Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Why the hell have only one stat?

135

Comments

  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer Member EpicPosts: 8,857
    You know what?

    Is the game fun?

    There ya go.
    Thread should have ended there...but....
    Only some of us want games to be fun.

    Many here were talking about "investment", "effort", "time sink", "achievement" and things like that ....
    I stopped thinking in terms of Game has this feature, it's awesome. Game has that mechanic, it sucks. Game has bad business model so game will fail.

    Instead I started thinking along the lines of.......Does it work? The whole package.....Does it all work?
  • AxehiltAxehilt Member RarePosts: 10,504
    Archlyte said:
    For Axe: are you saying that having equipment sets is superior to native stats for the character?
    As long as a game offers interesting strategic and tactical decisions, the details aren't too important.

    When balanced right, equipment sets provide interesting tactical decisions.

    Native stats don't, since you don't change them often (because they're your character's stats and it wouldn't make sense.)  

    Doesn't mean native stats are unworkable, you just have to get tactical decisions some other way if you go with that system.

    "What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver

  • DeivosDeivos Member EpicPosts: 3,692
    That really has very little to do with gear vs stats, more so that's just how some have chosen to divide where the decisions on a character's strongest influencing factors are to reside.

    Be it in collecting separate individual skills, items, creating differently statted builds, etc, it's all fundamentally operating on some means to present the player with choices on balancing their stats as well as providing extended options in unique traits and abilities to define a play style.

    Gear and item sets is just one way in which that gets wrapped up. The mechanic on it's own is functionally meaningless, as the core of what it is doing is as readily achievable by creating the ability for characters to unlock perks, collect powers, etc that ultimately could replace that role without any notable difference.

    What it's predicated on and what's consequently important is the core stats of not just the character, but exposing some degree of the combat mechanics to being modified in a controlled manner so players can rebalance their characters into a more uniquely defined style.

    "The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay

    "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin

  • khanstructkhanstruct Member UncommonPosts: 756
    Gamers have gone mainstream and thus, the average IQ of the demographic has gone down. Way down. The bulk of the market probably can't keep more than one double-digit number in their heads for very long.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Axehilt said:
    Archlyte said:
    For Axe: are you saying that having equipment sets is superior to native stats for the character?
    As long as a game offers interesting strategic and tactical decisions, the details aren't too important.

    When balanced right, equipment sets provide interesting tactical decisions.

    Native stats don't, since you don't change them often (because they're your character's stats and it wouldn't make sense.)  

    Doesn't mean native stats are unworkable, you just have to get tactical decisions some other way if you go with that system.
    In addition, some control over game mechanics (e.g. equiping gear that will make a skill consume less resources under some condition) is way more interesting (at least to me) than adding one point here, and two points there.

    Which ... leads to more interesting tactical decisions. 

    Now, this can also be done on the character (say mechanics changing talents) ... but the point is that just customizing stats is pretty dry ... and way less fun (to me) than customizing multiple mechanics. 
  • ragz45ragz45 Member UncommonPosts: 810
    Archlyte said:
    There is a disturbing trend I am seeing where so-called "Characters" in MMORPGs are simply defined by one stat for their class or whatever pigeon hole the character has been put in. In some recent examples it's not even a different stat and just morphs to your class, so you could literally call it Stat and gear for it. WTF is that? If it's going to be that dumbed down and simple why even have the stats? If there is no way to build characters for different things stat-wise, why even have stats?

    Maybe someone can explain to me why this is a good thing for a genre that was built from games that modeled characters at least partially from a set of scores that determined capability and build nature. 
    This is more of a sign of lazy programming (it's easier to balance one stat per class), combined with the trend of dev's believing us players are too stupid to possibly be able to comprehend multiple stats per class having different effects; and thus being able to build our characters how ever we want using those different stats.
  • AeanderAeander Member LegendaryPosts: 8,061
    Honestly, I would like to see the genre (and all genres for that matter) move away from numeric stat upgrades as the primary form of character building and towards more difficult decisions in skill webs and passives. 
  • makasouleater69makasouleater69 Member UncommonPosts: 1,096
    edited October 2015
    Archlyte said:
    There is a disturbing trend I am seeing where so-called "Characters" in MMORPGs are simply defined by one stat for their class or whatever pigeon hole the character has been put in. In some recent examples it's not even a different stat and just morphs to your class, so you could literally call it Stat and gear for it. WTF is that? If it's going to be that dumbed down and simple why even have the stats? If there is no way to build characters for different things stat-wise, why even have stats?

    Maybe someone can explain to me why this is a good thing for a genre that was built from games that modeled characters at least partially from a set of scores that determined capability and build nature. 
    Don't worry, soon all MMOS, will be you log in, and hit start. Then it plays it for you. When you get into a battle, it will ask for your credit card, and ssn. If you don't have a credit score of 700 +, and a limit of 20 grand, you automatically lose. Who ever reaches the CC limit first loses. 

    So to recap, for people who didn't read that. Here is the only stat that matters in MMOS https://www.creditkarma.com/
  • H0urg1assH0urg1ass Member EpicPosts: 2,380
    Because when people had to refer to third party web sites in SWTOR to find out what to slot into their armor and how much of each attribute was the best balance, it caused their little sheeple brains to hurt.

    So in their continued crusade to keep all of the worlds windows clean they removed everything and made it a single stat.  Clean windows everywhere and you never have to research your character.  Sounds like a win/win situation to me!
  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Aeander said:
    Honestly, I would like to see the genre (and all genres for that matter) move away from numeric stat upgrades as the primary form of character building and towards more difficult decisions in skill webs and passives. 
    Well .. more games should learn from Diablo 3 skill/combat systems then. And I agree. 
  • makasouleater69makasouleater69 Member UncommonPosts: 1,096
    Aeander said:
    Honestly, I would like to see the genre (and all genres for that matter) move away from numeric stat upgrades as the primary form of character building and towards more difficult decisions in skill webs and passives. 
    Well .. more games should learn from Diablo 3 skill/combat systems then. And I agree. 
    They should learn from Path of Exile, that makes character creation so hard, that most people couldn't figure out the system, unless they look it up. Or ryzom where you can make your own. 

    But hey, its nothing new. Look at cars, it use to take skill to drive cars. You had to understand the whole working of the machine, if you wanted to drive safely. Now you just get in, and push start and the car almost drives it self. You of course have to point it in the right direction, but it does all the stuff for you. It would cause mass chaos, if you snapped your finger, and shut off all traction control/braking systems, and the anti jerk, and automatic brakes. People would be flying off the road first snow storm. 

    As with games, you use to have to understand the code behind the system, to play effective. Now you just hop right in and hit start and away you go. 
  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775

    They should learn from Path of Exile, that makes character creation so hard, that most people couldn't figure out the system, unless they look it up. Or ryzom where you can make your own. 


    Why do dev want to do that? "So hard" does not sound fun.

    Plus, i have seen the PoE system ... a huge diagram with one point here, and two points there ... not as much fun (to me) as changing combat mechanics. 
  • udonudon Member UncommonPosts: 1,803
    H0urg1ass said:
    Because when people had to refer to third party web sites in SWTOR to find out what to slot into their armor and how much of each attribute was the best balance, it caused their little sheeple brains to hurt.

    So in their continued crusade to keep all of the worlds windows clean they removed everything and made it a single stat.  Clean windows everywhere and you never have to research your character.  Sounds like a win/win situation to me!
    That seems like too easy of a answer to the question honestly and I'm not sure it holds up all that well as the only reason.  Looking up builds on the Web isn't hard and is well in the abilities of most people who play MMO's who are by definition Internet uses in the first place.  Anyone who cares enough to be concerned about their build is also going to be motivated enough to look up the optimal build on the web.

    It might be partially about closing the power gap between the players that are looking to squeeze every last bit of power out of their characters and those who really could care less but I think there is also the very real issue of the more complicated you make a character build system the more open to gaming the system you make it.  In complex stat/ability systems there is a lot more room for tweaking things to push a toon past the point where developers originally intended.  The more complex the system the more room there is for unexpected combinations causing balance issues.  Not that I ever though SWTOR was that complex of a character system mind you.  
  • Vermillion_RaventhalVermillion_Raventhal Member EpicPosts: 4,198
    I don't see the difference. Most games only let you pick a 2-3 viable builds either through stats or path for a class.  Without the official paths many times the stat builds are only viable for a few classes and the rest are pigeon holed.  You're not making a melee or dodge wizard for example. 
  • ArchlyteArchlyte Member RarePosts: 1,405
    I don't see the difference. Most games only let you pick a 2-3 viable builds either through stats or path for a class.  Without the official paths many times the stat builds are only viable for a few classes and the rest are pigeon holed.  You're not making a melee or dodge wizard for example. 
    That's a good point, and I also think that the machine that brings you 3 viable builds out of 23 is just plain shit. I think the RNG based stat system may be the culprit there, but I am not too happy about characters that have no definition either. 

    Any ideas how you can have characters that are defined by characteristics but don't have 3 builds that are best?

    MMORPG players are often like Hobbits: They don't like Adventures
  • AxehiltAxehilt Member RarePosts: 10,504
    In addition, some control over game mechanics (e.g. equiping gear that will make a skill consume less resources under some condition) is way more interesting (at least to me) than adding one point here, and two points there.

    Which ... leads to more interesting tactical decisions. 

    Now, this can also be done on the character (say mechanics changing talents) ... but the point is that just customizing stats is pretty dry ... and way less fun (to me) than customizing multiple mechanics. 
    Well just because a progression system isn't interesting enough to carry an entire game individually, that doesn't make it a bad system.  Character stats when balanced right can still provide an interesting strategic layer.  They're not enough to carry an entire game's progression and make it really interesting, because they don't provide tactical decisions, but that's fine because they're not supposed to and you just have other progression systems for the tactical layer.

    "What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Vardahoth said:

    Because there are people who actually enjoyed the "broken" way games used to be. There are people who enjoyed having more than just the trinity classes. There are people who enjoyed versatile builds. As long as the things people once enjoyed are being taken away and replaced with things they don't enjoy, they will argue.
    Of course they will argue .. but i hope they don't think that arguing will get them anywhere.

    It is a free market.  Devs don't owe them a game that they like. Apparently there are not enough of those who enjoyed the "broken" way games used to be. Otherwise, those games will still be made. 
  • AeanderAeander Member LegendaryPosts: 8,061
    Aeander said:
    Honestly, I would like to see the genre (and all genres for that matter) move away from numeric stat upgrades as the primary form of character building and towards more difficult decisions in skill webs and passives. 
    Well .. more games should learn from Diablo 3 skill/combat systems then. And I agree. 

    Hilariously, that was pretty much exactly what I was thinking of, though I would go with something much more complex and extensive than that. 
  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Aeander said:
    Aeander said:
    Honestly, I would like to see the genre (and all genres for that matter) move away from numeric stat upgrades as the primary form of character building and towards more difficult decisions in skill webs and passives. 
    Well .. more games should learn from Diablo 3 skill/combat systems then. And I agree. 

    Hilariously, that was pretty much exactly what I was thinking of, though I would go with something much more complex and extensive than that. 
    I don't think complex is necessarily more fun. However, more game mechanics changing abilities and gear (i suppose you can say that is complex .. just look at how many item can change some game mechanics in the new cube) is always fun.


  • khanstructkhanstruct Member UncommonPosts: 756
    Don't worry, soon all MMOS, will be you log in, and hit start. Then it plays it for you. When you get into a battle, it will ask for your credit card, and ssn. If you don't have a credit score of 700 +, and a limit of 20 grand, you automatically lose. Who ever reaches the CC limit first loses. 

    So to recap, for people who didn't read that. Here is the only stat that matters in MMOS https://www.creditkarma.com/
    I would chuckle, but it's true. Have you seen those lame, top-down MMOs that plague the market? You literally click the name of your quest and your character auto-runs to the destination AND they'll automatically start fighting whatever beastie you're suppose to fight!

    Why not just play Progress Quest?

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775


    Why not just play Progress Quest?
    Because of better graphics? 
  • Vermillion_RaventhalVermillion_Raventhal Member EpicPosts: 4,198
    Vardahoth said:

    Because there are people who actually enjoyed the "broken" way games used to be. There are people who enjoyed having more than just the trinity classes. There are people who enjoyed versatile builds. As long as the things people once enjoyed are being taken away and replaced with things they don't enjoy, they will argue.
    Of course they will argue .. but i hope they don't think that arguing will get them anywhere.

    It is a free market.  Devs don't owe them a game that they like. Apparently there are not enough of those who enjoyed the "broken" way games used to be. Otherwise, those games will still be made. 
    Every heard of "correlation does not imply causation"?

    Just because there is a viable market available for a audience doesn't mean developers will develop for it.  Though it could be argued that they are now.  The genre's length of development, budget, metrics and now proven false viability have lead to them developing games the way they have.  Essentially, we have had 2 cycles of the genre try to emulate WoW to get the astounding WoW numbers.  The viable levels of success was altered and upgraded to WoW's level of success which has never been achieved by anyone else.  

    Producing for a smaller market has been difficult because the big developers wanted WoW numbers.  This only games that fit WoW mold were allowed to be made. Producing a quality MMORPG without a relatively large budget of big developers has proved difficult.  So you're essentially stuck between a big developer and a hard place to make targeted MMORPGs.  
  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775


    Just because there is a viable market available for a audience doesn't mean developers will develop for it. 

    No. But devs do not develop .. also does not mean that the said market is viable. However, while it is not proof, I do wonder if there is such a market, and people are so vocal about it, why do the devs ignore it? Don't tell me they don't know the market, nor that they don't want to make money. In addition, there are SMALL games who try to cater to these small niches, and they never made it big (like DF, for example .. and Eve is not that big) ... so there is evidence that there may not be enough market to warrant AAA development. It is moot though ... since MMORPGs are pretty much abandoned now in favor of more focused, convenient online games (just look at Blizz).
  • Vermillion_RaventhalVermillion_Raventhal Member EpicPosts: 4,198


    Just because there is a viable market available for a audience doesn't mean developers will develop for it. 

    No. But devs do not develop .. also does not mean that the said market is viable. However, while it is not proof, I do wonder if there is such a market, and people are so vocal about it, why do the devs ignore it? Don't tell me they don't know the market, nor that they don't want to make money. In addition, there are SMALL games who try to cater to these small niches, and they never made it big (like DF, for example .. and Eve is not that big) ... so there is evidence that there may not be enough market to warrant AAA development. It is moot though ... since MMORPGs are pretty much abandoned now in favor of more focused, convenient online games (just look at Blizz).

    There is no proof but the reasons to ignore anything else...

    1. WoW factor: 26 times bigger than the previous big game.  Hard to ignore.
    2. Culture of developers:  Many developers come from WoW family tree or even single player games as the genre expanded.
    3. Ease of creating experience a well document experience: Often a forgotten aspect is that MMORPG are very psychological because the buying experience is on going vs. one time purchase.  WoW casual quest hub experience is very well documented compared to say a player content sandbox which most players can't even imagine.  
    4. Metrics: Considering most games are very similar most metrics are going to read the same way.  Do you think running metrics on different cola brand taste will help you determine how to make a orange cream soda or if it should even be made?  
  • fivorothfivoroth Member UncommonPosts: 3,916
    edited October 2015
    nolic1 said:
    Ok well lets see at one time in MMO history I remeber games such as RO, EQ1 and even EQ2, DAOC, Anarchy heck alot of games where you could mix stats from gear to improve skills and ability's even in WoW in its first year you could do this. Then something happened what is called forced player play you ether play by the rules that are placed by the player base for whats best or you do not do the content.

    One of my biggest grips of all time is when a new game comes out say ESO you can enjoy the game how you want but once you get to end game or most likely half way there mid levels you start to here the best way to play X or Y class and you ether do it or never get a group for shit cause your characters gimped. This happened in GW1 and 2 as well there were classes that where best in build and gear as such and you ether play that way or never get groups for anything. Then the companies come in and change to fit the game to that mold like in WoW when the changed the skill tree to that awful system. Stats have become nothing more then mere numbers that we as players chase because it makes us as uber as what we can be instead of what we would like. 

    The list of games this has happened to is to long to write because its not just any game its all mmo's have gone this route because the dev's say it helps to stream line the game and make it easier for new players to understand. Players will say its the most effective way to play X,Y class or build and you have to play it that way until the master of builds come out with the latest build combo and then you switch to it cause its the best. 

    I do remember a time when a cleric could dump into str stat and get harder melee hits then putting only into wis or magic or what ever the stat is when characters could be what you wanted them to be but sadly no more because of the new way of streamlined stats and FOTM or META what ever it might be called but effective play is not the only way we are stuck with it till we as players put our feet done and say no more.
    I think you are over exaggerating or I haven't played games which deal in such extremes. While it's true that there are often what are considered "optimal" builds or the "meta" builds, it's never been so bad as to not get groups. Especially for anything below max level and dungeons. Hell I could do a troll build and my raid in WoW wouldn't care much as long as I was "healing/tanking" etc. And that was during a time when raiding was considered "serious stuff" - aka WoW and TBC.

    I am not sure about GW2 but I have never heard of anyone not getting groups in GW1 if they didn't run an "optimal" build. Also in GW1 you would find it almost impossible to find two people to agree on what an "optimal" build. Hell, you know your group is generous when you let a mesmer play with you cause you know mesmers are shit in PvE, they were just better off playing PvP as they were gods there!

    Jokes aside, GW1 was not one of those games which gave you tons of choices where only 1 was viable. GW1 gave you a million options of which probably a thousand were more than viable! GW1 was the pinnacle of build variety and diversity I have ever seen in this genre. Everything else pales in comparison. Games like EQ1 offer almost no build variety and customisation in comparison.

    Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.

Sign In or Register to comment.