It's pretty retarded Bioware has mmorpg by the gonads and 1/2 my last post was taking out due to "Trolling" because of "excessive negative comments."
I just completely lost all respect for mmorpg.com.
I've just been informed also that Gobla had a part to play.
Still, this site has become MSM to hell with PR.
dont troll if you dont wanna get busted for trolling.
i speak from experience, ive been busted for trolling this forum over 9000 times, OVER 9000!
get it, its funny, its an over 9000 joke, but seriously you can post criticism in a constructive and even humerous way and get the point out, without being a negative D bag.
That being said I see no reason to have concerns over a game meant for entertainment. You either like what they've done or you don't and if you don't then you kind of have to hope enough will feel the same way. Hence the reason for threads like this to try and pressure a game company by rallying support for what you want personally. That is why gaming is the way it is.
You see the reason is that we are concerned, not because we want something from the devs, I'm not even buying the game, but because there is legitimate concern to be had.
SWTOR has so much IP/DEV clout behind it it could change the industry forever. Metrics will go off the scales, Ghostcrawler will cry, Pandas will rain from the sky, CATS AND DOGS LIVING TOGETHER...
Threads like these are here for the community to exchange ideas and concepts, to discuss an issue, they might be ranty, cynical, or just taking the piss, but they are not here to garter support, seriously. This is less about gamer-conservatism rather than anti-conservatism, trying to make devs push the envelope.
But good that you found a way to feel superior to both the trolls and the intelligent posters.
That being said I see no reason to have concerns over a game meant for entertainment. You either like what they've done or you don't and if you don't then you kind of have to hope enough will feel the same way. Hence the reason for threads like this to try and pressure a game company by rallying support for what you want personally. That is why gaming is the way it is.
You see the reason is that we are concerned, not because we want something from the devs, I'm not even buying the game, but because there is legitimate concern to be had.
SWTOR has so much IP/DEV clout behind it it could change the industry forever. Metrics will go off the scales, Ghostcrawler will cry, Pandas will rain from the sky, CATS AND DOGS LIVING TOGETHER...
Threads like these are here for the community to exchange ideas and concepts, to discuss an issue, they might be ranty, cynical, or just taking the piss, but they are not here to garter support, seriously. This is less about gamer-conservatism rather than anti-conservatism, trying to make devs push the envelope.
But good that you found a way to feel superior to both the trolls and the intelligent posters.
Here's a tip. If you have no intention of buying the game Bioware doesn't give a damn about your "concerns." Nor should they. Filling this forum with posts about it, no matter how well intentioned, is a complete waste of time. If there is a market for the game you would like someone will make it. If there isn't a market no one will and no level of concern will change that. What you need to do is find a forum that will reach people who might be influenced to believe there is a market. Bioware is not the droid you're looking for.
So, in a nutshell, you're basically saying the entire concept behind this website is a complete waste of time.
That a place where fellow MMORPG fans can discuss, debate and share ideas doesn't need to exist.
Gotcha.
I'm sure those 3,000+ posts of yours weren't a waste of time though, right?
***
On a side note, you're kidding yourself if you think people from the industry don't frequent these forums.
First, I'm not enraged. Gaming is a hobby to me, nothing more. I sleep very well at night thank you very much.
Disappointed would be a better word to use, although I am insulted by the dumbing down of games trend.
I'm absolutely looking at this from a perspective of someone who (like many) was there at the birth of this genre. Someone who is very disappointed watching a genre he used to love being turned on its head over the past 5+ years.
A good question to ask would be, why have players become so anti-social?
Is it the games themselves, and the way they're designed/setup? The mindset they create and train?
I would say yes.
So I do blame the developers. They nurtured and fostered this whole instant gratification system, and in turn, have trained many gamers to expect that with every single activity they participate in.
The fact that there's now a (supposed) need to use incentives just to get players to group up in an MMO is very sad.
That should tell you all you need to know about the state of this genre and where its heading.
Here's what I've seen I'll use SWG as my reference as it's the game I probably remember the most about (in terms of complaints).
Questing is pointless, where's the game?, What should I be doing? Where do I go? This games sucks!?!? HOw do I join a faction the game doesn't tell me!!!!!!
Why should we PVP ? All it is is one gank after another or one giant zerg.. Why do I have to play for 8 months to a year before I can win in PVP too? WOW is way better!, I'm going to WOW, they have direction and questing it's not a grind!!!!!!
I could go on and on here but that's enough, I'm sorry the MMO genre today is the result of all of the complaints made back then.... Last I heard the old forums are still archived go look at the general discussion forum from 2003-2004, if you doubt what i wrote above.
I remember those complaints very well so I can vouch for them. Not to mention the constant complaints about Jedi getting all the good updates while other professions were still broken, the constant nerfs, having to change your template because the last patch nerfed it, jedi ruining PVP etc.etc.etc..
I also agree with the poster who said that players haven't all of a sudden become anti-social, we just have a larger pool of players playing than when this genre first started. Far as I'm concerned, MMOs are still playing catch up with single player games, though it is hard to do so when you have that loud minority constantly bitching that MMOs haven't stayed the same boring,forced grouping grind fests that they used to be. We would be so lucky to have MMOs that are as vast and fun as games like Arkahm City.
1) Chain Quest- THIS ISSUE IS NEVER EVER DISCUSSED. This issue kills mmo grouping to the max. Take part one to do part two. I'm now playing Rift. For now I like the game. It's ALL ABOUT CHAIN QUEST. Both my friend and I are playing together and we realized we have to match every quest one for one to play together. No one can play with us because of chain quest. We tried to play with others, and it most always fails. Many people don't like Rift, they find it boring. BUT no one ever thinks deeply as to why they don't like it......I know why !.....It's a solo game, unless you max level !
Joe is on quest 146 and Bob is on quest 151. Joe can't play with Bob. As time goes on, ten days in Bob quits because the game is boring. Never realizing why !
I hate to use Vanilla WoW as an example. It was popular because Joe and Bob can take quest a,b,c,d,e,f,g and they can play together Or take a day off and continue playing. Joe and Bob can have a meaningful Guild, and a healthy friends list.
Making a dungeon finder, Rift invasions, or PvP battle grounds DOES NOT CUT IT....They are mini games, simple as that !
2) Voice acting- This was my concern with SWTOR from the start. Yes, it makes the game personal. Many will love it. Many will not !......At first I would think, maybe it's just me, its still in pre-release. But reviews and leaks are confirming my concern.
Voice acting and personal instancing can kill an mmo. The real Star Wars fans will love it, the others will find it boring and quit. Just like Star Trek.
Your chain quest argument is simply this.. People need to stop caring only about themselves.. If people really want to play an MMO they have to be willing to take a step backwards in their quest line and help others progress.. Too many people have developed the mindset that they need to 1. race to endgame and 2. only concern themselves with their own chars progression.. If people would stop and help someone move through the quest line even if it means taking a step or two backwards to get someone else up to where you are there would be far more groups going, far more social interaction and far less boredom.. IMO
Totally agree, also hard-core players and hard-core guilds makes MMOs null for the rest of the normal people, also some addons like damage/healing metters reduces the posibility to make groups, so developers need to think more to normal people than hard cores, because normal people are mayority, period.
Maybe you alter the foundations of the system itself so that grouping isn't the chore it was before. Try to recognize the fundamental issues that make grouping a chore and change them so that the system as a whole is more conducive to grouping.
And that, my friend, was his point. When you recognize that grouping is a pain and you decide to make a special incentive to make people group, but don't adress the real problem, then you have "copped out." You have recognized a problem and decided to just put a band-aid on it instead of trying to fix the underlying issue.
Seems a wrong conclusion to me.
I think we can all agree that enforced grouping is not done anymore, I mean I had an awesome time in EQ and think I'd be able to handle enforced grouping even nowadays, but it has too many disadvantages for most people and I don't see enforced grouping be a success anymore in this MMO day and age.
So, what remains is to encourage grouping. For this, SWTOR has several implemented distinctions in place that could make grouping more interesting and accessible for all sorts of MMO gamers.
1. you get social points for grouping (reaches the achiever type of gamer in Bartle's model)
2. smaller groups of 4 makes it easier to form up a group
3. the possibility of having a Companion fill in an empty spot enables grouping even when you're just with 3, although it'll be more challenging.
4. more focus on hybridity and multi-role functionality per class, making more setups possible than the classic dedicated healer-main tank-dps setup
5. multi-player dialogues and remote quest dialogue participation, makes group questing and convenient
All these make questing and forming groups more fun, easier and more flexible than what's common in most MMO's. You can't force people to group up, but you could make the threshold of doing it lower and easier.
I even think that their decision to not do cross server grouping, at least not at the beginning, a good one, and I agree with their arguments that it had some huge disadvantages in the anonymity and asshole culture it can stimulate.
So, sorry, but I definitely disagree on the whole 'band aid' idea. Their measures and features as shown above clearly show that they've given the problem of grouping some thought. I'm not saying that this is the best or only solution for the grouping issue, but it's certainly an improvement upon the existing way.
I think I'm looking at the grouping situation at a much more fundamental level than you are in your post.
I remember when grouping didn't exist. Players just cooperated sometimes...it wasn't perfect, but it happened. With EQ, grouping became a mainstay MMO feature, but its purpose was just to allow player cooperation. It did this by letting players share rewards (exp/gold) when they killed monsters. It was a means to an end, that's all.
I think you have to see "grouping" as a TOOL to allow cooperation, that's all it is. Many folks seem to look at grouping and cooperation as one in the same. They assume that, in order to cooperate, players must be grouped. This is not correct.
There are plenty of ways for players to cooperate without having to join a formal group. In fact, the main reason that groups were absolutely required in older games like EQ is because of how EXP distribution worked. Whoever dealt the most damage got ALL the exp. So you HAD to group with people if you wanted to share exp. Another reason is that it wasn't really possible to support your fellow players if you couldn't see their health bars...grouping allowed this.
So the point is, if you change the things like EXP distribution that make groups REQUIRED for cooperation...it really opens the door to a lot of things. You can have players just casually cooperate when they run into each other without having to join a formal group. And personally, I think for general purpose cooperation, this is best.
Grouping, IMO, should be reserved for things that require a formal team like dungeons or competitive PvP. For informal things like just casually running into other players, I don't think grouping should be required. You generally want to just help or be helped by the other player and then get on with your business. Having to formally ask the other player to form a group puts an unnecessary formality in the game that most people won't even bother with.
So in conclusion...I really think you have to look at the basic question of how players can cooperate. There are ways that players can cooperate without being formally grouped and this is something that really should be examined. Limiting the scope of your vision to "grouping" is exactly that...limiting.
That being said I see no reason to have concerns over a game meant for entertainment. You either like what they've done or you don't and if you don't then you kind of have to hope enough will feel the same way. Hence the reason for threads like this to try and pressure a game company by rallying support for what you want personally. That is why gaming is the way it is.
You see the reason is that we are concerned, not because we want something from the devs, I'm not even buying the game, but because there is legitimate concern to be had.
SWTOR has so much IP/DEV clout behind it it could change the industry forever. Metrics will go off the scales, Ghostcrawler will cry, Pandas will rain from the sky, CATS AND DOGS LIVING TOGETHER...
Threads like these are here for the community to exchange ideas and concepts, to discuss an issue, they might be ranty, cynical, or just taking the piss, but they are not here to garter support, seriously. This is less about gamer-conservatism rather than anti-conservatism, trying to make devs push the envelope.
But good that you found a way to feel superior to both the trolls and the intelligent posters.
Here's a tip. If you have no intention of buying the game Bioware doesn't give a damn about your "concerns." Nor should they. Filling this forum with posts about it, no matter how well intentioned, is a complete waste of time. If there is a market for the game you would like someone will make it. If there isn't a market no one will and no level of concern will change that. What you need to do is find a forum that will reach people who might be influenced to believe there is a market. Bioware is not the droid you're looking for.
Apathy is bliss...
This is not about a game that i would like, this is about the carved-in-stone concepts the industry uses. Its not about if I -LIKE- SWTOR or if I LIKE GuildWars 2, these things are purely subjective.
Its about what is -GOOD- for the industry. Which concepts are -good- concepts in of themselves.
Right at this point I'd like to remind people that popular =/= good.
If you however want to argue that popular = good, because its all about $$$ then I wont necessary stop you.
However I will point out that this is the way to commitee games and metric driven design, creating a grey pulpy mass of corporate entertainment and not a game.
If this is indeed your argument, we can just both agree to disagree and put eachother on ignore.
-----
PS: I agree with everything Creslin321 said in his post. Cooperation =/= Grouping its a false meme in MMO-design
after a lot of thought, ive decided my collector's ed wil be going up on ebay...
ive been reading WAY too many horror stories about the absolutely abismal customer service that origin gives.
its just another theme park anyway, so, i figure ill just keep playing the one i'm playing now. i dont need another theme park reskinned.
with what ill be able to sell it for, ill be able to pick up the starcraft II expansion, and the wow expansion, with some change left over.
That's cool if that's what you want to do, but just as a heads up. Origin is not needed to run TOR.
Perhaps, but it will be required to download the game. That is something that can be an issue in and of itself.
I didn't think it was, last I heard (also from beta experience) you dl the game through their (bioware's) launcher, I haven't heard anything about that changing at launch.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Originally posted by Gruug Originally posted by Distopia
Originally posted by cerebrix
after a lot of thought, ive decided my collector's ed wil be going up on ebay... ive been reading WAY too many horror stories about the absolutely abismal customer service that origin gives. its just another theme park anyway, so, i figure ill just keep playing the one i'm playing now. i dont need another theme park reskinned. with what ill be able to sell it for, ill be able to pick up the starcraft II expansion, and the wow expansion, with some change left over.
That's cool if that's what you want to do, but just as a heads up. Origin is not needed to run TOR.
Perhaps, but it will be required to download the game. That is something that can be an issue in and of itself.
Originally Posted by StephenReid Regardless of what other games may choose to do in their integration with Origin's desktop client, here's what our situation is:
You are not required to use the Origin desktop client to download, patch or play the game client for Star Wars: The Old Republic.
This applies whether you purchase The Old Republic via Origin.com or from a retailer in boxed form. You will not be forced to install the Origin desktop client.
There are still various consumer benefits to the client itself, but it's not required for The Old Republic.
Do you guys even read stuff, or simply just run with what you've "heard" or "think" it will be?
Seriously, this "evil company" stuff is laughable if it didn't look like people actually believed this stuff.
Regardless of what other games may choose to do in their integration with Origin's desktop client, here's what our situation is:
You are not required to use the Origin desktop client to download, patch or play the game client for Star Wars: The Old Republic.
This applies whether you purchase The Old Republic via Origin.com or from a retailer in boxed form. You will not be forced to install the Origin desktop client.
There are still various consumer benefits to the client itself, but it's not required for The Old Republic.
Do you guys even read stuff, or simply just run with what you've "heard" or "think" it will be?
Seriously, this "evil company" stuff is laughable if it didn't look like people actually believed this stuff.
I think I'm looking at the grouping situation at a much more fundamental level than you are in your post.
I remember when grouping didn't exist. Players just cooperated sometimes...it wasn't perfect, but it happened. With EQ, grouping became a mainstay MMO feature, but its purpose was just to allow player cooperation. It did this by letting players share rewards (exp/gold) when they killed monsters. It was a means to an end, that's all.
I think you have to see "grouping" as a TOOL to allow cooperation, that's all it is. Many folks seem to look at grouping and cooperation as one in the same. They assume that, in order to cooperate, players must be grouped. This is not correct.
There are plenty of ways for players to cooperate without having to join a formal group. In fact, the main reason that groups were absolutely required in older games like EQ is because of how EXP distribution worked. Whoever dealt the most damage got ALL the exp. So you HAD to group with people if you wanted to share exp. Another reason is that it wasn't really possible to support your fellow players if you couldn't see their health bars...grouping allowed this.
So the point is, if you change the things like EXP distribution that make groups REQUIRED for cooperation...it really opens the door to a lot of things. You can have players just casually cooperate when they run into each other without having to join a formal group. And personally, I think for general purpose cooperation, this is best.
Grouping, IMO, should be reserved for things that require a formal team like dungeons or competitive PvP. For informal things like just casually running into other players, I don't think grouping should be required. You generally want to just help or be helped by the other player and then get on with your business. Having to formally ask the other player to form a group puts an unnecessary formality in the game that most people won't even bother with.
So in conclusion...I really think you have to look at the basic question of how players can cooperate. There are ways that players can cooperate without being formally grouped and this is something that really should be examined. Limiting the scope of your vision to "grouping" is exactly that...limiting.
Lol, I can see where this is going
By all means, if GW2 is the game you prefer to play, feel free to play it whenever it comes out, no need to steer your reasoning and argumentation towards your bias MMO
I see it broader: encouraging grouping like SWTOR will be doing is 1 way to alleviate some traditional grouping issues, the casual, loose grouping or 'cooperation' (lol ) as seen in Rift and GW2 is another way to apprach the grouping issues.
Each of these ways has its own pros and cons, no matter how perfect or awesome fan(boi)s of named MMO's might regard them. After all, there isn't just one way that leads to Rome as the saying goes.
If you want to really look at things in a broader perspective, then you have to start seeing things at a meta level and think of things as 'community interaction' and 'grouping/cooperation/collaboration culture', meaning a system of mechanics and features that work together to create an environment and atmosphere where players are willling and inspired to work together, not only for combat and leveling but also for all kinds of other activities.
This is the area where the best sandbox MMO's tend to be better in than themepark 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."
When did they say that about BF3? Have a link? Besides we're talking apples to oranges here, MMO's are typically always downloaded through the games launcher.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Originally posted by Askedan EA said the same about Battlefield 3. It was a lie.
I hope at some point, we could stay on topic. I don't know what was said about Battlefield 3 not needing Origin.. you could link it though because I haven't seen that. All I found was this Escapist article that didn't mention a previous lie:
It's not really a huge shock, given the online-focused nature of the game, but another client running in the background, sucking up CPU cycles and RAM, is not something that's likely to make gamers very happy.
Considering the latest info is you don't need it and you haven't proven they've lied yet, let's run with that shall we?
If December 21st we find out that you do indeed need Origin, that will be a lie.
By all means, if GW2 is the game you prefer to play, feel free to play it whenever it comes out, no need to steer your reasoning and argumentation towards your bias MMO
I see it broader: encouraging grouping like SWTOR will be doing is 1 way to alleviate some traditional grouping issues, the casual, loose grouping or 'cooperation' (lol ) as seen in Rift and GW2 is another way to apprach the grouping issues.
Each of these ways has its own pros and cons, no matter how perfect or awesome fan(boi)s of named MMO's might regard them. After all, there isn't just one way that leads to Rome as the saying goes.
If you want to really look at things in a broader perspective, then you have to start seeing things at a meta level and think of things as 'community interaction' and 'grouping/cooperation/collaboration culture', meaning a system of mechanics and features that work together to create an environment and atmosphere where players are willling and inspired to work together, not only for combat and leveling but also for all kinds of other activities.
This is the area where the best sandbox MMO's tend to be better in than themepark MMO's.
Hahaha, hey you said it not me . But anyway...I've had my views about grouping and such in MMORPGs before GW2 was ever announced. So even though GW2 may address some of the issues I was talking about, I wasn't specifically trying to turn this into a GW2 vs. SWTOR thing.
But anyway...much of this thread is essentially about how some people are disappointed that SWTOR imports all the features that are "standard" in most AAA MMORPGs, but doesn't really try to correct any of the problems that are perceived with them. So I thought the grouping concern I was arguing about was valid for this thread.
As to whether social points are a "band-aid" or not...you could really argue either way. It all depends on what you think is "enough" of an effort to fix a problem. Personally, I don't think social points is "enough" to fix the grouping issues that exist in theme parks, but some do.
It's kind of like phasing in a way...phasing is an attempt to "fix" the problem where you don't affect the world when you finish quests. Some people may see phasing as a good solution, whereas others may see it as just a band-aid.
By all means, if GW2 is the game you prefer to play, feel free to play it whenever it comes out, no need to steer your reasoning and argumentation towards your bias MMO
I see it broader: encouraging grouping like SWTOR will be doing is 1 way to alleviate some traditional grouping issues, the casual, loose grouping or 'cooperation' (lol ) as seen in Rift and GW2 is another way to apprach the grouping issues.
Each of these ways has its own pros and cons, no matter how perfect or awesome fan(boi)s of named MMO's might regard them. After all, there isn't just one way that leads to Rome as the saying goes.
If you want to really look at things in a broader perspective, then you have to start seeing things at a meta level and think of things as 'community interaction' and 'grouping/cooperation/collaboration culture', meaning a system of mechanics and features that work together to create an environment and atmosphere where players are willling and inspired to work together, not only for combat and leveling but also for all kinds of other activities.
This is the area where the best sandbox MMO's tend to be better in than themepark MMO's.
Hahaha, hey you said it not me . But anyway...I've had my views about grouping and such in MMORPGs before GW2 was ever announced. So even though GW2 may address some of the issues I was talking about, I wasn't specifically trying to turn this into a GW2 vs. SWTOR thing.
But anyway...much of this thread is essentially about how some people are disappointed that SWTOR imports all the features that are "standard" in most AAA MMORPGs, but doesn't really try to correct any of the problems that are perceived with them. So I thought the grouping concern I was arguing about was valid for this thread.
As to whether social points are a "band-aid" or not...you could really argue either way. It all depends on what you think is "enough" of an effort to fix a problem. Personally, I don't think social points is "enough" to fix the grouping issues that exist in theme parks, but some do.
It's kind of like phasing in a way...phasing is an attempt to "fix" the problem where you don't affect the world when you finish quests. Some people may see phasing as a good solution, whereas others may see it as just a band-aid.
I really feel that the multiplayer dialogue in cut scenes will intrigue a lot of players. At least the first few times. Not being in complete control and having a dialogue and cut scene playout in a way that you couldn't do yourself because of your class choices can be a plus.
This may not be the case until later world stories. But DE's post about multiplayer says a lot about how it will feel to go though it. You pick your answer and lose. Then another player that won the roll does something like a consular talking a boss out of a fight. Or a smuggler leaving with a NPC during the dialogue. Things that you would not expect and that can be different each time you go through it based on the group make up. This makes me want to group, not the social points that go with it.
Now GW2's and RIFTs ideas are good. But won't fix many of the problems with grouping IMO. I would like to see all three games merge as one. The storytelling of BW, the spontanious content of RIFT and the dynamic events from GW2 sprinked in many of the areas. The best of all of them combined. That would be the best game IMO. Too bad I may be dead before we ever see something like that.
How many people long for that "past, simpler, and better world," I wonder, without ever recognizing the truth that perhaps it was they who were simpler and better, and not the world about them? R.A.Salvatore
What's next? Are we going to get XP/loot just for logging in to these games? That may sound like hyperbole right now, but just wait. Just you wait....
That's called "Rested XP" or "Bonus XP".
It's already in just about every mmo around. You get that just for logging back in the game.
Not quite true. You get a buff to XP based on how long you've been logged out, to a limit. Not saying it counters your point, but it's an important distinction. You can't NOT play your character and have them level...
...save for Eve, I suppose.
It's not so much a "please play this game" feature... matter of fact, it's a bit against it, as far as playing the same character. Far as game time goes, it would be less, -in game time- to level someone if you always had rest XP.
I think the idea was to have people run multiple alts.
AoC's alternative advancement, though... that's another story...
What's next? Are we going to get XP/loot just for logging in to these games? That may sound like hyperbole right now, but just wait. Just you wait....
That's called "Rested XP" or "Bonus XP".
It's already in just about every mmo around. You get that just for logging back in the game.
Not quite true. You get a buff to XP based on how long you've been logged out, to a limit. Not saying it counters your point, but it's an important distinction. You can't NOT play your character and have them level...
...save for Eve, I suppose.
It's not so much a "please play this game" feature... matter of fact, it's a bit against it, as far as playing the same character. Far as game time goes, it would be less, -in game time- to level someone if you always had rest XP.
I think the idea was to have people run multiple alts.
AoC's alternative advancement, though... that's another story...
Eve Online you get exp no matter what at a fixed rate. No one seems to complain. Seriously why punish players for not playing. There is enough gear progression that needs to be done online now with MMOs why worry about exp?
Not quite true. You get a buff to XP based on how long you've been logged out, to a limit. Not saying it counters your point, but it's an important distinction. You can't NOT play your character and have them level...
...save for Eve, I suppose.
It's not so much a "please play this game" feature... matter of fact, it's a bit against it, as far as playing the same character. Far as game time goes, it would be less, -in game time- to level someone if you always had rest XP.
I think the idea was to have people run multiple alts.
AoC's alternative advancement, though... that's another story...
Eve Online you get exp no matter what at a fixed rate. No one seems to complain. Seriously why punish players for not playing. There is enough gear progression that needs to be done online now with MMOs why worry about exp?
FYI... I'm a big fan of Eve. Just for the record. Basically because its skill system pretty much takes grinding out of the equation. AoC's AA, though, where you can keep leveling a character despite not playing them in a game designed on lvl based advancement... just seems a bit wierd; like they either lack or don't care if someone experiences your content.
Also, for the record, LotRO is my mainstay, and TOR might be another. But there's always been a place in my heart for Eve.
I have to ask, how exactly does voice acting kill a MMO?
I've heard multiple times how voice acting is supposed to be bad but I've yet to hear about an actual reason why this is the case. Thus far it seems more like complaining that adding colour killed good movies.....
Try making an avatar that you envision being a badass like Samuel Jackson and then recoil in horror that the male voice is high pitched and whiny.
Comments
It's pretty retarded Bioware has mmorpg by the gonads and 1/2 my last post was taking out due to "Trolling" because of "excessive negative comments."
I just completely lost all respect for mmorpg.com.
I've just been informed also that Gobla had a part to play.
Still, this site has become MSM to hell with PR.
Member of Talon | www.lakexeno.com
RIFT: Redcameo, Warrior, Faemist Server
RIFT: Bluecameo, Mage, Faemist Server
dont troll if you dont wanna get busted for trolling.
i speak from experience, ive been busted for trolling this forum over 9000 times, OVER 9000!
get it, its funny, its an over 9000 joke, but seriously you can post criticism in a constructive and even humerous way and get the point out, without being a negative D bag.
Sorry for a quite pointless add to the thread.. but all I could think of when reading this was a quote from Monty Python:
"Come and see the violence inherent in the system. Help! Help! I'm being repressed!"
Don't want to be mistaken for a troll? Be constructive.
All analogies used on the internet are rubbish. As soon as an analogy comes up in a thread I walk away from it.
You see the reason is that we are concerned, not because we want something from the devs, I'm not even buying the game, but because there is legitimate concern to be had.
SWTOR has so much IP/DEV clout behind it it could change the industry forever. Metrics will go off the scales, Ghostcrawler will cry, Pandas will rain from the sky, CATS AND DOGS LIVING TOGETHER...
Threads like these are here for the community to exchange ideas and concepts, to discuss an issue, they might be ranty, cynical, or just taking the piss, but they are not here to garter support, seriously. This is less about gamer-conservatism rather than anti-conservatism, trying to make devs push the envelope.
But good that you found a way to feel superior to both the trolls and the intelligent posters.
So, in a nutshell, you're basically saying the entire concept behind this website is a complete waste of time.
That a place where fellow MMORPG fans can discuss, debate and share ideas doesn't need to exist.
Gotcha.
I'm sure those 3,000+ posts of yours weren't a waste of time though, right?
***
On a side note, you're kidding yourself if you think people from the industry don't frequent these forums.
I remember those complaints very well so I can vouch for them. Not to mention the constant complaints about Jedi getting all the good updates while other professions were still broken, the constant nerfs, having to change your template because the last patch nerfed it, jedi ruining PVP etc.etc.etc..
I also agree with the poster who said that players haven't all of a sudden become anti-social, we just have a larger pool of players playing than when this genre first started. Far as I'm concerned, MMOs are still playing catch up with single player games, though it is hard to do so when you have that loud minority constantly bitching that MMOs haven't stayed the same boring,forced grouping grind fests that they used to be. We would be so lucky to have MMOs that are as vast and fun as games like Arkahm City.
Currently Playing: World of Warcraft
after a lot of thought, ive decided my collector's ed wil be going up on ebay...
ive been reading WAY too many horror stories about the absolutely abismal customer service that origin gives.
its just another theme park anyway, so, i figure ill just keep playing the one i'm playing now. i dont need another theme park reskinned.
with what ill be able to sell it for, ill be able to pick up the starcraft II expansion, and the wow expansion, with some change left over.
Games i'm playing right now...
"In short, I thought NGE was a very bad idea" - Raph Koster talking about NGE on his blog at raphkoster.com
Totally agree, also hard-core players and hard-core guilds makes MMOs null for the rest of the normal people, also some addons like damage/healing metters reduces the posibility to make groups, so developers need to think more to normal people than hard cores, because normal people are mayority, period.
I think I'm looking at the grouping situation at a much more fundamental level than you are in your post.
I remember when grouping didn't exist. Players just cooperated sometimes...it wasn't perfect, but it happened. With EQ, grouping became a mainstay MMO feature, but its purpose was just to allow player cooperation. It did this by letting players share rewards (exp/gold) when they killed monsters. It was a means to an end, that's all.
I think you have to see "grouping" as a TOOL to allow cooperation, that's all it is. Many folks seem to look at grouping and cooperation as one in the same. They assume that, in order to cooperate, players must be grouped. This is not correct.
There are plenty of ways for players to cooperate without having to join a formal group. In fact, the main reason that groups were absolutely required in older games like EQ is because of how EXP distribution worked. Whoever dealt the most damage got ALL the exp. So you HAD to group with people if you wanted to share exp. Another reason is that it wasn't really possible to support your fellow players if you couldn't see their health bars...grouping allowed this.
So the point is, if you change the things like EXP distribution that make groups REQUIRED for cooperation...it really opens the door to a lot of things. You can have players just casually cooperate when they run into each other without having to join a formal group. And personally, I think for general purpose cooperation, this is best.
Grouping, IMO, should be reserved for things that require a formal team like dungeons or competitive PvP. For informal things like just casually running into other players, I don't think grouping should be required. You generally want to just help or be helped by the other player and then get on with your business. Having to formally ask the other player to form a group puts an unnecessary formality in the game that most people won't even bother with.
So in conclusion...I really think you have to look at the basic question of how players can cooperate. There are ways that players can cooperate without being formally grouped and this is something that really should be examined. Limiting the scope of your vision to "grouping" is exactly that...limiting.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Apathy is bliss...
This is not about a game that i would like, this is about the carved-in-stone concepts the industry uses. Its not about if I -LIKE- SWTOR or if I LIKE GuildWars 2, these things are purely subjective.
Its about what is -GOOD- for the industry. Which concepts are -good- concepts in of themselves.
Right at this point I'd like to remind people that popular =/= good.
If you however want to argue that popular = good, because its all about $$$ then I wont necessary stop you.
However I will point out that this is the way to commitee games and metric driven design, creating a grey pulpy mass of corporate entertainment and not a game.
If this is indeed your argument, we can just both agree to disagree and put eachother on ignore.
-----
PS: I agree with everything Creslin321 said in his post. Cooperation =/= Grouping its a false meme in MMO-design
That's cool if that's what you want to do, but just as a heads up. Origin is not needed to run TOR.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Perhaps, but it will be required to download the game. That is something that can be an issue in and of itself.
Let's party like it is 1863!
I didn't think it was, last I heard (also from beta experience) you dl the game through their (bioware's) launcher, I haven't heard anything about that changing at launch.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Perhaps, but it will be required to download the game. That is something that can be an issue in and of itself.
Origin not needed for SWTOR
Do you guys even read stuff, or simply just run with what you've "heard" or "think" it will be?
Seriously, this "evil company" stuff is laughable if it didn't look like people actually believed this stuff.
"TO MICHAEL!"
EA said the same about Battlefield 3.
It was a lie.
Lol, I can see where this is going
By all means, if GW2 is the game you prefer to play, feel free to play it whenever it comes out, no need to steer your reasoning and argumentation towards your bias MMO
I see it broader: encouraging grouping like SWTOR will be doing is 1 way to alleviate some traditional grouping issues, the casual, loose grouping or 'cooperation' (lol
) as seen in Rift and GW2 is another way to apprach the grouping issues.
Each of these ways has its own pros and cons, no matter how perfect or awesome fan(boi)s of named MMO's might regard them. After all, there isn't just one way that leads to Rome as the saying goes.
If you want to really look at things in a broader perspective, then you have to start seeing things at a meta level and think of things as 'community interaction' and 'grouping/cooperation/collaboration culture', meaning a system of mechanics and features that work together to create an environment and atmosphere where players are willling and inspired to work together, not only for combat and leveling but also for all kinds of other activities.
This is the area where the best sandbox MMO's tend to be better in than themepark MMO's.
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."
When did they say that about BF3? Have a link? Besides we're talking apples to oranges here, MMO's are typically always downloaded through the games launcher.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Battlefield 3 Will Require Origin. As a matter of fact, the Escapist says this about it:
Considering the latest info is you don't need it and you haven't proven they've lied yet, let's run with that shall we?
If December 21st we find out that you do indeed need Origin, that will be a lie.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Hahaha, hey you said it not me
. But anyway...I've had my views about grouping and such in MMORPGs before GW2 was ever announced. So even though GW2 may address some of the issues I was talking about, I wasn't specifically trying to turn this into a GW2 vs. SWTOR thing.
But anyway...much of this thread is essentially about how some people are disappointed that SWTOR imports all the features that are "standard" in most AAA MMORPGs, but doesn't really try to correct any of the problems that are perceived with them. So I thought the grouping concern I was arguing about was valid for this thread.
As to whether social points are a "band-aid" or not...you could really argue either way. It all depends on what you think is "enough" of an effort to fix a problem. Personally, I don't think social points is "enough" to fix the grouping issues that exist in theme parks, but some do.
It's kind of like phasing in a way...phasing is an attempt to "fix" the problem where you don't affect the world when you finish quests. Some people may see phasing as a good solution, whereas others may see it as just a band-aid.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
I really feel that the multiplayer dialogue in cut scenes will intrigue a lot of players. At least the first few times. Not being in complete control and having a dialogue and cut scene playout in a way that you couldn't do yourself because of your class choices can be a plus.
This may not be the case until later world stories. But DE's post about multiplayer says a lot about how it will feel to go though it. You pick your answer and lose. Then another player that won the roll does something like a consular talking a boss out of a fight. Or a smuggler leaving with a NPC during the dialogue. Things that you would not expect and that can be different each time you go through it based on the group make up. This makes me want to group, not the social points that go with it.
Now GW2's and RIFTs ideas are good. But won't fix many of the problems with grouping IMO. I would like to see all three games merge as one. The storytelling of BW, the spontanious content of RIFT and the dynamic events from GW2 sprinked in many of the areas. The best of all of them combined. That would be the best game IMO. Too bad I may be dead before we ever see something like that.
How many people long for that "past, simpler, and better world," I wonder, without ever recognizing the truth that perhaps it was they who were simpler and better, and not the world about them?
R.A.Salvatore
Not quite true. You get a buff to XP based on how long you've been logged out, to a limit. Not saying it counters your point, but it's an important distinction. You can't NOT play your character and have them level...
...save for Eve, I suppose.
It's not so much a "please play this game" feature... matter of fact, it's a bit against it, as far as playing the same character. Far as game time goes, it would be less, -in game time- to level someone if you always had rest XP.
I think the idea was to have people run multiple alts.
AoC's alternative advancement, though... that's another story...
Eve Online you get exp no matter what at a fixed rate. No one seems to complain. Seriously why punish players for not playing. There is enough gear progression that needs to be done online now with MMOs why worry about exp?
FYI... I'm a big fan of Eve. Just for the record. Basically because its skill system pretty much takes grinding out of the equation. AoC's AA, though, where you can keep leveling a character despite not playing them in a game designed on lvl based advancement... just seems a bit wierd; like they either lack or don't care if someone experiences your content.
Also, for the record, LotRO is my mainstay, and TOR might be another. But there's always been a place in my heart for Eve.
Try making an avatar that you envision being a badass like Samuel Jackson and then recoil in horror that the male voice is high pitched and whiny.