remotely a straight answer to a simple question.
*TOR MIGHT be an exception, only because I can probably do the single player story for a few characters for a few months and get the content of several games out of it (but it wouldn't be anything I played for longer than that). Hence I can avoid the Holy Trinity and just treat it mostly like a traditional RPG. That said, I am not very excited about TOR anymore either. Im sure TOR has the Holy Trinity of Tank/DPS/Healer. And why would you pay $15 a month (and I have this gut feeling they are going to try for $17.99), plus box price to play a MMO as a single player game? Thats just kinda dumb and a waste of money wouldnt you say? Especially since you just gripped about sub fees and how they should be no more than $5. You kind of seem to be contradicting yourself in the same post. *shrug*
TOR will supposedly come with content equal to several games. So if I played for say 5 months, that would be $60 + $60 + $60 dollars. If I play through several single player storylines during that time I could well get my money's worth. That said, I'd probably aim for just 3 months. That's assuming they have as much content as they claim (but like I said, I'm only considering it). Most MMOs don't have that much quality content, but TOR's single player might be different. Like I said though, it only might be an exception and certainly only a temporary one. It wouldn't be worth subbing for a year, I'm sure.
I'm not that into Rift at all and this interview didn't change my mind (nor the comments in this thread).
1. For all the innovation of the classes, it is still following a Holy Trinity setup. That makes grouping in general annoying and especially with friends. It would be far more exciting if they were actually mixing up the basic combat system beyond what WoW has, but as best I can tell they are not. I do not enjoy the overspecialization of the Holy Trinity nor how it requires all enemies to be completely morons.
2. Rifts aren't that dynamic compared to GW2. They don't have a web of interactions with other dynamic events and despite what one person here said, that's not something you can easily patch into the game...that requires a lot of content work. Since this is the second thing that makes it unique...I can't say it feels like it is nearly as well done as it could be. Anyhow, Rifts seem and sound like little more than randomly generated content...which is typical mediocre.
3. It's a subscription game. I am pretty sure I am done with subs*. They are extremely overpriced. Servers are cheap to run and you don't get nearly enough content considering you pay 180 bucks a year They also provide a financial incentive to add as much grind to the fun to stretch it out as they can manage. I'd be tempted to consider a sub that was maybe no more than 5 bucks a month, but not more than that. It's frankly a complete rip-off.
The way to he dodged the first question also did not impress me. While what he said was a bit interesting in terms of how design works, it didn't do anything to sell me on the game.
*TOR MIGHT be an exception, only because I can probably do the single player story for a few characters for a few months and get the content of several games out of it (but it wouldn't be anything I played for longer than that). Hence I can avoid the Holy Trinity and just treat it mostly like a traditional RPG. That said, I am not very excited about TOR anymore either.
1. Who cares. Thats the nature of ALL RPG's from pen and paper to single player computer games to MMO's. Deal with it.
2. How do you know that? You don't. You haven't played the game. From the people that have played the game, they ARE dynamic. In fact, there's someone that posted on here that HAS played it, that said each and every rift is different. I tend to believe someone thats played the game over someone who THINKS they heard something somewhere that they don't like.
3. Good, its a sub game. Better sub than f2p. F2p is screwing us all by allowing the lowest common denominator to come in and destroy the game. The lowest common denominator tends to avoid p2p games so I'm just fine with it.
As for TOR, we don't want your kind there if you're going to be like this.
1. Who cares. Thats the nature of ALL RPG's from pen and paper to single player computer games to MMO's. Deal with it.
2. How do you know that? You don't. You haven't played the game. From the people that have played the game, they ARE dynamic. In fact, there's someone that posted on here that HAS played it, that said each and every rift is different. I tend to believe someone thats played the game over someone who THINKS they heard something somewhere that they don't like.
3. Good, its a sub game. Better sub than f2p. F2p is screwing us all by allowing the lowest common denominator to come in and destroy the game. The lowest common denominator tends to avoid p2p games so I'm just fine with it.
As for TOR, we don't want your kind there if you're going to be like this.
1. You've either never played a Pen and Paper game or you don't know what the Holy Trinity is (which only exists in MMOs -- well, you could argue it kind of exists in Dragon Age: Origins, I suppose).
2. They are random. I acknowledge the randomness. I acknowledge that if they randomly run into enemy rift guys, they'll fight. That doesn't mean it holds a candle to GW2 which has actual story for each DE and how they chain together. I'll admit Rift would be a bit impressive in this respect if it was the only game in town in this regard, but it isn't going to be.
3. Lol. I forget this week, is it all the horrible WoW players who can pay subs destroying MMOs or is it F2P? Either way it's a wrong-headed view based on ridiculous elitism.
As for TOR, it seems you are already abandoning your "subs make games great" argument right after you stated it.
2. They are random. I acknowledge the randomness. I acknowledge that if they randomly run into enemy rift guys, they'll fight. That doesn't mean it holds a candle to GW2 which has actual story for each DE and how they chain together. I'll admit Rift would be a bit impressive in this respect if it was the only game in town in this regard, but it isn't going to be.
I got a question about 2. An honnest one. How are those dynamic events in GW2 going to be different than public quests in WAR?
Oh and let go of those Ad Hominem attacks. You don't need to bait to have a good discussion.
2. They are random. I acknowledge the randomness. I acknowledge that if they randomly run into enemy rift guys, they'll fight. That doesn't mean it holds a candle to GW2 which has actual story for each DE and how they chain together. I'll admit Rift would be a bit impressive in this respect if it was the only game in town in this regard, but it isn't going to be.
I got a question about 2. An honnest one. How are those dynamic events in GW2 going to be different than public quests in WAR?
Oh and let go of those Ad Hominem attacks. You don't need to bait to have a good discussion.
GW2 DEs are different in several ways. First, they scale to the number of players (Rift does this too from what I understand), so that's a big step up. There are a few differences with how rewards are done so they make more sense and are equal to all participants. The biggest difference is that DEs in GW2 are linked together and have consequences. If you are defending a town from Centaurs and the Centaurs win, they take over the town and they'll move on to other points from there. If you win, but the Centaurs kill the blacksmith, then the blacksmith is DEAD and doesn't just respawn in 5 minutes -- further, if you win you can then move on to where the Centaurs are coming from and slowly DE by DE get back to their home base and finish them off (of course you don't have to do this in a particular order, DEs are spread throughout the zone and there's always some sort of event at a DE spot). How things are going can affect what sort of goods are available in towns and cities, so if farms are ransacked, then that will alter what sort of foodstuffs are available for example.
There will be zone-wide chains of DEs along a particular story too. They even had players at a con make up the basis for one about helping a colony of whale-folk (not the game name), which involved DEs all over the zone getting allies and so forth to help go after the evil fortress of bad guys (you didn't NEED to do all of those things, but more allies helped, obviously).
And I don't think I've done any ad hominem attacks. The idea that Subs somehow keep out "bad people" is very silly and certainly a form of elitism (and some think "elitism" is a compliment for what it is worth). I think that's the closest I've come to an ad hominem.
i do not agree, that RIFT is just WOW+rifts. even if it would, this makes a huge difference and a fully different game.
fact is, that WoW has set a de facto industry-standard for MMOs. and part of this standard is the quest-model, with extreme use of quests to keep players busy and/or drive the story. i hope, that RIFT and GW2 will replace the quests mainly with dynamic events. we will see, if they will really do it mainly comprehensive and game wide, so that just some tutorial-quests and epic-quest-lines will survive.
if this would happen, than they would change an important basic part of the industry-standard. i guess you still can name it a theme-park, because it needs more to get rid of that overall model. just with dynamic events a game does not become a sandbox. however, i hope it becomes more of a virtual living and breathing world, than the wow-type quest-based game currently is.
whatever you think about theme-parks at all, i myself identified the extreme and mostly exclusive use of quests as one of the main issues and mistakes of current MMOs. so i hope, dynamic events will make this better and are a step into the right direction. of course i would prefer a sandbox-system with NPCs permanently triggered by tons of dynamic events, but thats not something, we will see in 2011. perhaps later, if the dynamic event model has proven to be succesful.
as already said. the public quests in WAR are just timed, scripted quests publicly available. after all we saw from GW2, a real dynamic event model is much more. i hope the model in RIFT will be better than public quests, too.
1. Who cares. Thats the nature of ALL RPG's from pen and paper to single player computer games to MMO's. Deal with it.
2. How do you know that? You don't. You haven't played the game. From the people that have played the game, they ARE dynamic. In fact, there's someone that posted on here that HAS played it, that said each and every rift is different. I tend to believe someone thats played the game over someone who THINKS they heard something somewhere that they don't like.
3. Good, its a sub game. Better sub than f2p. F2p is screwing us all by allowing the lowest common denominator to come in and destroy the game. The lowest common denominator tends to avoid p2p games so I'm just fine with it.
As for TOR, we don't want your kind there if you're going to be like this.
1. You've either never played a Pen and Paper game or you don't know what the Holy Trinity is (which only exists in MMOs -- well, you could argue it kind of exists in Dragon Age: Origins, I suppose).
2. They are random. I acknowledge the randomness. I acknowledge that if they randomly run into enemy rift guys, they'll fight. That doesn't mean it holds a candle to GW2 which has actual story for each DE and how they chain together. I'll admit Rift would be a bit impressive in this respect if it was the only game in town in this regard, but it isn't going to be.
3. Lol. I forget this week, is it all the horrible WoW players who can pay subs destroying MMOs or is it F2P? Either way it's a wrong-headed view based on ridiculous elitism.
As for TOR, it seems you are already abandoning your "subs make games great" argument right after you stated it.
1. I've been playing pen and paper games since the 90's. Dungeons and Dragons 2.0 was my first game and I played it for 4 years. Then came a home brewed Star Wars Game that we had immense fun with. And then there's my favorite game of all time, Vampire: The Masquerade that I've played for 8 years, and we are currently doing a round robin Dark Ages campaign, Exalted campaign, and my turn at Star Wars: Saga Edition starts in two weeks (counting this Friday). We each run every Friday for one month (sometimes slightly longer), and then we switch to a new game so we don't get bored. I've played more pnp game time than most people on this board.
I stand by what I said. ALL these games have, at their core, the holy trinity with variations for other classes. There is ALWAYS the healer, warrior, and rogue classes. Everything else is always just variations. And sometimes they throw a mage in there as well.
2. Once again.. have you played the game? If the answer is no, then you really should knock off the pretending that you know anything about the rifts. According to people who actually played, you are wrong.
3. Knock it off. The WoW players stay mostly in their own game so they don't matter. The f2p players are infecting nearly every game on the market. Its disgusting and despicable.
Tell me where what I said about TOR has ANYTHING to do with microtransactions. I was talking about your attitude. I play LOTRO. Obviously I don't have a problem with a properly done microtransaction base or I wouldn't play it. I just don't LIKE it because I don't like the attitude it brings. Since f2p in that game started, the nastiness and childish behavior that f2p has brought in that game have forced me to turn off ALL chat channels except for group, guild, the npc's and the game announcements. If people didn't think they could be such jerks, and the devs/gm's didn't sit back and take it like big wimpy babies, f2p wouldn't be such an issue. A good portion of those f2p players would be ip banned if the devs and gm's were doing their jobs.
1. I've been playing pen and paper games since the 90's. Dungeons and Dragons 2.0 was my first game and I played it for 4 years. Then came a home brewed Star Wars Game that we had immense fun with. And then there's my favorite game of all time, Vampire: The Masquerade that I've played for 8 years, and we are currently doing a round robin Dark Ages campaign, Exalted campaign, and my turn at Star Wars: Saga Edition starts in two weeks (counting this Friday). We each run every Friday for one month (sometimes slightly longer), and then we switch to a new game so we don't get bored. I've played more pnp game time than most people on this board.
I stand by what I said. ALL these games have, at their core, the holy trinity with variations for other classes. There is ALWAYS the healer, warrior, and rogue classes. Everything else is always just variations. And sometimes they throw a mage in there as well.
2. Once again.. have you played the game? If the answer is no, then you really should knock off the pretending that you know anything about the rifts. According to people who actually played, you are wrong.
3. Knock it off. The WoW players stay mostly in their own game so they don't matter. The f2p players are infecting nearly every game on the market. Its disgusting and despicable.
Tell me where what I said about TOR has ANYTHING to do with microtransactions. I was talking about your attitude. I play LOTRO. Obviously I don't have a problem with a properly done microtransaction base or I wouldn't play it. I just don't LIKE it because I don't like the attitude it brings. Since f2p in that game started, the nastiness and childish behavior that f2p has brought in that game have forced me to turn off ALL chat channels except for group, guild, the npc's and the game announcements. If people didn't think they could be such jerks, and the devs/gm's didn't sit back and take it like big wimpy babies, f2p wouldn't be such an issue. A good portion of those f2p players would be ip banned if the devs and gm's were doing their jobs.
1. You can stand by it all you want, but it is just wrong. Try playing AD&D 2nd Edition, Vampire, or Exalted as a Holy Trinity game and either the GM tosses easy encounters at you or you die. Let's go with AD&D as an example. You have front-line fighters, sure, but they can't take all of the attacks. If all monsters focus on attacking the fighter, then he'll die. To say nothing of the fact the Fighter has no aggro-controlling tools...best he can do is position himself to stop some of the bad guys from getting to the frailer members of the party. Clerics have some healer, but they are also heavily armored and meant to be in melee generally speaking, and they can't spam meaningful heals in combat. Wizards can be tougher than the fighter with the right spells cast. Further, the figher does significant damage, as does everyone else (though the Wizard is king of AoE). You don't have have the role split-up that Holy Trinity games have, and the only way you could see the two as the same is by heavily distorting D&D combat or by heavily distorting the very different role specialization in the Holy Trinity.
2. You present no arguments as to why I am wrong. It's random content generation is what all the information indicates. Of course that can look really good in a short playthrough, but that doesn't mean it is intricate content.
3. *sigh* That's just silly bigotry. F2P players are gamers like everyone else. Though, to be clear I think the ideal system is B2P like GW2 will be.
Problem players are always a very small proportion of the player base. The only argument you are making (assuming it is an accurate depiction, as I haven't heard others make the same complains about f2p LotRO) is that LotRO needs better GMs (and I bet warnings and temp-bans would work just fine for most of them).
I'm not that bothered about crafting myself, but I just had to comment on your wonderful post which was beautifully succint and also avoided attacking anyone, be it another poster, the developers of Rift or other players of mmo's.
GW2 DEs are different in several ways. First, they scale to the number of players (Rift does this too from what I understand), so that's a big step up. There are a few differences with how rewards are done so they make more sense and are equal to all participants. The biggest difference is that DEs in GW2 are linked together and have consequences. If you are defending a town from Centaurs and the Centaurs win, they take over the town and they'll move on to other points from there. If you win, but the Centaurs kill the blacksmith, then the blacksmith is DEAD and doesn't just respawn in 5 minutes -- further, if you win you can then move on to where the Centaurs are coming from and slowly DE by DE get back to their home base and finish them off (of course you don't have to do this in a particular order, DEs are spread throughout the zone and there's always some sort of event at a DE spot). How things are going can affect what sort of goods are available in towns and cities, so if farms are ransacked, then that will alter what sort of foodstuffs are available for example.
There will be zone-wide chains of DEs along a particular story too. They even had players at a con make up the basis for one about helping a colony of whale-folk (not the game name), which involved DEs all over the zone getting allies and so forth to help go after the evil fortress of bad guys (you didn't NEED to do all of those things, but more allies helped, obviously).
And I don't think I've done any ad hominem attacks. The idea that Subs somehow keep out "bad people" is very silly and certainly a form of elitism (and some think "elitism" is a compliment for what it is worth). I think that's the closest I've come to an ad hominem.
Thank you for your answer. I can see how Rift and GW2 are different. It even seems similar, the main difference being GW2 seems to follow a story (This area is attacked by Centaurs, this other area is attacked by another big meanie, ect), while Rift is about... Rifts spawning left and right in the world. Regardless, both look fun to me.
About the Ad Hominem was about the horrible players stuff. I think this whole argument going on here is off-topic anyway. ;-)
I think this whole argument going on here is off-topic anyway. ;-)
It is....not as on-topic as one might hope. I don't/didn't mean to derail the thread, but I am not very good at not responding to people responding to me.
Still don't see how people keep thinking he avoided the first question.
In a nutshell he says the game is complete, new and unique yet still recognizable, fun, polished, and they have the backing to bring the game to you fully instead of rushed as well as having dynamic content.
Comments
Yeah, he definitely dodged that one...
"I'll just create this false dichotomy between the game being good and discussing other payment model possibilities."
Please. We know there was 10,000 meetings on this - just say "No, we wanted to go with subs only, because we think that's going to work better for us." or "all possibilities are still on the table" etc.
But in a time where huge P2P Games successfully add a cash shop, it whould be to risky to just say "no". because if they add paid servertransfers, face/name/gener/race changes for a fee then someone will say "but you said "no"!". I dont like that sort of extras - WoW started it and Aion and WAR follow now.
First they have to deliver a fun and polished game - then we will see how many players they will get.
The have a great team with so many highly experienced ppl that i dont think that the game will suck
-------------------------------------
Playing: Overwatch, Genshin Impact, Black Desert Mobile, Hundred Soul, Cyberpunk 2077
Inactive: WAR, DAoC, RIFT, GW1/2, TSW, Age of Wulin, Black Desert, Blade & Soul, Skyforge
I don't know, outside of the different visual looks and different mobs the Rifts seem pretty static and not have that much variation like a GW2 Dynamic Event has - a Life Rift will always be sort of the same when it pops up. Now if they would vary it even in 5-6 different scenarios and all kinds of different mob setups for each Rift type, that'd make a major difference. Besides the Class system and Rifts, RIft doesn't seem to offer that much new.
Not that that is needed: when I'm going to play it, it'll be because it looks like a solid MMORPG with some twists and most importantly a EQ-style of visuals and world.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
The beauty of the engine they have built is that moving forward the scenario you mentioned with different setups (bossesmobs) will be doable almost on the fly without major patches and updates. At launch I would expect a certain amount to be "static" encounters because well its launch and they are more concerned with it being clearn and a full experience. The underlying technology of Rift is where the true innovation is for this game lies.
The thing that has me and many of my guild looking closely at this game is the flexibility that the Soul Tree system allows to completely customize your characters. In short, you can pick three classes from within your Calling (Rogue, Warrior, Cleric, or Mage) and vary your offense, defense, spells, crowd control abilities, ranged versus melee ability, and about anything else that interests you.
Based on the information given on Rift.com these can be varied also, so one character does not always have to fit the exact same setup, and can be changed if the player is unhappy with it.
I have a lot of information I have gathered on this system on my website as well.
Links for easy clicking:
http://www.riftgame.com
http://www.lordrcane.com/soul-trees-described-in-detail/
Happy Gaming!
Lord Rcane
You know maybe its because Im hyped about this game, so Im more biased towards it.
What stuck out to me in that article/interview was they more or less they said; all the focus isnt about just making money, our focus is on making a great game that will make us money.
Which seems to break the trend that a lot of MMO have been heading towards.
You can ignore anything I wrote below this. Its just me being and asshole, even if it is relevant. I just cant help it sometimes.
Almost all MMOs coming out seem to have the - Dont attract subscribers to your game by making it great. Just give them a quick thrill, make your buck and then let then let them try something else. Kinda like a whore, just without the STD's. Well maybe with the STD's. I did feel kinda itchy after subbing to CO for a few months.
"I understand that if I hear any more words come pouring out of your **** mouth, Ill have to eat every fucking chicken in this room."
My most fun times playing EQ2 was when Hartsman was running it. He did a great job with reviving EQ2 after he took over after its bad launch in my opinion. It sucked when he left. Still on the fence about this one though.
I'm not that into Rift at all and this interview didn't change my mind (nor the comments in this thread).
1. For all the innovation of the classes, it is still following a Holy Trinity setup. That makes grouping in general annoying and especially with friends. It would be far more exciting if they were actually mixing up the basic combat system beyond what WoW has, but as best I can tell they are not. I do not enjoy the overspecialization of the Holy Trinity nor how it requires all enemies to be completely morons.
2. Rifts aren't that dynamic compared to GW2. They don't have a web of interactions with other dynamic events and despite what one person here said, that's not something you can easily patch into the game...that requires a lot of content work. Since this is the second thing that makes it unique...I can't say it feels like it is nearly as well done as it could be. Anyhow, Rifts seem and sound like little more than randomly generated content...which is typical mediocre.
3. It's a subscription game. I am pretty sure I am done with subs*. They are extremely overpriced. Servers are cheap to run and you don't get nearly enough content considering you pay 180 bucks a year They also provide a financial incentive to add as much grind to the fun to stretch it out as they can manage. I'd be tempted to consider a sub that was maybe no more than 5 bucks a month, but not more than that. It's frankly a complete rip-off.
The way to he dodged the first question also did not impress me. While what he said was a bit interesting in terms of how design works, it didn't do anything to sell me on the game.
*TOR MIGHT be an exception, only because I can probably do the single player story for a few characters for a few months and get the content of several games out of it (but it wouldn't be anything I played for longer than that). Hence I can avoid the Holy Trinity and just treat it mostly like a traditional RPG. That said, I am not very excited about TOR anymore either.
"I understand that if I hear any more words come pouring out of your **** mouth, Ill have to eat every fucking chicken in this room."
1. Who cares. Thats the nature of ALL RPG's from pen and paper to single player computer games to MMO's. Deal with it.
2. How do you know that? You don't. You haven't played the game. From the people that have played the game, they ARE dynamic. In fact, there's someone that posted on here that HAS played it, that said each and every rift is different. I tend to believe someone thats played the game over someone who THINKS they heard something somewhere that they don't like.
3. Good, its a sub game. Better sub than f2p. F2p is screwing us all by allowing the lowest common denominator to come in and destroy the game. The lowest common denominator tends to avoid p2p games so I'm just fine with it.
As for TOR, we don't want your kind there if you're going to be like this.
1. You've either never played a Pen and Paper game or you don't know what the Holy Trinity is (which only exists in MMOs -- well, you could argue it kind of exists in Dragon Age: Origins, I suppose).
2. They are random. I acknowledge the randomness. I acknowledge that if they randomly run into enemy rift guys, they'll fight. That doesn't mean it holds a candle to GW2 which has actual story for each DE and how they chain together. I'll admit Rift would be a bit impressive in this respect if it was the only game in town in this regard, but it isn't going to be.
3. Lol. I forget this week, is it all the horrible WoW players who can pay subs destroying MMOs or is it F2P? Either way it's a wrong-headed view based on ridiculous elitism.
As for TOR, it seems you are already abandoning your "subs make games great" argument right after you stated it.
I got a question about 2. An honnest one. How are those dynamic events in GW2 going to be different than public quests in WAR?
Oh and let go of those Ad Hominem attacks. You don't need to bait to have a good discussion.
ctrl+F "crafting"
no matches
disappoint
GW2 DEs are different in several ways. First, they scale to the number of players (Rift does this too from what I understand), so that's a big step up. There are a few differences with how rewards are done so they make more sense and are equal to all participants. The biggest difference is that DEs in GW2 are linked together and have consequences. If you are defending a town from Centaurs and the Centaurs win, they take over the town and they'll move on to other points from there. If you win, but the Centaurs kill the blacksmith, then the blacksmith is DEAD and doesn't just respawn in 5 minutes -- further, if you win you can then move on to where the Centaurs are coming from and slowly DE by DE get back to their home base and finish them off (of course you don't have to do this in a particular order, DEs are spread throughout the zone and there's always some sort of event at a DE spot). How things are going can affect what sort of goods are available in towns and cities, so if farms are ransacked, then that will alter what sort of foodstuffs are available for example.
There will be zone-wide chains of DEs along a particular story too. They even had players at a con make up the basis for one about helping a colony of whale-folk (not the game name), which involved DEs all over the zone getting allies and so forth to help go after the evil fortress of bad guys (you didn't NEED to do all of those things, but more allies helped, obviously).
And I don't think I've done any ad hominem attacks. The idea that Subs somehow keep out "bad people" is very silly and certainly a form of elitism (and some think "elitism" is a compliment for what it is worth). I think that's the closest I've come to an ad hominem.
i do not agree, that RIFT is just WOW+rifts. even if it would, this makes a huge difference and a fully different game.
fact is, that WoW has set a de facto industry-standard for MMOs. and part of this standard is the quest-model, with extreme use of quests to keep players busy and/or drive the story. i hope, that RIFT and GW2 will replace the quests mainly with dynamic events. we will see, if they will really do it mainly comprehensive and game wide, so that just some tutorial-quests and epic-quest-lines will survive.
if this would happen, than they would change an important basic part of the industry-standard. i guess you still can name it a theme-park, because it needs more to get rid of that overall model. just with dynamic events a game does not become a sandbox. however, i hope it becomes more of a virtual living and breathing world, than the wow-type quest-based game currently is.
whatever you think about theme-parks at all, i myself identified the extreme and mostly exclusive use of quests as one of the main issues and mistakes of current MMOs. so i hope, dynamic events will make this better and are a step into the right direction. of course i would prefer a sandbox-system with NPCs permanently triggered by tons of dynamic events, but thats not something, we will see in 2011. perhaps later, if the dynamic event model has proven to be succesful.
as already said. the public quests in WAR are just timed, scripted quests publicly available. after all we saw from GW2, a real dynamic event model is much more. i hope the model in RIFT will be better than public quests, too.
played: Everquest I (6 years), EVE (3 years)
months: EQII, Vanguard, Siedler Online, SWTOR, Guild Wars 2
weeks: WoW, Shaiya, Darkfall, Florensia, Entropia, Aion, Lotro, Fallen Earth, Uncharted Waters
days: DDO, RoM, FFXIV, STO, Atlantica, PotBS, Maestia, WAR, AoC, Gods&Heroes, Cultures, RIFT, Forsaken World, Allodds
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
1. I've been playing pen and paper games since the 90's. Dungeons and Dragons 2.0 was my first game and I played it for 4 years. Then came a home brewed Star Wars Game that we had immense fun with. And then there's my favorite game of all time, Vampire: The Masquerade that I've played for 8 years, and we are currently doing a round robin Dark Ages campaign, Exalted campaign, and my turn at Star Wars: Saga Edition starts in two weeks (counting this Friday). We each run every Friday for one month (sometimes slightly longer), and then we switch to a new game so we don't get bored. I've played more pnp game time than most people on this board.
I stand by what I said. ALL these games have, at their core, the holy trinity with variations for other classes. There is ALWAYS the healer, warrior, and rogue classes. Everything else is always just variations. And sometimes they throw a mage in there as well.
2. Once again.. have you played the game? If the answer is no, then you really should knock off the pretending that you know anything about the rifts. According to people who actually played, you are wrong.
3. Knock it off. The WoW players stay mostly in their own game so they don't matter. The f2p players are infecting nearly every game on the market. Its disgusting and despicable.
Tell me where what I said about TOR has ANYTHING to do with microtransactions. I was talking about your attitude. I play LOTRO. Obviously I don't have a problem with a properly done microtransaction base or I wouldn't play it. I just don't LIKE it because I don't like the attitude it brings. Since f2p in that game started, the nastiness and childish behavior that f2p has brought in that game have forced me to turn off ALL chat channels except for group, guild, the npc's and the game announcements. If people didn't think they could be such jerks, and the devs/gm's didn't sit back and take it like big wimpy babies, f2p wouldn't be such an issue. A good portion of those f2p players would be ip banned if the devs and gm's were doing their jobs.
1. You can stand by it all you want, but it is just wrong. Try playing AD&D 2nd Edition, Vampire, or Exalted as a Holy Trinity game and either the GM tosses easy encounters at you or you die. Let's go with AD&D as an example. You have front-line fighters, sure, but they can't take all of the attacks. If all monsters focus on attacking the fighter, then he'll die. To say nothing of the fact the Fighter has no aggro-controlling tools...best he can do is position himself to stop some of the bad guys from getting to the frailer members of the party. Clerics have some healer, but they are also heavily armored and meant to be in melee generally speaking, and they can't spam meaningful heals in combat. Wizards can be tougher than the fighter with the right spells cast. Further, the figher does significant damage, as does everyone else (though the Wizard is king of AoE). You don't have have the role split-up that Holy Trinity games have, and the only way you could see the two as the same is by heavily distorting D&D combat or by heavily distorting the very different role specialization in the Holy Trinity.
2. You present no arguments as to why I am wrong. It's random content generation is what all the information indicates. Of course that can look really good in a short playthrough, but that doesn't mean it is intricate content.
3. *sigh* That's just silly bigotry. F2P players are gamers like everyone else. Though, to be clear I think the ideal system is B2P like GW2 will be.
Problem players are always a very small proportion of the player base. The only argument you are making (assuming it is an accurate depiction, as I haven't heard others make the same complains about f2p LotRO) is that LotRO needs better GMs (and I bet warnings and temp-bans would work just fine for most of them).
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
I'm not that bothered about crafting myself, but I just had to comment on your wonderful post which was beautifully succint and also avoided attacking anyone, be it another poster, the developers of Rift or other players of mmo's.
Thank you for your answer. I can see how Rift and GW2 are different. It even seems similar, the main difference being GW2 seems to follow a story (This area is attacked by Centaurs, this other area is attacked by another big meanie, ect), while Rift is about... Rifts spawning left and right in the world. Regardless, both look fun to me.
About the Ad Hominem was about the horrible players stuff. I think this whole argument going on here is off-topic anyway. ;-)
It is....not as on-topic as one might hope. I don't/didn't mean to derail the thread, but I am not very good at not responding to people responding to me.
I guess it depends when GW2 will releases wether I try this game or not. We'll see.
Still don't see how people keep thinking he avoided the first question.
In a nutshell he says the game is complete, new and unique yet still recognizable, fun, polished, and they have the backing to bring the game to you fully instead of rushed as well as having dynamic content.