I think the goal is not just to make a game you think is fun but others do as well. Metrics are the best known way to get information. You might think it's s cop out. I think it's the best way to get information to design a great game.
If you believe in your game and think it's fun then why isn't that enough? If you make a game for what other people like then you are likely not going to be passionate about the parts of the game that others asked for, but you didn't really agree with. You made the content because the they seem to like it via statistics. It's much more likely you will make good content if it's something that you personally like, enjoy, and are passionate about. Otherwise it is just another task to complete/job.
I would think a good developer would want to make a game others think is fun. Metrics are the best tool to tell you what others find fun.
They are the same thing.
What metric tells you what players find fun? I think metrics can tell you things like what players spend the most time on, but that would lead to the conclusion that the most fun thing to do in WoW is grind daily quests. As far as I know 'fun' isn't measurable in statistical data unless you are talking about direct player feedback via surveys or something, but that isn't directly a metric, and even if you consider it to be that in practice it isn't widely used post-release.
I agree with the previous posters that design from metric data or formulas feels sterile. That doesn't mean developers can't reuse ideas, but we've reached a point where every time I see the 800th permeation of the WoW crafting system (that isn't remotely deep or engaging or 'fun' to begin with) I just roll my eyes. Metric data suggests that that system 'works' because players play those games and craft in those games, but that doesn't reflect it's 'funness' in my experience. People used to grind crafting in WoW to get individual boni like an extra gem slot on a belt or JC specific gems, not because of any 'funness'. People spend the most time (an extremely easy metric to track) doing whatever is the most rewarding.
Metric data is good in a way at telling us what worked in the past, but I firmly believe that in gaming rehashing old ideas has drastically diminishing funness. It's one of the reasons IMO that WoW-clones have such an abysmal success rate. One of the reasons WoW was so successful is that Blizzard took all the best ideas from a decade of MMOs and polished them and introduced them to a new audience who hadn't seen them before.
The last decade of AAA games have largely been based on metric development; keep all the status-quo features and introduce that one twist (action combat, voiced quests, multi-classes, etc) and in all the games I remember that twist was the only redeeming part of the game. Developers (indie at least) have realized over time that those metrics mean nothing but exactly what they say, what was successful or failed in the past. Time will tell if the games they develop that break the mold are successful or not.
What i think is fun other people may not. The goal is not to just Make a game i find fun. The goal is to make a game others find fun too.
I would need to remove my own personal bias and find it what others find fun.
The point being that if you find the content you make fun it will show in your work and perhaps will infect other people. It also is more likely to generate something unique. I understand your standpoint, but I don't agree with it. I would never make a game, story, or anything based on what other people like. I doubt I would make it through without some type of passion driving me. I guess there is always the motivation of making money, but that again is something that cheapens the vision and sucks emotion out of the game IMO.
Make starving artists feel the same way. The only way to find out what others like is some kind of metric, at the very least some descriptive research.
It isn't an either or. I could still be passionate about it even if I'm trying to find out what others are passionate about.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Others have eloquently defended our position. I will only say, you seem to be suggesting that we want it all back? Lock stock and barrel. I have only ever argued for a hybrid, a MMO which takes the best of old school and keeps the best of new school.
So for example; no casino gameplay but nothing wrong with a more "arcade style" combat. Likewise no permadeath but gameplay activities which made players want to be in social hubs would be good.
I am not sure you will see many on here that wants to see EQ 1.0 or UO 1.0 without any change what so ever, just souped-up graphics.
The problem is developers aren't swayed by eloquence speeches rooted in emotion and nostalgia.
They're swayed by the business case. While not every case for a business is visible in the historic data, when it comes to things which have already been tried we have a pretty good sense of what will work and what won't.
On top of that the vocal minority lacks one clear vision of what it is they actually want. And many of the individual ideas presented which are clear are also clearly bad ideas (sometimes there's good evidence that they've been tried and failed, and/or sometimes there's strong understanding of what makes games fun and the idea is the exact opposite of that.)
If casino gameplay makes a great business case then I would suggest that players will work out they are being milked like a cash cow. It may take another ten years mind you.
I would argue there is not a pretty good sense of what will and will not work. Offer people something too different, it may not work. That does not mean every idea was wrong. Also because something works does not mean it can only work that way. Advancement, questing, crafting, all can be done many ways.
Not unlike many other forms of entertainment MMOs have "the way things work". So superhero films were a minor genre they did well, but were never going to move outside Superman and Batman. Then Amazingly, a genre is created. Openworld is dead, huge MMO sales are dead, then H1Z1 sells a million copies, it may not live up to the hype, but the demand for something different is there. Minecraft's success is another example. It take boldness not the business case to do that.
Do you think WoW had a great business case, do you think WoW had good historical data to go on? This is where the problem lies, designing games purely using a business model. If you want to emulate WoW's success, don't use a business model, create something new, trust your vision.
Now I don't argue that a business model build will not yield a decent return. But I would question for how long? Are new MMOs making as much money as old MMOs using the same template? I don't know, but eventually more of the same will cause interest to wane. These are games after all. It seems to me the main push in this area has been to find new "gamers" such as smartphone users. Certainly it will take longer for the interest to wane in those who have hardly played a game before.
The business case is soulless, it creates soulless entertainment wherever it is applied. Look at how long TV series get these days to prove themselves. New X files, a six episode run. But I bet limiting it to six episodes had a really good business case.
I do agree on your final point, although I would suggest that 1 million sales means we are not talking about a small "minority" who want change.
We all have a somewhat different idea of what was best about old school, but I say again I doubt anyone out there would want to throw away everything that has been developed since WoW. I also doubt anybody is saying we want this subset or we are not playing. Openworld and social are probably the two key factors, but I will take a punt and say if you gave us openworld or social we might still all turn up. Not sure there is much social in H1Z1 for example.
On the flip side it sounds like you (as a developer) care more about how many people you can bring in to play with your game mechanics and statistics then actually making a game you think is fun. You haven't show much emotional investment in any ideas you mention. It is simple about statistics. When a game is made via statistics it's likely to be about statistics. It's no wonder players are more concerned with how good their gear is and getting to the end game. If your content is made via numbers and not emotional investment how can people enjoy it much? I guess a lot do, but then again there are a lot of people who are easy to manipulate. We have seen it for years in all industries.
Nearly every post I make describes the fundamentals of how to create a fun game. A result of that will be attracting more players because it's a fun-focused game (which is what players want.)
The most famous analytics-driven game is Farmville, and yet that game isn't about statistics at all. It's a game mostly about decoration, and cute little animals. So your claim that statistics-driven games are about statistics is not logical.
It's also true that the people who enjoy gaming most are the most easily manipulated. Meanwhile you have posters like Kopoperwhateverhisname who is the least-easily manipulated gamer because he hates all games (and no amount of good gameplay or good game design will manipulate him into enjoying a game.)
So while you're portraying manipulation as bad, all games attempt to manipulate people to have a good time. Some just use science to do it better.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
There definitely aren't games whose game depth surpasses WOW's. When you break down the core game activities into their molecular mechanical parts (things like WOW's combat rotations) and add them all up, you simply can't find a another MMORPG that deep and rewarding of skill. (Though a few isolated examples like FFXIV's lancer class come close.)
That's a pretty strong assertion there - one which would require an awful lot of intellectually honest and well-intentioned research to bear out in any way that even approaches objectivity. In other words, not engaging in confirmation bias, and cherry-picking only the things that support your view, while ignoring anything that doesn't.
With all the MMOs out there, and the time investment often required before you begin to get into the real depth/meat of them (it certainly doesn't happen near the beginning), I have a difficult time believing you have done adequate research to validate your claim as anything but opinion.... which is no better than anyone else's - your emphatic use of words like "definitely" notwithstanding.
I could say, for example - having played both games to almost equal extent - that The Secret World's combat system is far more in-depth than WoW's would even attempt to be.
Your character's build is decided by what pair of weapons you choose to use. That's step one. Step 2 is deciding what capacity you want to use them in - as DPS, healing, etc. Then, it's a matter of building up the "synergy" part, which entails deciding what kind of "effect' you want to build around... rooting, hindering, bleeds, etc. etc. Then, you choose skills - 7 passive, and 7 active - that build off of that base effect. And that's where the combat/skill system really begins.
TSW combat is built around the concept of "synergy", which is basically how skills - both passive and active - all work off of, and enhance each other. It makes the difference between someone who's just spamming 1,1,1,1,2 over and over, and someone who does serious output.
As a hypothetical (but realistic) example: Skill A inflicts a bleed status. Skill B exploits that bleed status by increasing the damage done by skill C. A passive ability gives C an additional "root" effect if the target is currently under influence of a bleed status. Skill D does additional damage to the target if it's rooted, by applying a stun effect... Skill D does additional damage if the target is stunned, and also inflicts a bleed status, which further empowers skill B... and so on... There are myriad more examples of how the system works, and all the various builds and rotations a player can create with it.
That's without even getting into how glyphs can further enhance the character's combat abilities.
WoW doesn't even come close to touching that level of depth.
Now, I have a feeling you're going to give a very specific type of response to the TSW example in an attempt to dismiss it, because you've given similar responses in the past, and it seems to be a favored go-to reaction for you. I'm not going to say what it is. I'm just going to wait and see if you go there.
There definitely aren't games whose game depth surpasses WOW's. When you break down the core game activities into their molecular mechanical parts (things like WOW's combat rotations) and add them all up, you simply can't find a another MMORPG that deep and rewarding of skill. (Though a few isolated examples like FFXIV's lancer class come close.)
EVE is objectively deeper than WoW if you 'break down the core game activities into their molecular mechanical parts' as you put it.
Since you also mention skill (and might be ignoring EVE due to that) then I will say that LOTRO is deeper as well. The rotation and group strategy are both deeper. The crafting and interdependence is deeper. The legendary item system is immensely more complex than WoW's gear system (it's one of the deepest systems in any game I've played). The achievement/trait system is another level. There are just many more complexities overall that total much greater depth.
I haven't remotely played every MMO (many though) and I named two that are easily deeper IMO. OFC I would also never presume to make a statement like "There definitely aren't games who game depth surpasses X" either.
Metrics are total bullshit without the context that is provided by clean surveying and focus groups.
So when you release two different features and one has 90% adoption rate and the other has 1% adoption rate, those metrics are "total bullshit" and tell a developer absolutely nothing about their game?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Metrics are total bullshit without the context that is provided by clean surveying and focus groups.
So when you release two different features and one has 90% adoption rate and the other has 1% adoption rate, those metrics are "total bullshit" and tell a developer absolutely nothing about their game?
A/B testing doesn't ask why or take into consideration what factors may have influenced the choice. Isolating a feature from the total experience can skew results as well.
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
Metrics are total bullshit without the context that is provided by clean surveying and focus groups.
So when you release two different features and one has 90% adoption rate and the other has 1% adoption rate, those metrics are "total bullshit" and tell a developer absolutely nothing about their game?
A/B testing doesn't ask why or take into consideration what factors may have influenced the choice. Isolating a feature from the total experience can skew results as well.
Suit: "So Alexandros how did the metrics testing go?"
Alexandros "We are getting a lot of likes for the Venus De Milo. But no so much for my Alexander the Great at all"
Suit: "Its having no arms that's what it is! From now on do all your statues with no arms! The metrics never lie!"
EVE is objectively deeper than WoW if you 'break down the core game activities into their molecular mechanical parts' as you put it.
Since you also mention skill (and might be ignoring EVE due to that) then I will say that LOTRO is deeper as well. The rotation and group strategy are both deeper. The crafting and interdependence is deeper. The legendary item system is immensely more complex than WoW's gear system (it's one of the deepest systems in any game I've played). The achievement/trait system is another level. There are just many more complexities overall that total much greater depth.
I haven't remotely played every MMO (many though) and I named two that are easily deeper IMO. OFC I would also never presume to make a statement like "There definitely aren't games who game depth surpasses X" either.
EVE spams a lot of inelegant complexity, has a lot of unknown info, and reasonably decent combat, but that potential depth is diluted by how much time most things take. This means in any given session most of your time isn't going to spent engaging in deep activities, but rather going through the time-consuming motions of executing an earlier decision. That earlier decision was pretty deep, but the lack of additional tough decisions is what kills the game.
Another problem is when shallow decisions trump deeper ones. For example EVE's combat seems like it'd be reasonably deep in fair fights, but a shallow decision ("bring more friends") trumps that potential depth by having fights more often come down to who brought the overwhelming force. On top of that the game mechanics encourage you to avoid fair fights (where the game would be at its deepest.)
Skill is both decision-making and execution (sounded like you might be assuming only twitch skill is skill.) Depth is a measure of how long it takes to master a game (essentially to reach the skill cap.)
Do you have an example of LOTRO's rotation being deeper? Guides on how to do something in a game perfectly, which account for all the factors involved, will tend to be the best evidence of the depth of a game. But we're mostly going off evidence here, rather than
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
i don't see why any and all types of games cannot co-exist because they can. i think the problem is everything has been done before and there is so much competition out there.
Do you have an example of LOTRO's rotation being deeper? Guides on how to do something in a game perfectly, which account for all the factors involved, will tend to be the best evidence of the depth of a game. But we're mostly going off evidence here, rather than
Naturally or else I wouldn't make the argument. My main two characters were burglar and warden so I will speak to them as I don't know the specifics of the other mechanics.
For the burglar the basic rotation was similar to a WoW rotation (like rogue, it's analogue) with the added complexity of crit chains (reactionary skill chain that has branching options that are more or less optimal based on situation), a wide range of mutually exclusive debuffs thats are situationally dependant, gambles which introduce a random element that may change your rotation depending on outcome.
For warden, the system is pretty complicated to even explain but basically he is a leather tank who uses builder abilities and a finisher to execute his 'gambits'. The gambits themselves consists of 2-5 abilities chained and there are 40-50 in total. The gambits range from taunts to dps to healing to self-buffs, but because of the buildup time before execution and the fact that most of the taunts build threat over time you have to think ahead and be very mindful of what ability you will need 5 seconds from now. The class is very unforgiving of mistakes, but extremely powerful if played to it's maximum potential (which is extremely hard). It's hard to explain, but it's really intense to play at a high level. Here is a link to the gambits that I assume is current (haven't played in a few years): https://lotro-wiki.com/index.php/Warden_Gambit_Quick_Reference
If you want more details they are out there, I honestly don't remember it all specifically enough without looking it up, but I raided in WoW as a tank, healer(s), and many dps for comparison. This doesn't even take into account the more complex inter-dependencies of group compositions.
Do you have an example of LOTRO's rotation being deeper? Guides on how to do something in a game perfectly, which account for all the factors involved, will tend to be the best evidence of the depth of a game. But we're mostly going off evidence here, rather than
Naturally or else I wouldn't make the argument. My main two characters were burglar and warden so I will speak to them as I don't know the specifics of the other mechanics.
For the burglar the basic rotation was similar to a WoW rotation (like rogue, it's analogue) with the added complexity of crit chains (reactionary skill chain that has branching options that are more or less optimal based on situation), a wide range of mutually exclusive debuffs thats are situationally dependant, gambles which introduce a random element that may change your rotation depending on outcome.
For warden, the system is pretty complicated to even explain but basically he is a leather tank who uses builder abilities and a finisher to execute his 'gambits'. The gambits themselves consists of 2-5 abilities chained and there are 40-50 in total. The gambits range from taunts to dps to healing to self-buffs, but because of the buildup time before execution and the fact that most of the taunts build threat over time you have to think ahead and be very mindful of what ability you will need 5 seconds from now. The class is very unforgiving of mistakes, but extremely powerful if played to it's maximum potential (which is extremely hard). It's hard to explain, but it's really intense to play at a high level. Here is a link to the gambits that I assume is current (haven't played in a few years): https://lotro-wiki.com/index.php/Warden_Gambit_Quick_Reference
If you want more details they are out there, I honestly don't remember it all specifically enough without looking it up, but I raided in WoW as a tank, healer(s), and many dps for comparison. This doesn't even take into account the more complex inter-dependencies of group compositions.
EVE is objectively deeper than WoW if you 'break down the core game activities into their molecular mechanical parts' as you put it.
Since you also mention skill (and might be ignoring EVE due to that) then I will say that LOTRO is deeper as well. The rotation and group strategy are both deeper. The crafting and interdependence is deeper. The legendary item system is immensely more complex than WoW's gear system (it's one of the deepest systems in any game I've played). The achievement/trait system is another level. There are just many more complexities overall that total much greater depth.
I haven't remotely played every MMO (many though) and I named two that are easily deeper IMO. OFC I would also never presume to make a statement like "There definitely aren't games who game depth surpasses X" either.
EVE spams a lot of inelegant complexity, has a lot of unknown info, and reasonably decent combat, but that potential depth is diluted by how much time most things take. This means in any given session most of your time isn't going to spent engaging in deep activities, but rather going through the time-consuming motions of executing an earlier decision. That earlier decision was pretty deep, but the lack of additional tough decisions is what kills the game.
Another problem is when shallow decisions trump deeper ones. For example EVE's combat seems like it'd be reasonably deep in fair fights, but a shallow decision ("bring more friends") trumps that potential depth by having fights more often come down to who brought the overwhelming force. On top of that the game mechanics encourage you to avoid fair fights (where the game would be at its deepest.)
Skill is both decision-making and execution (sounded like you might be assuming only twitch skill is skill.) Depth is a measure of how long it takes to master a game (essentially to reach the skill cap.)
Do you have an example of LOTRO's rotation being deeper? Guides on how to do something in a game perfectly, which account for all the factors involved, will tend to be the best evidence of the depth of a game. But we're mostly going off evidence here, rather than
Your EVE combat analysis is pretty much spot on except in one key area.
The reason fair fights are to be avoided is Eve really isn't a game; it is more of a virtual world with entirely different goals and avoiding dying is number one.
Players frequently bring friends and do other tactics to ensure ensure total victory.
Does this diminish the gameplay? Yes you are correct but in-depth combat mechanics isn't what most play EVE players are after (obviously), rather an entirely different set of goals than players in other games.
IMO an emphasis on having "fun" is a secondary motivator to EVE inhabitants, (not players) we're there to build our "empires" and create a unique legacy.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Metrics are total bullshit without the context that is provided by clean surveying and focus groups.
So when you release two different features and one has 90% adoption rate and the other has 1% adoption rate, those metrics are "total bullshit" and tell a developer absolutely nothing about their game?
A/B testing doesn't ask why or take into consideration what factors may have influenced the choice. Isolating a feature from the total experience can skew results as well.
Suit: "So Alexandros how did the metrics testing go?"
Alexandros "We are getting a lot of likes for the Venus De Milo. But no so much for my Alexander the Great at all"
Suit: "Its having no arms that's what it is! From now on do all your statues with no arms! The metrics never lie!"
^Exactly
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
The questions for all metrics regardless of how they are collected whether it is a game or a tax review are the same.
1. Are you actually measuring what you want to measure? 2. Are you interpreting those metrics correctly? 3. is your plan going forward adequately addressing the information obtained from the first two question?
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
The questions for all metrics regardless of how they are collected whether it is a game or a tax review are the same.
1. Are you actually measuring what you want to measure? 2. Are you interpreting those metrics correctly? 3. is your plan going forward adequately addressing the information obtained from the first two question?
if you hire 10 of the very best drivers in the world to evulate your road conditions in your small town is that better than passive data collection on your entire city of drivers every day for a full year?
generally no. the later is often better information
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Comments
I agree with the previous posters that design from metric data or formulas feels sterile. That doesn't mean developers can't reuse ideas, but we've reached a point where every time I see the 800th permeation of the WoW crafting system (that isn't remotely deep or engaging or 'fun' to begin with) I just roll my eyes. Metric data suggests that that system 'works' because players play those games and craft in those games, but that doesn't reflect it's 'funness' in my experience. People used to grind crafting in WoW to get individual boni like an extra gem slot on a belt or JC specific gems, not because of any 'funness'. People spend the most time (an extremely easy metric to track) doing whatever is the most rewarding.
Metric data is good in a way at telling us what worked in the past, but I firmly believe that in gaming rehashing old ideas has drastically diminishing funness. It's one of the reasons IMO that WoW-clones have such an abysmal success rate. One of the reasons WoW was so successful is that Blizzard took all the best ideas from a decade of MMOs and polished them and introduced them to a new audience who hadn't seen them before.
The last decade of AAA games have largely been based on metric development; keep all the status-quo features and introduce that one twist (action combat, voiced quests, multi-classes, etc) and in all the games I remember that twist was the only redeeming part of the game. Developers (indie at least) have realized over time that those metrics mean nothing but exactly what they say, what was successful or failed in the past. Time will tell if the games they develop that break the mold are successful or not.
I would need to remove my own personal bias and find out what others find fun.
It isn't an either or. I could still be passionate about it even if I'm trying to find out what others are passionate about.
If casino gameplay makes a great business case then I would suggest that players will work out they are being milked like a cash cow. It may take another ten years mind you.
I would argue there is not a pretty good sense of what will and will not work. Offer people something too different, it may not work. That does not mean every idea was wrong. Also because something works does not mean it can only work that way. Advancement, questing, crafting, all can be done many ways.
Not unlike many other forms of entertainment MMOs have "the way things work". So superhero films were a minor genre they did well, but were never going to move outside Superman and Batman. Then Amazingly, a genre is created. Openworld is dead, huge MMO sales are dead, then H1Z1 sells a million copies, it may not live up to the hype, but the demand for something different is there. Minecraft's success is another example. It take boldness not the business case to do that.
Do you think WoW had a great business case, do you think WoW had good historical data to go on? This is where the problem lies, designing games purely using a business model. If you want to emulate WoW's success, don't use a business model, create something new, trust your vision.
Now I don't argue that a business model build will not yield a decent return. But I would question for how long? Are new MMOs making as much money as old MMOs using the same template? I don't know, but eventually more of the same will cause interest to wane. These are games after all. It seems to me the main push in this area has been to find new "gamers" such as smartphone users. Certainly it will take longer for the interest to wane in those who have hardly played a game before.
The business case is soulless, it creates soulless entertainment wherever it is applied. Look at how long TV series get these days to prove themselves. New X files, a six episode run. But I bet limiting it to six episodes had a really good business case.
I do agree on your final point, although I would suggest that 1 million sales means we are not talking about a small "minority" who want change.
We all have a somewhat different idea of what was best about old school, but I say again I doubt anyone out there would want to throw away everything that has been developed since WoW. I also doubt anybody is saying we want this subset or we are not playing. Openworld and social are probably the two key factors, but I will take a punt and say if you gave us openworld or social we might still all turn up. Not sure there is much social in H1Z1 for example.
The most famous analytics-driven game is Farmville, and yet that game isn't about statistics at all. It's a game mostly about decoration, and cute little animals. So your claim that statistics-driven games are about statistics is not logical.
It's also true that the people who enjoy gaming most are the most easily manipulated. Meanwhile you have posters like Kopoperwhateverhisname who is the least-easily manipulated gamer because he hates all games (and no amount of good gameplay or good game design will manipulate him into enjoying a game.)
So while you're portraying manipulation as bad, all games attempt to manipulate people to have a good time. Some just use science to do it better.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Since you also mention skill (and might be ignoring EVE due to that) then I will say that LOTRO is deeper as well. The rotation and group strategy are both deeper. The crafting and interdependence is deeper. The legendary item system is immensely more complex than WoW's gear system (it's one of the deepest systems in any game I've played). The achievement/trait system is another level. There are just many more complexities overall that total much greater depth.
I haven't remotely played every MMO (many though) and I named two that are easily deeper IMO. OFC I would also never presume to make a statement like "There definitely aren't games who game depth surpasses X" either.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Suit: "So Alexandros how did the metrics testing go?"
Alexandros "We are getting a lot of likes for the Venus De Milo. But no so much for my Alexander the Great at all"
Suit: "Its having no arms that's what it is! From now on do all your statues with no arms! The metrics never lie!"
Another problem is when shallow decisions trump deeper ones. For example EVE's combat seems like it'd be reasonably deep in fair fights, but a shallow decision ("bring more friends") trumps that potential depth by having fights more often come down to who brought the overwhelming force. On top of that the game mechanics encourage you to avoid fair fights (where the game would be at its deepest.)
Skill is both decision-making and execution (sounded like you might be assuming only twitch skill is skill.) Depth is a measure of how long it takes to master a game (essentially to reach the skill cap.)
Do you have an example of LOTRO's rotation being deeper? Guides on how to do something in a game perfectly, which account for all the factors involved, will tend to be the best evidence of the depth of a game. But we're mostly going off evidence here, rather than
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
For the burglar the basic rotation was similar to a WoW rotation (like rogue, it's analogue) with the added complexity of crit chains (reactionary skill chain that has branching options that are more or less optimal based on situation), a wide range of mutually exclusive debuffs thats are situationally dependant, gambles which introduce a random element that may change your rotation depending on outcome.
For warden, the system is pretty complicated to even explain but basically he is a leather tank who uses builder abilities and a finisher to execute his 'gambits'. The gambits themselves consists of 2-5 abilities chained and there are 40-50 in total. The gambits range from taunts to dps to healing to self-buffs, but because of the buildup time before execution and the fact that most of the taunts build threat over time you have to think ahead and be very mindful of what ability you will need 5 seconds from now. The class is very unforgiving of mistakes, but extremely powerful if played to it's maximum potential (which is extremely hard). It's hard to explain, but it's really intense to play at a high level. Here is a link to the gambits that I assume is current (haven't played in a few years): https://lotro-wiki.com/index.php/Warden_Gambit_Quick_Reference
If you want more details they are out there, I honestly don't remember it all specifically enough without looking it up, but I raided in WoW as a tank, healer(s), and many dps for comparison. This doesn't even take into account the more complex inter-dependencies of group compositions.
The reason fair fights are to be avoided is Eve really isn't a game; it is more of a virtual world with entirely different goals and avoiding dying is number one.
Players frequently bring friends and do other tactics to ensure ensure total victory.
Does this diminish the gameplay? Yes you are correct but in-depth combat mechanics isn't what most play EVE players are after (obviously), rather an entirely different set of goals than players in other games.
IMO an emphasis on having "fun" is a secondary motivator to EVE inhabitants, (not players) we're there to build our "empires" and create a unique legacy.
Yah, I know I take this stuff far too seriously.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
1. Are you actually measuring what you want to measure?
2. Are you interpreting those metrics correctly?
3. is your plan going forward adequately addressing the information obtained from the first two question?
generally no. the later is often better information
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me