When I was in highschool back in 2000 I was playing Everquest fairly hardcore (I slept through classes and my gpa was LOLworthy... but don't worry I do great now). I also played football... why do I mention this?
Well anyone who's played football will tell you 2-a-days and 3-a-days (fairly intense practices) are not only tedious and difficult, but they also build a team... a community. Why? Shared suffering and shared effort brings people together.
If you talk to people (or even remember it yourself if you're like me) some of the best memories of these older games were when things went bad. We all have corpse run stories and how teams of people came to help; friends were made this way. People spent hours carefully crawling through dungeons; and succeeding or failing TOGETHER.
Today's MMORPGs lack the difficulty. I think because there's that lack of shared effort and shared suffering (don't get caught up on that word.. think shared bad stuff) therefore it stops or impedes a strong community from forming.
Without that shared experience people find it harder to relate to eachother. I'm not going to sit here and tell you the community back in the day was perfect, but people did find it easier to relate to eachother. That made the games better in the end.
Your thoughts?
I think a lot of people might forget how easy the content was in early MMOs. The content was basically a mass people stomp with some very simple mechanic. Content appeared hard because it was a group experience and one person just sucked.
Challenging content is Contra 1-3. MMOs have never produced anything challenging, they've only made things impossible. Old content that was 'hard' was designed that you would need specific RNG and perfect group execution to kill the boss. That's not skill, that's grinding. It took some 5,000 attempts to kill Kael'thas Sunstrider the first time and the guild that did it said they would not be able to replicate that.
To have a fair, scratch that, ANY chance to win against a grandmaster in chess, outside the rare occasion when you are some kind of savant, you have to invest a sizable amount of time to learn to play chess.
Amusingly this proposed comparison is completely the opposite of what you seem to have intended.
Games which we now regard as "hard" followed the principle of teaching you character a long time doing simple menial tasks (chess school?) and at the end you kill the boss with you overtrained skill, overenchanted sword with a blow or two (what is the current norm in chess? 3 games?).
The games we regard today as "easy" follow the tic tac toe principle, you can get to the boss almost immediately, score is either not kept or irrelevant, and your previous time investment into your character is less important than your ability to focus and hit the right button at the right time (keep track of Xs an Os).
here are some key points I think everyone should break down with on this subject.
1. MMORPGs are by default an RPG. RPGs come from a stradegy world not a twitch reflex world. It doesnt mean they cant have twitch but the primary focus is that you are playing your character. So taking a basketball player as an example, your character would have to practice basketball a lot to be good, BUT your personal skills at basketball are unimportant.
2. long peroids of repetition does not by default mean zero skill. Pro cyclists may take issue with that.
3. When it comes to twitch skill. god hasnt endowed you with magically twitch skills. WHATEVER you consider twitch skill it requires you to practice. If you dont have to practice at your self proclaimed skill then its likely not a skill and what you really are asking for is no skill
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Learning a complex system of moves and skills that makes you a better player takes awhile = hard.
Learning a simple system of moves and skills that makes you a better player takes a short time = easy.
You can define simple or complex however you wish, but if we define hard/easy in relation to time, then this whole discussion can be simplified.
....
Therefore easy games = quick games where accomplishing an objective is fast. And hard games = long games where accomplishing an objective takes awhile.
Time is way too simplistic a metric to measure difficulty.
What is harder:
-Playing chess against a Grandmaster for 1 hour
or
-Playing Tic-Tac-Toe against your 10 year old nephew for 10 hours
The Tic-Tac-Toe games are only harder in the endurance and sanity aspects. One will probably fall asleep playing it fro 10 hours and will start going insane before the time is up. By most other metrics the shorter activity will be deemed more challenging.
Simplistic? Maybe. But inaccurate?
To have a fair, scratch that, ANY chance to win against a grandmaster in chess, outside the rare occasion when you are some kind of savant, you have to invest a sizable amount of time to learn to play chess.
Amusingly this proposed comparison is completely the opposite of what you seem to have intended.
Games which we now regard as "hard" followed the principle of teaching you character a long time doing simple menial tasks (chess school?) and at the end you kill the boss with you overtrained skill, overenchanted sword with a blow or two (what is the current norm in chess? 3 games?).
The games we regard today as "easy" follow the tic tac toe principle, you can get to the boss almost immediately, score is either not kept or irrelevant, and your previous time investment into your character is less important than your ability to focus and hit the right button at the right time (keep track of Xs an Os).
The disconnect comes from our difference in perception. You saw yourself spending lot of time learning to play chess while I see Tic-Tac-Toe players playing Tic-Tac-Toe but thinking that they were practicing chess. I simply do not see the tasks the 'old school' games require you to do as hard or requiring that much repetition to learn.
If a dungeon requires you to kill 20 'trash packs' of mobs to get to the boss but you have figured out how to kill the packs after 5 of them, what is the point in having to kill the other 15? You do not learn much more and it's just 'make work'. Similarly If my group can kill a boss on the first attempt 10 times in a row, why should we have to kill him another 20 times in order to progress?
here are some key points I think everyone should break down with on this subject.
1. MMORPGs are by default an RPG. RPGs come from a stradegy world not a twitch reflex world. It doesnt mean they cant have twitch but the primary focus is that you are playing your character. So taking a basketball player as an example, your character would have to practice basketball a lot to be good, BUT your personal skills at basketball are unimportant.
2. long peroids of repetition does not by default mean zero skill. Pro cyclists may take issue with that.
3. When it comes to twitch skill. god hasnt endowed you with magically twitch skills. WHATEVER you consider twitch skill it requires you to practice. If you dont have to practice at your self proclaimed skill then its likely not a skill and what you really are asking for is no skill
Those are good points.
1. I definetly treat MMORPGs as strategy-based games. So once I have 'solved' a strategy and can duplicate my success every time, there does not seem to be much point in repeating the encounter unless it is meant as a refresher.
2. I always distinguish between strategy and endurance challenges. Cycling is predominantly a power and endurance sport with some situational strategy. In turn I view MMORPGs as predominantly strategy games with some situational twitch skill thrown in. I do not view endurance challenges as a necessary or desirable component of MMORPGs.
3. I see twitch skill as a secondary component of MMORPGs so some repetition is required to improve it to the necessary level. However, the 'strategy skill' is best improved by presenting different challenges that require new strategies. In fact needless repetition of the same strategy tends to lower a player's skill level rather than raise it.
This discussion will never end, because we are arguing purely subjective matters.
Were hard games better ? For those that enjoyed them, yes. For those that don't, no.
One man's "grind" is another man's "challenge".
But it almost feels like the subtext of many "anti old-style" posters is that nobody should make games like that ever again, because THEY don't like them. A budget spent on a game you don't like is a budget that could have made a game you DO like. And let's face it, we're not exactly awash in high quality AAA MMO's right now.
So are we actually engaged in a MMO turf war ?
Such a great post!
If evolution (and everything we do is evolution) would be like your silly signature - then we would stop right here because we think we are "too good" for something. Utter bullish. Constant development is "human". Stop spreading the wrong and afterwards underline it with "noo thats just sarcasm"...
Yes, because everyone here stuggles to play any MMO.
Games like EvE as example are not hard, there's just a lot of information more details to absorb. Even games like WoW as many would consider what broke MMORPG has a lot of information to absorb for the not so common MMO gamer.
You learn, educate, and familiarize yourself with the game you are playing. Then there are those who just want to press buttons and don't care about all the other bullshit that you and I know about the game.
Originally posted by BadSpock Originally posted by lizardbones EQ was a direct result of UO. They looked at UO, thought about what they could do that was different, and then did it. Maybe it was Meridian 59 that follot can we do to capture this idea, but in a unique (or slightly different) way?"
I appreciate your response but I will have to disagree. I think EQ and UO couldn't be more different in their over all design perspective.
I'd compare it to the over all design manifesto of say GW2 versus TOR. Or the over all design manifesto between SWG and WoW. It's not the same as the sandbox vs. themepark design difference in philosophy, but it shares many of the same undertones.
Freedom versus restriction. Free form versus structured. etc. etc. Compared to "modern" games, EQ was very free form and unrestricted, for sure, but compared to UO at the time EQ was a much, much different high level philosophy on what a MMO should be.
I meant that more mechanically than philosophically. EQ would not exist without UO. If it was created at all, it would be very different from what we know now. We can be fairly certain that the developers of those early games knew about each other and probably played each others' games. EQ is, in a very literal sense, descended from UO.
** not sure if the rest of this has any bearing at all, feel free to ignore it **
That doesn't make UO any less of a dead end though. If you think of mmorpg like breeds of animals, then they need a few things to survive and flourish. They need food (money) and an environment they can grow in (the mmorpg genre). They get food (money) from investors and players. They can't hunt, but they can lure in prey. If their prey becomes immune to their lures they suffer and do not procreate. EQ was a better lure hunter than UO. WoW, so far, is the best lure hunter of them all. I'm sure this is off topic, but my point is that the games that survived did so because they were better suited to survival in the environment that they live in. It doesn't matter which one was first, only which ones are better at luring in prey and which ones procreate.
World of Warcraft, Age of Conan, Rift, and Eve were all good at luring in prey, and they all managed to spawn new games. EQ spawned another game, but nearly killed itself by doing so. We'll have to see how EQ/EQ2/EQNext turns out. SWToR is too young yet to determine if it will fit in the category of survivors or not. Champions Online didn't lure in that many players, but they did make money, get STO developed, and get their operating environment substantially improved. Pretty much everything else is an evolutionary dead end as far as mmorpg go.
The bottom line is that the old school games failed to thrive and the new school games did. Old school (harder) games are not better than new school (easier) games.
This is the only objective way I can compare the old school and new school games. Every other comparison comes down to what I like (or what the person I'm talking to likes) and has nothing at all to do with any sort of objective reality. Everything else is just a battle of opinions.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Learning a complex system of moves and skills that makes you a better player takes awhile = hard.
Learning a simple system of moves and skills that makes you a better player takes a short time = easy.
You can define simple or complex however you wish, but if we define hard/easy in relation to time, then this whole discussion can be simplified.
....
Therefore easy games = quick games where accomplishing an objective is fast. And hard games = long games where accomplishing an objective takes awhile.
Time is way too simplistic a metric to measure difficulty.
What is harder:
-Playing chess against a Grandmaster for 1 hour
or
-Playing Tic-Tac-Toe against your 10 year old nephew for 10 hours
The Tic-Tac-Toe games are only harder in the endurance and sanity aspects. One will probably fall asleep playing it fro 10 hours and will start going insane before the time is up. By most other metrics the shorter activity will be deemed more challenging.
Simplistic? Maybe. But inaccurate?
To have a fair, scratch that, ANY chance to win against a grandmaster in chess, outside the rare occasion when you are some kind of savant, you have to invest a sizable amount of time to learn to play chess.
Amusingly this proposed comparison is completely the opposite of what you seem to have intended.
Games which we now regard as "hard" followed the principle of teaching you character a long time doing simple menial tasks (chess school?) and at the end you kill the boss with you overtrained skill, overenchanted sword with a blow or two (what is the current norm in chess? 3 games?).
The games we regard today as "easy" follow the tic tac toe principle, you can get to the boss almost immediately, score is either not kept or irrelevant, and your previous time investment into your character is less important than your ability to focus and hit the right button at the right time (keep track of Xs an Os).
The disconnect comes from our difference in perception. You saw yourself spending lot of time learning to play chess while I see Tic-Tac-Toe players playing Tic-Tac-Toe but thinking that they were practicing chess. I simply do not see the tasks the 'old school' games require you to do as hard or requiring that much repetition to learn.
If a dungeon requires you to kill 20 'trash packs' of mobs to get to the boss but you have figured out how to kill the packs after 5 of them, what is the point in having to kill the other 15? You do not learn much more and it's just 'make work'. Similarly If my group can kill a boss on the first attempt 10 times in a row, why should we have to kill him another 20 times in order to progress?
Well, first of all, last time i checked, chess is visually quite different from tic tac toe and the way you have phrased that, you might want to seek medical help
But jokes aside, the most basic disconnect is, as has been discussed many many many many times before, if one accepts the grind, or repetition , dullness at times as a necessary evil, the "hard" part and completing that grind repetition and overcoming the dullness as a achievment and reward, or not.
Because obviously, overcoming yourself to do someting, even if you dont like to do it much, is hard
And ofcourse, there comes the question, if it is worth paying for something, if it can be percieved as work, the answer ultimately depending on the subjective worth of the rewards.
Bottom line, as usual, mmos in do not exist in a bubble, especially commercial ones, while we might think, that making them simpler and more streamlined, less repetitive, skill based and try to fix all the things people grumble about (mostly WHILE paying and playing) is a good thing, in my opinion it is not entirely so, because in the end we turn aspects or all of them into particular games, single player rpgs, (especially) team and lobby based games, which are unfortunately much better at doing what they do...
And while it might be good for someone expecting to sit at Dalaran all day (since we are hardly out of stereotypes) waiting for his TF team find..., err dungeon finder to pop up, it is questionable if we can rely on "people not noticing".
Consider it this way, there is no real difference between a slot machine and a dice (apart the odds), but we somehow travel for hundreds of miles to get to a slot machine, put our money in and wait for a miracle. The ultimate prize is the thrill, uncertainty and possibly money somewhere in a other reality
Similarly, one of the prizes of playing a massive online game is to look at a new player to compare and to see what you have already accomplished , how you made your character stronger, what you have endured grindwise to get where you are, and experience the illusion that your 15 bucks a month was not entirely wasted.
If you have other suggestions, i am all eye, god knows atleast the developers are looking for them for years now.
What is REALLY sad is that Minecraft is the closest thing to a successor to UO.
Amusingly, it'll be even more awesome when good gameplay "ruins" Minecraft the same way it "ruined" MMORPGs. Terraria is a great first step, and I look forward to seeing new games really carry this concept forward. (Really wish King Arthur's Gold had turned out better; there's certainly some potential fun brewing with that take on things.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Overall while it has been an intersting, sometimes lively and passionate discussion I honestly think the conversation should end.
Hard is subjective.
Better is subjective.
So no matter what we decide to argue in the end it is completely subjective, making the conversation IMO pointless. So I'm out and look forward to the next ran... err topic.
Venge
I mostly post when things are slow at work and I'm bored anyway, so...I'll participate.
Well if you think Mr. Rodgers is for adults then you have bigger issues than we can discuss on this forum. WOW as it is now is a kids game geared towards the "I want it now for as little effort as humanly possible" crowd. To argue that is just foolish.
how painfully obvious it is to you that Mr. Rogers is for kids is how painfully obvious it is to me that WoW is for young adults.
See my point? Question is, what EXACT parameters do we refer to that make us have that judgement?
For me its interface, the world I will be interacting is is paramount for me and I have to feel as if I am actually there. I know that experience will be impossible with WoW. It wasnt possible with EQ2 but I played it anyway because I didnt know any better.
Memories I have in Darkfall are a vivid and realistic to me as real life experiences.
Like I said. WOW appeals to the "I want it now crowd for as little effort as possible". Please don't get all defensive.
1. I definetly treat MMORPGs as strategy-based games. So once I have 'solved' a strategy and can duplicate my success every time, there does not seem to be much point in repeating the encounter unless it is meant as a refresher.
2. I always distinguish between strategy and endurance challenges. Cycling is predominantly a power and endurance sport with some situational strategy. In turn I view MMORPGs as predominantly strategy games with some situational twitch skill thrown in. I do not view endurance challenges as a necessary or desirable component of MMORPGs.
3. I see twitch skill as a secondary component of MMORPGs so some repetition is required to improve it to the necessary level. However, the 'strategy skill' is best improved by presenting different challenges that require new strategies. In fact needless repetition of the same strategy tends to lower a player's skill level rather than raise it.
1) What about random events and reaction to that? While you may have an overall strategy, you also have to react to what happened at the moment. For example, it happens many times to me that in a familiar fight, either the healer or the tank died, and i have to adjust when i use my DPS burst to win the fight. (Obviously it is not always possible if the tank die, but i have succeeded from time to time).
2) MMORPGs are GAMES. Strategy challenge is perfectly FINE but i won't play a GAME that need endurance. I simply do not have the time nor the desire to spend hours upon hours on a GAME.
3) You certainly need *some* skills .. like at least be able to hit the right key when you want to call up the right skills. Or move to the right spot when you need to do so, or remembering where to go and what to avoid.
It alsways cracks me up when people say WOW has no challenge. Sure if you are talking about just downing a dungeon boss. However, there is a lot of complexity if you want to maximize your DPS. So may be the challenge is not to "win" the encounter but to improve your DPS and lead the charts.
The strategic aspect of DPS is quite deep given the varying combat mechnics in WOW. For example, how to do gem or reforge your gear. You have to consider many variables including hit cap, haste so cap, and the importance of different stats. The answer can be different under raid buff vs in a 5-man dungeon. In fact, it is so complex that to fully optimize, you need a software tool like RAWR.
And there are similar considerations during play. If you have an arcane mage, you have to decide when to use your burn phase and when to evocate. Your DPS can change a LOT if you don't make the right decisions. And those decisions are specific to fights.
I would consider a problem that need the use of monte-carlo simulation, constraint optimization, and stochastic modeling to solve ... have some challenges.
Like I said. WOW appeals to the "I want it now crowd for as little effort as possible". Please don't get all defensive.
"As little effort"?
Not if you want to maximize your dps. You do know that theorycrafters are using monte carlo simulations, stochastic modelings and other math techniques to optimize DPS .. and even then, the solution is not always clear, depending on the assumptions of how to model the combat mechanics, and buffs, and the fight?
Don't tell me WOW does not appeal to the min-max-ers, and don't tell me they don't spend effort in figuring out how to maximally effective. Heck, do you know how many combinations are there for gemming & reforging? Do you know you cannot optimize the results without some software tools?
I remember the very first instance I ever seen in EQ. It was just off Everfrost and man did it feel vacant. I just could not get over being in this big instance with only my little group of guys. It felt fake which is something EQ never felt. At the time I didn't know it was the sign of things to come and that all MMO's will be centered on instances.
I remember the very first instance i ever seen in WOW (sorry, quit EQ over its tedium LONG before it fixed the issue with instance). It was just off Barrens and man did it feel refreshing. I just could not get over being in this big instance with only my little group of guys. It felt like an exciting adventure which is something EQ never felt. At the time i did know it was the sign of things to come and that all MMO's should be centered on instances.
You see this is where we differ. You come across as an introvert and I'm an extrovert. I enjoy the company of others. I think a game that uses instances hurts the immersion as it is just not realistic to be in a zone all by yourself. If this feels good to you then you should be a happy camper as almost every MMO in production today meets your needs.
However, I enjoy being in places with people. It makes sense to me that we want the same mobs thus we work together to get them. I think it's realistic when a person chains a mob and the mob kills anything it can on the way back and not simply ignore everyone along the way.
I ask you this. How can you qualify a game as an adventure if it leads you by the hand and gives you your own private world to explore. That's not an adventure, it's an RPG with people in it that might as well be NPC's.
Dont get me wrong. I LIKE small group content.
Actually WOW 5 man dungeon feels a lot MORE immerse than old EQ dungeons like L Guk. How can you be immersed when people are shouting "camp check" every 5 min is beyond me.
A small group of players, going through a dungeon, fighting against monsters and boss .. now that is an adventure. Sure, it feels more like one the first time than the 100th time, but no MMO offers a new dungeon every time.
It feels like a social chatroom if i came up to another 20 players camping the boss.
Adventure is about fighting your way through a dungeon. Oh, it does not have to be big .. the important thing is that the boss fight needs to be design well (with special mechanics and stuff).
Because that is how real life work so it makes it immersive. You don't walk into your local mall and get it all to yourself or just your family. You see others, interact with other and might even have to watch someone grab the last item that you want. That is immersion. Being in a group instance simply kills the immersion of the game (for me) as it is not realistic but fake.
Maybe I want more than just a game. EQ (before pop) was WAY more than just a game or a guild. I knew just about everyone on my server, they had a reputation and so did I. If I needed a port I had a friends list at least 20 people deep for ports alone. In EVERY MMO sense I don't even utilize a friends list as it's simply not needed. In EQ when you found a good tank or good healer you befriended them and vice versa. Next time you logged in you would get invites to join etc.
Instances, quick travel, auction houses etc. appeal to those who simply want to play a game with as little effort possible. They simply don't have time to run 20m to a spot. EQ before POP was the most realistic game ever. There was simply nothing like running into EC and seeing all the spam from people selling their stuff. Then when you saw something you wanted you could actually talk to the person selling it, haggle, barder or pay for it. So much more realistic.
Anyway I degress. One persons adventure does not equal everyones.
Well if you think Mr. Rodgers is for adults then you have bigger issues than we can discuss on this forum. WOW as it is now is a kids game geared towards the "I want it now for as little effort as humanly possible" crowd. To argue that is just foolish.
how painfully obvious it is to you that Mr. Rogers is for kids is how painfully obvious it is to me that WoW is for young adults.
See my point? Question is, what EXACT parameters do we refer to that make us have that judgement?
For me its interface, the world I will be interacting is is paramount for me and I have to feel as if I am actually there. I know that experience will be impossible with WoW. It wasnt possible with EQ2 but I played it anyway because I didnt know any better.
Memories I have in Darkfall are a vivid and realistic to me as real life experiences.
Like I said. WOW appeals to the "I want it now crowd for as little effort as possible". Please don't get all defensive.
Doesnt really answer my question does it? nor is it really even on subject.
My question is, how and what defines a kids game vs not a kids game? I see WoW as a kids game, others do not. So the question is what exact parameters do we need to inspect to say one is right and the other is wrong.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Because that is how real life work so it makes it immersive. You don't walk into your local mall and get it all to yourself or just your family. You see others, interact with other and might even have to watch someone grab the last item that you want. That is immersion. Being in a group instance simply kills the immersion of the game (for me) as it is not realistic but fake.
Maybe I want more than just a game. EQ (before pop) was WAY more than just a game or a guild. I knew just about everyone on my server, they had a reputation and so did I. If I needed a port I had a friends list at least 20 people deep for ports alone. In EVERY MMO sense I don't even utilize a friends list as it's simply not needed. In EQ when you found a good tank or good healer you befriended them and vice versa. Next time you logged in you would get invites to join etc.
Instances, quick travel, auction houses etc. appeal to those who simply want to play a game with as little effort possible. They simply don't have time to run 20m to a spot. EQ before POP was the most realistic game ever. There was simply nothing like running into EC and seeing all the spam from people selling their stuff. Then when you saw something you wanted you could actually talk to the person selling it, haggle, barder or pay for it. So much more realistic.
Anyway I degress. One persons adventure does not equal everyones.
Real life???
I am playing a game here, PLEASE. A dungeon is not a mall. If it like that, i won't be playing. I will just go to the real mall.
Realistic != good game. You are right .. not only i don't have time to run 20m to a spot ... i do not want to. The first time may be fun but after the 10th time, it is a chore. If i want chores, i have plenty in the real world. They don't belong in games ... at least not those i am willing to pay for.
And sure, different people like different things. I will pay for what i like and i wont stop you to pay to run 20m to the same spot again and again, if that floats your boat.
Oh, btw, that is also a bit off topic. Running 20m is not hard nor challenging. It is just tedious.
1. I definetly treat MMORPGs as strategy-based games. So once I have 'solved' a strategy and can duplicate my success every time, there does not seem to be much point in repeating the encounter unless it is meant as a refresher.
2. I always distinguish between strategy and endurance challenges. Cycling is predominantly a power and endurance sport with some situational strategy. In turn I view MMORPGs as predominantly strategy games with some situational twitch skill thrown in. I do not view endurance challenges as a necessary or desirable component of MMORPGs.
3. I see twitch skill as a secondary component of MMORPGs so some repetition is required to improve it to the necessary level. However, the 'strategy skill' is best improved by presenting different challenges that require new strategies. In fact needless repetition of the same strategy tends to lower a player's skill level rather than raise it.
1) What about random events and reaction to that? While you may have an overall strategy, you also have to react to what happened at the moment. For example, it happens many times to me that in a familiar fight, either the healer or the tank died, and i have to adjust when i use my DPS burst to win the fight. (Obviously it is not always possible if the tank die, but i have succeeded from time to time).
2) MMORPGs are GAMES. Strategy challenge is perfectly FINE but i won't play a GAME that need endurance. I simply do not have the time nor the desire to spend hours upon hours on a GAME.
3) You certainly need *some* skills .. like at least be able to hit the right key when you want to call up the right skills. Or move to the right spot when you need to do so, or remembering where to go and what to avoid.
It alsways cracks me up when people say WOW has no challenge. Sure if you are talking about just downing a dungeon boss. However, there is a lot of complexity if you want to maximize your DPS. So may be the challenge is not to "win" the encounter but to improve your DPS and lead the charts.
The strategic aspect of DPS is quite deep given the varying combat mechnics in WOW. For example, how to do gem or reforge your gear. You have to consider many variables including hit cap, haste so cap, and the importance of different stats. The answer can be different under raid buff vs in a 5-man dungeon. In fact, it is so complex that to fully optimize, you need a software tool like RAWR.
And there are similar considerations during play. If you have an arcane mage, you have to decide when to use your burn phase and when to evocate. Your DPS can change a LOT if you don't make the right decisions. And those decisions are specific to fights.
I would consider a problem that need the use of monte-carlo simulation, constraint optimization, and stochastic modeling to solve ... have some challenges.
LOL - WOW before WOTLK required skill and provided a challenge for sure. After WOTLK it's a joke, there is no challenge unless you think fighting a boss you have already killed 50 times is challenging if you do it while jumping on one foot with a knife all for an achievement? ROFL - SWP was the last challenge in WOW and 99% will not know it as they never saw it.
1. I definetly treat MMORPGs as strategy-based games. So once I have 'solved' a strategy and can duplicate my success every time, there does not seem to be much point in repeating the encounter unless it is meant as a refresher.
2. I always distinguish between strategy and endurance challenges. Cycling is predominantly a power and endurance sport with some situational strategy. In turn I view MMORPGs as predominantly strategy games with some situational twitch skill thrown in. I do not view endurance challenges as a necessary or desirable component of MMORPGs.
3. I see twitch skill as a secondary component of MMORPGs so some repetition is required to improve it to the necessary level. However, the 'strategy skill' is best improved by presenting different challenges that require new strategies. In fact needless repetition of the same strategy tends to lower a player's skill level rather than raise it.
1) What about random events and reaction to that? While you may have an overall strategy, you also have to react to what happened at the moment. For example, it happens many times to me that in a familiar fight, either the healer or the tank died, and i have to adjust when i use my DPS burst to win the fight. (Obviously it is not always possible if the tank die, but i have succeeded from time to time).
2) MMORPGs are GAMES. Strategy challenge is perfectly FINE but i won't play a GAME that need endurance. I simply do not have the time nor the desire to spend hours upon hours on a GAME.
3) You certainly need *some* skills .. like at least be able to hit the right key when you want to call up the right skills. Or move to the right spot when you need to do so, or remembering where to go and what to avoid.
It alsways cracks me up when people say WOW has no challenge. Sure if you are talking about just downing a dungeon boss. However, there is a lot of complexity if you want to maximize your DPS. So may be the challenge is not to "win" the encounter but to improve your DPS and lead the charts.
The strategic aspect of DPS is quite deep given the varying combat mechnics in WOW. For example, how to do gem or reforge your gear. You have to consider many variables including hit cap, haste so cap, and the importance of different stats. The answer can be different under raid buff vs in a 5-man dungeon. In fact, it is so complex that to fully optimize, you need a software tool like RAWR.
And there are similar considerations during play. If you have an arcane mage, you have to decide when to use your burn phase and when to evocate. Your DPS can change a LOT if you don't make the right decisions. And those decisions are specific to fights.
I would consider a problem that need the use of monte-carlo simulation, constraint optimization, and stochastic modeling to solve ... have some challenges.
LOL - WOW before WOTLK required skill and provided a challenge for sure. After WOTLK it's a joke, there is no challenge unless you think fighting a boss you have already killed 50 times is challenging if you do it while jumping on one foot with a knife all for an achievement? ROFL - SWP was the last challenge in WOW and 99% will not know it as they never saw it.
Did you actually READ what i wrote? Optimizing DPS *is* a challenge. Sure you can kill the BOSS but can you do 50k dps on it?
Because that is how real life work so it makes it immersive. You don't walk into your local mall and get it all to yourself or just your family. You see others, interact with other and might even have to watch someone grab the last item that you want. That is immersion. Being in a group instance simply kills the immersion of the game (for me) as it is not realistic but fake.
Maybe I want more than just a game. EQ (before pop) was WAY more than just a game or a guild. I knew just about everyone on my server, they had a reputation and so did I. If I needed a port I had a friends list at least 20 people deep for ports alone. In EVERY MMO sense I don't even utilize a friends list as it's simply not needed. In EQ when you found a good tank or good healer you befriended them and vice versa. Next time you logged in you would get invites to join etc.
Instances, quick travel, auction houses etc. appeal to those who simply want to play a game with as little effort possible. They simply don't have time to run 20m to a spot. EQ before POP was the most realistic game ever. There was simply nothing like running into EC and seeing all the spam from people selling their stuff. Then when you saw something you wanted you could actually talk to the person selling it, haggle, barder or pay for it. So much more realistic.
Anyway I degress. One persons adventure does not equal everyones.
Real life???
I am playing a game here, PLEASE. A dungeon is not a mall. If it like that, i won't be playing. I will just go to the real mall.
Realistic != good game. You are right .. not only i don't have time to run 20m to a spot ... i do not want to. The first time may be fun but after the 10th time, it is a chore. If i want chores, i have plenty in the real world. They don't belong in games ... at least not those i am willing to pay for.
And sure, different people like different things. I will pay for what i like and i wont stop you to pay to run 20m to the same spot again and again, if that floats your boat.
Oh, btw, that is also a bit off topic. Running 20m is not hard nor challenging. It is just tedious.
My point made. You want it all now for as little effort as possible. Nothing wrong with that. I simply want more from a game than crap just haneded to me.
1. I definetly treat MMORPGs as strategy-based games. So once I have 'solved' a strategy and can duplicate my success every time, there does not seem to be much point in repeating the encounter unless it is meant as a refresher.
2. I always distinguish between strategy and endurance challenges. Cycling is predominantly a power and endurance sport with some situational strategy. In turn I view MMORPGs as predominantly strategy games with some situational twitch skill thrown in. I do not view endurance challenges as a necessary or desirable component of MMORPGs.
3. I see twitch skill as a secondary component of MMORPGs so some repetition is required to improve it to the necessary level. However, the 'strategy skill' is best improved by presenting different challenges that require new strategies. In fact needless repetition of the same strategy tends to lower a player's skill level rather than raise it.
1) What about random events and reaction to that? While you may have an overall strategy, you also have to react to what happened at the moment. For example, it happens many times to me that in a familiar fight, either the healer or the tank died, and i have to adjust when i use my DPS burst to win the fight. (Obviously it is not always possible if the tank die, but i have succeeded from time to time).
2) MMORPGs are GAMES. Strategy challenge is perfectly FINE but i won't play a GAME that need endurance. I simply do not have the time nor the desire to spend hours upon hours on a GAME.
3) You certainly need *some* skills .. like at least be able to hit the right key when you want to call up the right skills. Or move to the right spot when you need to do so, or remembering where to go and what to avoid.
It alsways cracks me up when people say WOW has no challenge. Sure if you are talking about just downing a dungeon boss. However, there is a lot of complexity if you want to maximize your DPS. So may be the challenge is not to "win" the encounter but to improve your DPS and lead the charts.
The strategic aspect of DPS is quite deep given the varying combat mechnics in WOW. For example, how to do gem or reforge your gear. You have to consider many variables including hit cap, haste so cap, and the importance of different stats. The answer can be different under raid buff vs in a 5-man dungeon. In fact, it is so complex that to fully optimize, you need a software tool like RAWR.
And there are similar considerations during play. If you have an arcane mage, you have to decide when to use your burn phase and when to evocate. Your DPS can change a LOT if you don't make the right decisions. And those decisions are specific to fights.
I would consider a problem that need the use of monte-carlo simulation, constraint optimization, and stochastic modeling to solve ... have some challenges.
LOL - WOW before WOTLK required skill and provided a challenge for sure. After WOTLK it's a joke, there is no challenge unless you think fighting a boss you have already killed 50 times is challenging if you do it while jumping on one foot with a knife all for an achievement? ROFL - SWP was the last challenge in WOW and 99% will not know it as they never saw it.
Did you actually READ what i wrote? Optimizing DPS *is* a challenge. Sure you can kill the BOSS but can you do 50k dps on it?
Actually the trouble is that you didn't read what he wrote.
1. I definetly treat MMORPGs as strategy-based games. So once I have 'solved' a strategy and can duplicate my success every time, there does not seem to be much point in repeating the encounter unless it is meant as a refresher.
2. I always distinguish between strategy and endurance challenges. Cycling is predominantly a power and endurance sport with some situational strategy. In turn I view MMORPGs as predominantly strategy games with some situational twitch skill thrown in. I do not view endurance challenges as a necessary or desirable component of MMORPGs.
3. I see twitch skill as a secondary component of MMORPGs so some repetition is required to improve it to the necessary level. However, the 'strategy skill' is best improved by presenting different challenges that require new strategies. In fact needless repetition of the same strategy tends to lower a player's skill level rather than raise it.
1) What about random events and reaction to that? While you may have an overall strategy, you also have to react to what happened at the moment. For example, it happens many times to me that in a familiar fight, either the healer or the tank died, and i have to adjust when i use my DPS burst to win the fight. (Obviously it is not always possible if the tank die, but i have succeeded from time to time).
2) MMORPGs are GAMES. Strategy challenge is perfectly FINE but i won't play a GAME that need endurance. I simply do not have the time nor the desire to spend hours upon hours on a GAME.
3) You certainly need *some* skills .. like at least be able to hit the right key when you want to call up the right skills. Or move to the right spot when you need to do so, or remembering where to go and what to avoid.
It alsways cracks me up when people say WOW has no challenge. Sure if you are talking about just downing a dungeon boss. However, there is a lot of complexity if you want to maximize your DPS. So may be the challenge is not to "win" the encounter but to improve your DPS and lead the charts.
The strategic aspect of DPS is quite deep given the varying combat mechnics in WOW. For example, how to do gem or reforge your gear. You have to consider many variables including hit cap, haste so cap, and the importance of different stats. The answer can be different under raid buff vs in a 5-man dungeon. In fact, it is so complex that to fully optimize, you need a software tool like RAWR.
And there are similar considerations during play. If you have an arcane mage, you have to decide when to use your burn phase and when to evocate. Your DPS can change a LOT if you don't make the right decisions. And those decisions are specific to fights.
I would consider a problem that need the use of monte-carlo simulation, constraint optimization, and stochastic modeling to solve ... have some challenges.
LOL - WOW before WOTLK required skill and provided a challenge for sure. After WOTLK it's a joke, there is no challenge unless you think fighting a boss you have already killed 50 times is challenging if you do it while jumping on one foot with a knife all for an achievement? ROFL - SWP was the last challenge in WOW and 99% will not know it as they never saw it.
Did you actually READ what i wrote? Optimizing DPS *is* a challenge. Sure you can kill the BOSS but can you do 50k dps on it?
Optomizing DPS is not a challenge friend. Squeaking out 1 more DPS is NOT going to be the difference between a win or loss. A group of people doing what needs to be done with no mistakes equals a win. Sure overall DPS matters and yes min/maxing is key for sure but it's not a challenge. You ether know how to get DPS out of your toon or you simply don't.
Optomizing DPS is not a challenge friend. Squeaking out 1 more DPS is NOT going to be the difference between a win or loss. A group of people doing what needs to be done with no mistakes equals a win. Sure overall DPS matters and yes min/maxing is key for sure but it's not a challenge. You ether know how to get DPS out of your toon or you simply don't.
Challenge is what each person define and you can't define it for everyone. There are those who want to just down the boss, and those who want to win at the DPS chart, and those who want to be able to boast big numbers.
I do not see why only getting a win is valid, and the others are not.
And oh, if you say "ether know how to get DPS out of your toon or you simply don't", then you obviously do NOT understand the complexity of DPSing with mechanics. Go READ elitistjerks. There are people who are dedicated to it. May be you can learn something.
Optomizing DPS is not a challenge friend. Squeaking out 1 more DPS is NOT going to be the difference between a win or loss. A group of people doing what needs to be done with no mistakes equals a win. Sure overall DPS matters and yes min/maxing is key for sure but it's not a challenge. You ether know how to get DPS out of your toon or you simply don't.
Challenge is what each person define and you can't define it for everyone. There are those who want to just down the boss, and those who want to win at the DPS chart, and those who want to be able to boast big numbers.
I do not see why only getting a win is valid, and the others are not.
And oh, if you say "ether know how to get DPS out of your toon or you simply don't", then you obviously do NOT understand the complexity of DPSing with mechanics. Go READ elitistjerks. There are people who are dedicated to it. May be you can learn something.
This reminds me of when I know I have exhausted a single player game.
When I am playing and making up my own rules such as 'I want to see if I can get the level done without having to reload.
Once you start doing stuff like that, the game is over.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
This reminds me of when I know I have exhausted a single player game.
When I am playing and making up my own rules such as 'I want to see if I can get the level done without having to reload.
Once you start doing stuff like that, the game is over.
I don't know about you. But go to the WOW forums. There are plenty of people seeking advice to up their DPS. There are also plenty asking if xx k dps is normal and whether they should do more.
Coupling with the fact that elitistjerks exist, and there are at least 2 packages of software (RAWR and a DPS SIM) that study WOW DPS, i would say DPS maximization is popular enough. And many have been doing it for years.
Comments
I think a lot of people might forget how easy the content was in early MMOs. The content was basically a mass people stomp with some very simple mechanic. Content appeared hard because it was a group experience and one person just sucked.
Challenging content is Contra 1-3. MMOs have never produced anything challenging, they've only made things impossible. Old content that was 'hard' was designed that you would need specific RNG and perfect group execution to kill the boss. That's not skill, that's grinding. It took some 5,000 attempts to kill Kael'thas Sunstrider the first time and the guild that did it said they would not be able to replicate that.
Website: http://www.thegameguru.me / YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/users/thetroublmaker
here are some key points I think everyone should break down with on this subject.
1. MMORPGs are by default an RPG. RPGs come from a stradegy world not a twitch reflex world. It doesnt mean they cant have twitch but the primary focus is that you are playing your character. So taking a basketball player as an example, your character would have to practice basketball a lot to be good, BUT your personal skills at basketball are unimportant.
2. long peroids of repetition does not by default mean zero skill. Pro cyclists may take issue with that.
3. When it comes to twitch skill. god hasnt endowed you with magically twitch skills. WHATEVER you consider twitch skill it requires you to practice. If you dont have to practice at your self proclaimed skill then its likely not a skill and what you really are asking for is no skill
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
The disconnect comes from our difference in perception. You saw yourself spending lot of time learning to play chess while I see Tic-Tac-Toe players playing Tic-Tac-Toe but thinking that they were practicing chess. I simply do not see the tasks the 'old school' games require you to do as hard or requiring that much repetition to learn.
If a dungeon requires you to kill 20 'trash packs' of mobs to get to the boss but you have figured out how to kill the packs after 5 of them, what is the point in having to kill the other 15? You do not learn much more and it's just 'make work'. Similarly If my group can kill a boss on the first attempt 10 times in a row, why should we have to kill him another 20 times in order to progress?
Those are good points.
1. I definetly treat MMORPGs as strategy-based games. So once I have 'solved' a strategy and can duplicate my success every time, there does not seem to be much point in repeating the encounter unless it is meant as a refresher.
2. I always distinguish between strategy and endurance challenges. Cycling is predominantly a power and endurance sport with some situational strategy. In turn I view MMORPGs as predominantly strategy games with some situational twitch skill thrown in. I do not view endurance challenges as a necessary or desirable component of MMORPGs.
3. I see twitch skill as a secondary component of MMORPGs so some repetition is required to improve it to the necessary level. However, the 'strategy skill' is best improved by presenting different challenges that require new strategies. In fact needless repetition of the same strategy tends to lower a player's skill level rather than raise it.
Yes, because everyone here stuggles to play any MMO.
Games like EvE as example are not hard, there's just a lot of information more details to absorb. Even games like WoW as many would consider what broke MMORPG has a lot of information to absorb for the not so common MMO gamer.
You learn, educate, and familiarize yourself with the game you are playing. Then there are those who just want to press buttons and don't care about all the other bullshit that you and I know about the game.
I think EQ and UO couldn't be more different in their over all design perspective.
I'd compare it to the over all design manifesto of say GW2 versus TOR.
Or the over all design manifesto between SWG and WoW.
It's not the same as the sandbox vs. themepark design difference in philosophy, but it shares many of the same undertones.
Freedom versus restriction.
Free form versus structured.
etc. etc.
Compared to "modern" games, EQ was very free form and unrestricted, for sure, but compared to UO at the time EQ was a much, much different high level philosophy on what a MMO should be.
I meant that more mechanically than philosophically. EQ would not exist without UO. If it was created at all, it would be very different from what we know now. We can be fairly certain that the developers of those early games knew about each other and probably played each others' games. EQ is, in a very literal sense, descended from UO.
** not sure if the rest of this has any bearing at all, feel free to ignore it **
That doesn't make UO any less of a dead end though. If you think of mmorpg like breeds of animals, then they need a few things to survive and flourish. They need food (money) and an environment they can grow in (the mmorpg genre). They get food (money) from investors and players. They can't hunt, but they can lure in prey. If their prey becomes immune to their lures they suffer and do not procreate. EQ was a better lure hunter than UO. WoW, so far, is the best lure hunter of them all. I'm sure this is off topic, but my point is that the games that survived did so because they were better suited to survival in the environment that they live in. It doesn't matter which one was first, only which ones are better at luring in prey and which ones procreate.
World of Warcraft, Age of Conan, Rift, and Eve were all good at luring in prey, and they all managed to spawn new games. EQ spawned another game, but nearly killed itself by doing so. We'll have to see how EQ/EQ2/EQNext turns out. SWToR is too young yet to determine if it will fit in the category of survivors or not. Champions Online didn't lure in that many players, but they did make money, get STO developed, and get their operating environment substantially improved. Pretty much everything else is an evolutionary dead end as far as mmorpg go.
The bottom line is that the old school games failed to thrive and the new school games did. Old school (harder) games are not better than new school (easier) games.
This is the only objective way I can compare the old school and new school games. Every other comparison comes down to what I like (or what the person I'm talking to likes) and has nothing at all to do with any sort of objective reality. Everything else is just a battle of opinions.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Sorry Phelcer but once again you couldn't be more wrong.
Well, first of all, last time i checked, chess is visually quite different from tic tac toe and the way you have phrased that, you might want to seek medical help
But jokes aside, the most basic disconnect is, as has been discussed many many many many times before, if one accepts the grind, or repetition , dullness at times as a necessary evil, the "hard" part and completing that grind repetition and overcoming the dullness as a achievment and reward, or not.
Because obviously, overcoming yourself to do someting, even if you dont like to do it much, is hard
And ofcourse, there comes the question, if it is worth paying for something, if it can be percieved as work, the answer ultimately depending on the subjective worth of the rewards.
Bottom line, as usual, mmos in do not exist in a bubble, especially commercial ones, while we might think, that making them simpler and more streamlined, less repetitive, skill based and try to fix all the things people grumble about (mostly WHILE paying and playing) is a good thing, in my opinion it is not entirely so, because in the end we turn aspects or all of them into particular games, single player rpgs, (especially) team and lobby based games, which are unfortunately much better at doing what they do...
And while it might be good for someone expecting to sit at Dalaran all day (since we are hardly out of stereotypes) waiting for his TF team find..., err dungeon finder to pop up, it is questionable if we can rely on "people not noticing".
Consider it this way, there is no real difference between a slot machine and a dice (apart the odds), but we somehow travel for hundreds of miles to get to a slot machine, put our money in and wait for a miracle. The ultimate prize is the thrill, uncertainty and possibly money somewhere in a other reality
Similarly, one of the prizes of playing a massive online game is to look at a new player to compare and to see what you have already accomplished , how you made your character stronger, what you have endured grindwise to get where you are, and experience the illusion that your 15 bucks a month was not entirely wasted.
If you have other suggestions, i am all eye, god knows atleast the developers are looking for them for years now.
Amusingly, it'll be even more awesome when good gameplay "ruins" Minecraft the same way it "ruined" MMORPGs. Terraria is a great first step, and I look forward to seeing new games really carry this concept forward. (Really wish King Arthur's Gold had turned out better; there's certainly some potential fun brewing with that take on things.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I mostly post when things are slow at work and I'm bored anyway, so...I'll participate.
Like I said. WOW appeals to the "I want it now crowd for as little effort as possible". Please don't get all defensive.
1) What about random events and reaction to that? While you may have an overall strategy, you also have to react to what happened at the moment. For example, it happens many times to me that in a familiar fight, either the healer or the tank died, and i have to adjust when i use my DPS burst to win the fight. (Obviously it is not always possible if the tank die, but i have succeeded from time to time).
2) MMORPGs are GAMES. Strategy challenge is perfectly FINE but i won't play a GAME that need endurance. I simply do not have the time nor the desire to spend hours upon hours on a GAME.
3) You certainly need *some* skills .. like at least be able to hit the right key when you want to call up the right skills. Or move to the right spot when you need to do so, or remembering where to go and what to avoid.
It alsways cracks me up when people say WOW has no challenge. Sure if you are talking about just downing a dungeon boss. However, there is a lot of complexity if you want to maximize your DPS. So may be the challenge is not to "win" the encounter but to improve your DPS and lead the charts.
The strategic aspect of DPS is quite deep given the varying combat mechnics in WOW. For example, how to do gem or reforge your gear. You have to consider many variables including hit cap, haste so cap, and the importance of different stats. The answer can be different under raid buff vs in a 5-man dungeon. In fact, it is so complex that to fully optimize, you need a software tool like RAWR.
And there are similar considerations during play. If you have an arcane mage, you have to decide when to use your burn phase and when to evocate. Your DPS can change a LOT if you don't make the right decisions. And those decisions are specific to fights.
I would consider a problem that need the use of monte-carlo simulation, constraint optimization, and stochastic modeling to solve ... have some challenges.
"As little effort"?
Not if you want to maximize your dps. You do know that theorycrafters are using monte carlo simulations, stochastic modelings and other math techniques to optimize DPS .. and even then, the solution is not always clear, depending on the assumptions of how to model the combat mechanics, and buffs, and the fight?
Don't tell me WOW does not appeal to the min-max-ers, and don't tell me they don't spend effort in figuring out how to maximally effective. Heck, do you know how many combinations are there for gemming & reforging? Do you know you cannot optimize the results without some software tools?
Because that is how real life work so it makes it immersive. You don't walk into your local mall and get it all to yourself or just your family. You see others, interact with other and might even have to watch someone grab the last item that you want. That is immersion. Being in a group instance simply kills the immersion of the game (for me) as it is not realistic but fake.
Maybe I want more than just a game. EQ (before pop) was WAY more than just a game or a guild. I knew just about everyone on my server, they had a reputation and so did I. If I needed a port I had a friends list at least 20 people deep for ports alone. In EVERY MMO sense I don't even utilize a friends list as it's simply not needed. In EQ when you found a good tank or good healer you befriended them and vice versa. Next time you logged in you would get invites to join etc.
Instances, quick travel, auction houses etc. appeal to those who simply want to play a game with as little effort possible. They simply don't have time to run 20m to a spot. EQ before POP was the most realistic game ever. There was simply nothing like running into EC and seeing all the spam from people selling their stuff. Then when you saw something you wanted you could actually talk to the person selling it, haggle, barder or pay for it. So much more realistic.
Anyway I degress. One persons adventure does not equal everyones.
Doesnt really answer my question does it? nor is it really even on subject.
My question is, how and what defines a kids game vs not a kids game? I see WoW as a kids game, others do not. So the question is what exact parameters do we need to inspect to say one is right and the other is wrong.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Guys, please let the derail and bickering about about elitism go and stay on topic.
To give feedback on moderation, contact mikeb@mmorpg.com
Real life???
I am playing a game here, PLEASE. A dungeon is not a mall. If it like that, i won't be playing. I will just go to the real mall.
Realistic != good game. You are right .. not only i don't have time to run 20m to a spot ... i do not want to. The first time may be fun but after the 10th time, it is a chore. If i want chores, i have plenty in the real world. They don't belong in games ... at least not those i am willing to pay for.
And sure, different people like different things. I will pay for what i like and i wont stop you to pay to run 20m to the same spot again and again, if that floats your boat.
Oh, btw, that is also a bit off topic. Running 20m is not hard nor challenging. It is just tedious.
LOL - WOW before WOTLK required skill and provided a challenge for sure. After WOTLK it's a joke, there is no challenge unless you think fighting a boss you have already killed 50 times is challenging if you do it while jumping on one foot with a knife all for an achievement? ROFL - SWP was the last challenge in WOW and 99% will not know it as they never saw it.
Did you actually READ what i wrote? Optimizing DPS *is* a challenge. Sure you can kill the BOSS but can you do 50k dps on it?
My point made. You want it all now for as little effort as possible. Nothing wrong with that. I simply want more from a game than crap just haneded to me.
Actually the trouble is that you didn't read what he wrote.
Optomizing DPS is not a challenge friend. Squeaking out 1 more DPS is NOT going to be the difference between a win or loss. A group of people doing what needs to be done with no mistakes equals a win. Sure overall DPS matters and yes min/maxing is key for sure but it's not a challenge. You ether know how to get DPS out of your toon or you simply don't.
Challenge is what each person define and you can't define it for everyone. There are those who want to just down the boss, and those who want to win at the DPS chart, and those who want to be able to boast big numbers.
I do not see why only getting a win is valid, and the others are not.
And oh, if you say "ether know how to get DPS out of your toon or you simply don't", then you obviously do NOT understand the complexity of DPSing with mechanics. Go READ elitistjerks. There are people who are dedicated to it. May be you can learn something.
This reminds me of when I know I have exhausted a single player game.
When I am playing and making up my own rules such as 'I want to see if I can get the level done without having to reload.
Once you start doing stuff like that, the game is over.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I don't know about you. But go to the WOW forums. There are plenty of people seeking advice to up their DPS. There are also plenty asking if xx k dps is normal and whether they should do more.
Coupling with the fact that elitistjerks exist, and there are at least 2 packages of software (RAWR and a DPS SIM) that study WOW DPS, i would say DPS maximization is popular enough. And many have been doing it for years.