Originally posted by Gylfi No AA company (i think they're 2 different companies under Nc), game is JUST from Richard Garriott, maker of the 1st mmog ever (Ultima Online). I don't understand what's FPS to you and what's for people and who decides what it is anyway, and what's RPG so We should call this and every game just Mmo.
Umm, Ultima Online is FAR from the "1st mmog ever". And to think that this is "JUST from Richard Garriott" is ignorant. No ONE man makes modern video games, they are a group effort with a lot of hard work from a lot of different types of developers. IF R.G. really did do this on his own, without any assistance it would resemble PONG. With less detail.
I figure I'll put down my 2 cents on this. I personally enjoy twitch combat, or what I personally refer to as TRUE FPS. Everyone can define FPS, MMO, RPG, however they feel they need too given that they are just acronyms. I do not care how the industry, or how other people define a game, because in the end it comes down to what I think when I'm choosing what I'm going to play.
I will tell you this though, I will probably not play this game because it just feels like your being cheated out of the experience when your personal shot doesn't matter in the end as long as the computer thinks you were "close enough". Although planet-side is kinda like that, it still has that classic TRUE FPS feel to me. The problem though is that it lacks that sort of role-playing element that I find inherent to my very definition of MMO. Without it, it quickly felt just like playing battlefield.
If someone could successfully merge TRUE FPS with an MMO/RPG (whatever you what to call it) then you would have me there any day! If were supposed to be role-playing, isn't it easier to feel like your IN the character, rather than watching him from afar? Thats just my feeling though.
Whatever you want to call it, I will not consider TR a TRUE FPS, because it breaks away from MY personal definition. Weather or not people find it good is up to them, and I'm willing to give nearly everything a try once.
Perhaps you should look at Huxley. Thats is supposed to be a MMOFPS.
I havent looked at it so I cant tell you if there will be any role-play.
Not sure if you will ever see what you are looking for - RPG , FPS.
The two are in my opinion fundamentally opposed systems. In a FPS the gameplay is based on the skill/reflexes of the actual player (ie its you playing). In a RPG the game is based on the skill of the character you are playing (ie you are playing the role of that character).
There are a few RPG with a FPS feel games in development - Tabula Rasa and Hellgate london. These have auto lock on (because RPG games arent generally twitch based as the game isnt based on your skill) and it looks dumb if you are pointing at a enemy and you miss (which is based on your characters skill), so they let you hit and calculate the damage based on your skill. Also in most RPG games where you hit your opponent makes no difference as they tend to just have a big pool of hitpoints.
Perhaps you could talk about what sort of RPG things you are looking for in a FPS?
Is it just missions/quests? This I would call a RPG concept.
Are you looking to craft better weapons, armour, ammo? This I see as more a MMO concept than a RPG concept (although its present in RPG games) for driving an economy.
Originally posted by _Shadowmage Perhaps you should look at Huxley. Thats is supposed to be a MMOFPS. I havent looked at it so I cant tell you if there will be any role-play. Not sure if you will ever see what you are looking for - RPG , FPS. The two are in my opinion fundamentally opposed systems. In a FPS the gameplay is based on the skill/reflexes of the actual player (ie its you playing). In a RPG the game is based on the skill of the character you are playing (ie you are playing the role of that character).
I think that there is some opposition, but the systems can still be combined. You can have both of them in the same game, with the exception that the aiming is taken out of the RPG context. Things like access to equipment, runspeed and hitpoints can still be controlled by the character's skills.
An example would be Neocron which got such a mixed system right, even if it was a bit light on the twitch skills. In terms of concept and atmosphere, it is still the best MMORPG I have played so far. Unfortunately, the devs never got rid of the technical shortcomings of the game, so I eventually gave up on NC .
Now waiting for some game to hold what NC promised: A combination of MMORPG gameplay depth and shooter-style combat fun that actually works. Auto Assault came close but was a bit too shallow and buggy in the end. Will try Tabula Rasa, Fallen Earth and Huxley, there should be at least one good game among the three.
Originally posted by Shuckles Umm, Ultima Online is FAR from the "1st mmog ever". And to think that this is "JUST from Richard Garriott" is ignorant. No ONE man makes modern video games, they are a group effort with a lot of hard work from a lot of different types of developers. IF R.G. really did do this on his own, without any assistance it would resemble PONG. With less detail.
For god sakes I didn't mean literally. For the rest Yeah UO is the first mmog ever... before that there were silly rp chat rooms in Telnet.
@ Shadowmage> Well You see there's not just black & white, and the word action doesn't have a unique meaning. I was referring to a more direct type of action you see in silly games like Painkiller,doom and so on... also there's not supposed to be "action" only cause you know there are people with guns and they're in for "fighting ugly things"... There's a more symbolic and strategical type of action I am hoping for... So I hope you don't mean to tell me that in Tabula Rasa We're gonna have a Painkiller type of action and You're expecting to start shooting headless men with bowling balls attached to their arms screaming and running ?
I meant - we are in a war for survival , so I would expect almost everything is to do with the war. Which implies a lot of fighting (action). That said I am not expecting endless waves of mindless opponents.
And I also hope there will be sneaky missions - so the aim might be to blow something up, but we should be able to do that without too much fighting.
But hey - at the end of the day I have only seen a few short moviesso until the game comes out its all just speculation.
But even tho We're supposed to be fighting bad boys There can still be a higher level of managing the fight, less immediate and focused on "how to hit the ugly dude" in favor of a feeling of a general awareness of the battlefield you're in and strategical sensation ... so that the combat may become a more symbolic matter thus purging the game of a too thick actiony feeling...
Let's not forget that if combat ITSELF is too large a part of the overall game content, most of the times people will play with the sole purpose of building the most effective damn soldier, which to me is just boredom.. I reckon TR is sposed to be focused on involvement in the battle itself and the reasons for it ,nothing else. In such games a big part of the designers' efforts is making people play HOW they planned them to, filtering all the aspects the game wasn't designed for. You're not sposed to farm ,you're not supposed to frag other humans,You will not be able to boast your superior gear with other people. A player can ONLY play for the good of I-C mankind...You don't like it ? Get the hell out (ruling out stupid persons too, this way). and again (sorry for repeating )this won't work if game is too much action oriented, cause people will care only about their skills... understanding Eloh's language ? for the gear and other rewards, o'course !! fighting well ? For XP indeed !! see what i mean? can't work.
Whoever's making a game and plans of calling it RP, has to follow one of the most important dogmas in RP : The player must be able to choose to build a character with one leg and one arm and He's to be able to still fully play and be as succesful as any other type of character.
The example of crippled characters is to understand how putting all the efforts in character optimization is nonsense in an RPG... people are obsessed with it because they played Doom and Final Fantasy crap too many times , and in those you always control the über heroes.
Originally posted by Gylfi In such games a big part of the designers' efforts is making people play HOW they planned them to, filtering all the aspects the game wasn't designed for. You're not sposed to farm ,you're not supposed to frag other humans,You will not be able to boast your superior gear with other people. A player can ONLY play for the good of I-C mankind...You don't like it ? Get the hell out (ruling out stupid persons too, this way). and again (sorry for repeating )this won't work if game is too much action oriented, cause people will care only about their skills...
As long there is an ingame economy that is based on loot, some people will primarily play to get at the loot. And it seems that TR will have that sort of economy. The same goes for character skills and XP. Maybe a game where the fighting is more challenging and exciting can shift the emphasis from the "treadmill towards max. level" towards "play for fun and get the loot/XP as a bonus". But to be realistic, I'd be pleasantly surprised if farming and grinding takes a secondary role. Most of the time. We will not get rid of it completely.
I disagree on the economy. As far as I can tell from whats been released there is no loot based economy.
Mobs dont drop items or money, you have to use tools to recover metal or biological material which is then used to make ammunition, batteries, first aid kits, armour and weapon upgrades.
Originally posted by _Shadowmage I disagree on the economy. As far as I can tell from whats been released there is no loot based economy. Mobs dont drop items or money, you have to use tools to recover metal or biological material which is then used to make ammunition, batteries, first aid kits, armour and weapon upgrades.
Absolutely .
Garriott is clearly against farming and grinding , he's been repeating it during every interview and in the E3 descriptive Videoclip... It would be madness to think elseway, to think that Exping, char growth, skills and gear are at the end the primary interest of players means that the whole background written, the war, the ancient language and the rest of IC material is just "stuffing" that He had to make to "justify" the usual Mmp crap "race for the best gear" ... It's declaring that all that's IC is just an excuse for fragging things, and the declaration of death of RP.
Originally posted by Gylfi Originally posted by _Shadowmage I disagree on the economy. As far as I can tell from whats been released there is no loot based economy. Mobs dont drop items or money, you have to use tools to recover metal or biological material which is then used to make ammunition, batteries, first aid kits, armour and weapon upgrades.
Absolutely .
Garriott is clearly against farming and grinding , he's been repeating it during every interview and in the E3 descriptive Videoclip... It would be madness to think elseway, to think that Exping, char growth, skills and gear are at the end the primary interest of players means that the whole background written, the war, the ancient language and the rest of IC material is just "stuffing" that He had to make to "justify" the usual Mmp crap "race for the best gear" ... It's declaring that all that's IC is just an excuse for fragging things, and the declaration of death of RP.
Well I'll be damned.
If so, the materials gained from the mobs is the loot everyone will be after. Unless it drops in such plentiful amounts that the crafting will be the bottleneck instead.
Actually I like the concept that you loot materials instead of functional equipment, it is an important feature of a game that aims for a player-based economy. But it is still loot that keeps the ecomomy going. Expect the crafter types to go farming.
No, mate, don't count on it... and o'course you're even expecting a % drop chance of crafting parts, with rare ones and so on... see that's the problem , it's incredible how people can't think of a videogame ONLY for its environmental coherent problems neither can they leave behind their mundane matters for a couple hours... It's weird then how people like you can't help it but drag along in a fictional world your R/L occupations which is clawing money , like you 're gonna have to pay the taxes in-game too lol.. and you assume that a goddamn economy is what everyone will care about.
In Tabula Rasa All You can and will do is fight for the good of mankind against an aggressive species ... just accept it... the crafting and every other feature is towards this goal. Richard Garriott despises farming and playing just to collect riches.. like it or beat it, my friend.
We havent heard anything about players earning income (ie gold) but for me I am expecting to see a barter economy if anything.
The people who enjoy crafting, farming I see as being the supply officers of guilds. Out of ammo - make your own or get some from the supply officer. Need a medi-kit - make your own or see the supply officer.
It could add great twists to the struggle - you are trying to hold an outpost from being overrun and you have to have people continually coming to the outpost just to supply the fighters with ammo, and the medics with kits.
Then you might have groups of soldiers going out to protect the salvagers as they try to recover stuff to make more ammo.
@Gylfi: Of course there are ways to take the "classical" farming out of the game. I have mentioned one myself - just make the drop chance of crafting parts high enough, and you don't need to farm beyond looting the opponents you kill anyway. The question is if you (or Richard Garriot ) want to take this to its logical conclusion, where even the most sophisticated gear is readily available. Because some people enjoy collecting rare items, and for those the game would lose something if you can just pick up the Uber Gun Of Pwning at the next corner.
Personally, I consider myself somewhere in-between. I'm not a compulsive collector, but getting a high quality item I had to work towards is more satisfying than if I just pick it up somewhere. An extreme example of the latter are games like Unreal Tournament, where the good guns are scattered across the map and you can pick them up within minutes. No real accomplishment involved, but then UT is not about being a persistant world with character building.
This said, I still intend to take a look at TR. Depending on what I see, I will then like it or beat it... now we simply don't know exactly how the game is designed.
Why do people play for OOC purpose ? what's the point ? Why do You assume the main reason is being "Teh b4da$s FTw" and you don't even care naming "purging evil from the hordaland" ?
Also why is it terrible that collectors and farmers are disappointed ? If they wanna play this game, all They can do is defend good against evil. They 'd rather spend their time collecting riches and gear and showing it off ? Warcraft is still there.
All this game "ought" to be is as if you take WoW and strip it of its gear hunt, themoney clawing and the rank and Exp farming, JUST fight the enemy faction for NO material reward beside emotional and spiritual achievement.
Originally posted by Gylfi I don't get it. Why do people play for OOC purpose ? what's the point ? Why do You assume the main reason is being "Teh b4da$s FTw" and you don't even care naming "purging evil from the hordaland" ?
Human nature, and people will not necessarily follow the creator's ideas of what the game is about. I think Bartle's four "player archetypes" are a good point to start with:
The achiever wants to collect the best gear and reach maximum character level because being is "Teh b4da$s FTw" is a goal of its own for him. The achiever is the embodiment of what you dislike, he will spend many hours with mindless farming if necessary. But considering the success of games that cater to the achievers, it seems risky to make a game that excludes them. We will see if Richard Garriott is willing to take that risk.
Well personally in a war for survival if I found a better weapon I would want to be sharing that with everyone to improve our overall chance of victory. But thats the kind of team player I am.
Its possible to include the achievers by giving them other goals than get the best gear. How about stats - most X killed etc, quickest time to complete mission Y. Then give them visible recognition within the game.
Maybe an in-game news service where their names are displayed, and medals (like in BF2). Even a soldier of the week award (like in Mcdonalds).
I think people collect the best gear in other games because really there is no other recognition structure in place.
Originally posted by _Shadowmage Well personally in a war for survival if I found a better weapon I would want to be sharing that with everyone to improve our overall chance of victory. But thats the kind of team player I am. Its possible to include the achievers by giving them other goals than get the best gear. How about stats - most X killed etc, quickest time to complete mission Y. Then give them visible recognition within the game. Maybe an in-game news service where their names are displayed, and medals (like in BF2). Even a soldier of the week award (like in Mcdonalds). I think people collect the best gear in other games because really there is no other recognition structure in place.
That's not good enuff ! You're describing a sports game! In any of these cases ALL the background stories and content will go entirely useless and ridiculous , in favor of personal selfish achievement and vanity. A game can't work like this... a mmog should work like a single player story-based game, where there's no point in power but only in completing the tale-related things... and infact that's why Oblivion sucks (among the hundreds reasons), because it brings Massive Multiplayer power-playing into Single-player gaming.
Originally posted by wyzwun
Why come to this game then? I frankly do not understand, you seem to be interested more in an EQ Clone.
Argh ! You REALLY understood me, man . not.
Read after that post , you'll understand what i meant
People don't role-play in MMORPGs for a number of reasons, not all of them wanting to make the best character. The MMOs have a large social part to the game and some may play to have a chance to play with friends or meet new interesting new people far away.
Even from a role-playing standpoint your PC will want to improve his or her skills and equipment. Your character will naturally want to get better and be able to fight more enemies more effectively in this kind of war against the bad guys. You'll need better gear and more experience to do the more difficult missions. Just because you want to improve your character, doesn't always mean you ignore the storyline and the scope of the world. In single player RPGs people often want better equipment but don't ignore the storyline and just keep leveling to the max. They want to explore and and get on with the game and Tabula Rasa seems to give that feeling to us by letting us discover and "solve a planet".
I'm sorry that's not roleplaying , that's a typical case of power-playing disguised as role-playing, in other words you "use" roleplaying to "justify" power-playing, which is like insulting it.
I don't think you can roleplay if you meddle with stats. that's wargaming at best.
In a single-player there's no point in power-playing cause game will end plus you can't show off. Also you're busy solving puzzles and situations using lntelligence (even if this doesn't happen anymore nowadays) and game is fun at level 1 as it is at level 50... too bad the concept of Mmogs power-playing invaded single player world with major crap like Hellgate and Oblivion.
But anyway, this is a common attempt I've seen a hundreds of times at "mildening" roleplaying so that it may allow power-playing .. It will never work and We've seen it in WoW... you can't farm for money, gear and exp and still role-playing , it will appear ridiculous
Let's back up a bit, because I may have misunderstood you. You want more MMORPGs to be more like their pen and pencil roots where the emphasis is more about playing the role of a character in the world and interacting with others, defined as true role playing, and consider other RPGs that focus on entertaining combat systems and your PC's progression, like Diablo II and such, absolute crap because you don't like the idea of people simply fighting to become stronger without regard for the story?
Gyfli - take a look at Hero's Journey. Although a fantasy game (and still in development) it offers a great system for character customization, lots of background story and they will have in-game GM's running events to help promote role-play.
Back to the war front - if I am a soldier and I train constantly - then my skills will improve. As better equipment becomes available it will be issued to me to use in the war. If I undergo specialist training then I should be able to join the elite soldiers.
You need to take a few steps back from the mechanics and focus more on the role-playing.
I think you also need to realise that however much you and I want the story to be everything - other people may not care less, and they have as much right to play the game as we do. Also different people are motivated by different things - hence my suggestion of giving recognition. Just like getting a medal for bravery.
Here is an interview that talks about the combat. It's basically a mesh of shooter and RPG attributes /skills [which is kool with me]. My only concern is that their doesn't seem to be a wide varity of profession choices and abilties nor a chance for multiclass avatar [that I've seen so far], I just like have a unique toon both in appearence and abilities.
Comments
Umm, Ultima Online is FAR from the "1st mmog ever". And to think that this is "JUST from Richard Garriott" is ignorant. No ONE man makes modern video games, they are a group effort with a lot of hard work from a lot of different types of developers. IF R.G. really did do this on his own, without any assistance it would resemble PONG. With less detail.
I figure I'll put down my 2 cents on this. I personally enjoy twitch combat, or what I personally refer to as TRUE FPS. Everyone can define FPS, MMO, RPG, however they feel they need too given that they are just acronyms. I do not care how the industry, or how other people define a game, because in the end it comes down to what I think when I'm choosing what I'm going to play.
I will tell you this though, I will probably not play this game because it just feels like your being cheated out of the experience when your personal shot doesn't matter in the end as long as the computer thinks you were "close enough". Although planet-side is kinda like that, it still has that classic TRUE FPS feel to me. The problem though is that it lacks that sort of role-playing element that I find inherent to my very definition of MMO. Without it, it quickly felt just like playing battlefield.
If someone could successfully merge TRUE FPS with an MMO/RPG (whatever you what to call it) then you would have me there any day! If were supposed to be role-playing, isn't it easier to feel like your IN the character, rather than watching him from afar? Thats just my feeling though.
Whatever you want to call it, I will not consider TR a TRUE FPS, because it breaks away from MY personal definition. Weather or not people find it good is up to them, and I'm willing to give nearly everything a try once.
-vamp
Perhaps you should look at Huxley. Thats is supposed to be a MMOFPS.
I havent looked at it so I cant tell you if there will be any role-play.
Not sure if you will ever see what you are looking for - RPG , FPS.
The two are in my opinion fundamentally opposed systems. In a FPS the gameplay is based on the skill/reflexes of the actual player (ie its you playing). In a RPG the game is based on the skill of the character you are playing (ie you are playing the role of that character).
There are a few RPG with a FPS feel games in development - Tabula Rasa and Hellgate london. These have auto lock on (because RPG games arent generally twitch based as the game isnt based on your skill) and it looks dumb if you are pointing at a enemy and you miss (which is based on your characters skill), so they let you hit and calculate the damage based on your skill. Also in most RPG games where you hit your opponent makes no difference as they tend to just have a big pool of hitpoints.
Perhaps you could talk about what sort of RPG things you are looking for in a FPS?
Is it just missions/quests? This I would call a RPG concept.
Are you looking to craft better weapons, armour, ammo? This I see as more a MMO concept than a RPG concept (although its present in RPG games) for driving an economy.
An example would be Neocron which got such a mixed system right, even if it was a bit light on the twitch skills. In terms of concept and atmosphere, it is still the best MMORPG I have played so far. Unfortunately, the devs never got rid of the technical shortcomings of the game, so I eventually gave up on NC
Now waiting for some game to hold what NC promised:
A combination of MMORPG gameplay depth and shooter-style combat fun that actually works. Auto Assault came close but was a bit too shallow and buggy in the end. Will try Tabula Rasa, Fallen Earth and Huxley, there should be at least one good game among the three.
For god sakes I didn't mean literally. For the rest Yeah UO is the first mmog ever... before that there were silly rp chat rooms in Telnet.
@ Shadowmage> Well You see there's not just black & white, and the word action doesn't have a unique meaning. I was referring to a more direct type of action you see in silly games like Painkiller,doom and so on... also there's not supposed to be "action" only cause you know there are people with guns and they're in for "fighting ugly things"... There's a more symbolic and strategical type of action I am hoping for... So I hope you don't mean to tell me that in Tabula Rasa We're gonna have a Painkiller type of action and You're expecting to start shooting headless men with bowling balls attached to their arms screaming and running ?
the best blog of the net
I meant - we are in a war for survival , so I would expect almost everything is to do with the war. Which implies a lot of fighting (action). That said I am not expecting endless waves of mindless opponents.
And I also hope there will be sneaky missions - so the aim might be to blow something up, but we should be able to do that without too much fighting.
But hey - at the end of the day I have only seen a few short moviesso until the game comes out its all just speculation.
Absolutely.
But even tho We're supposed to be fighting bad boys There can still be a higher level of managing the fight, less immediate and focused on "how to hit the ugly dude" in favor of a feeling of a general awareness of the battlefield you're in and strategical sensation ... so that the combat may become a more symbolic matter thus purging the game of a too thick actiony feeling...
Let's not forget that if combat ITSELF is too large a part of the overall game content, most of the times people will play with the sole purpose of building the most effective damn soldier, which to me is just boredom.. I reckon TR is sposed to be focused on involvement in the battle itself and the reasons for it ,nothing else. In such games a big part of the designers' efforts is making people play HOW they planned them to, filtering all the aspects the game wasn't designed for. You're not sposed to farm ,you're not supposed to frag other humans,You will not be able to boast your superior gear with other people. A player can ONLY play for the good of I-C mankind...You don't like it ? Get the hell out (ruling out stupid persons too, this way). and again (sorry for repeating )this won't work if game is too much action oriented, cause people will care only about their skills... understanding Eloh's language ? for the gear and other rewards, o'course !! fighting well ? For XP indeed !! see what i mean? can't work.
Whoever's making a game and plans of calling it RP, has to follow one of the most important dogmas in RP : The player must be able to choose to build a character with one leg and one arm and He's to be able to still fully play and be as succesful as any other type of character.
The example of crippled characters is to understand how putting all the efforts in character optimization is nonsense in an RPG... people are obsessed with it because they played Doom and Final Fantasy crap too many times , and in those you always control the über heroes.
the best blog of the net
Maybe a game where the fighting is more challenging and exciting can shift the emphasis from the "treadmill towards max. level" towards "play for fun and get the loot/XP as a bonus". But to be realistic, I'd be pleasantly surprised if farming and grinding takes a secondary role. Most of the time. We will not get rid of it completely.
I disagree on the economy. As far as I can tell from whats been released there is no loot based economy.
Mobs dont drop items or money, you have to use tools to recover metal or biological material which is then used to make ammunition, batteries, first aid kits, armour and weapon upgrades.
Absolutely .
Garriott is clearly against farming and grinding , he's been repeating it during every interview and in the E3 descriptive Videoclip... It would be madness to think elseway, to think that Exping, char growth, skills and gear are at the end the primary interest of players means that the whole background written, the war, the ancient language and the rest of IC material is just "stuffing" that He had to make to "justify" the usual Mmp crap "race for the best gear" ... It's declaring that all that's IC is just an excuse for fragging things, and the declaration of death of RP.
Well I'll be damned.
the best blog of the net
Absolutely .
Garriott is clearly against farming and grinding , he's been repeating it during every interview and in the E3 descriptive Videoclip... It would be madness to think elseway, to think that Exping, char growth, skills and gear are at the end the primary interest of players means that the whole background written, the war, the ancient language and the rest of IC material is just "stuffing" that He had to make to "justify" the usual Mmp crap "race for the best gear" ... It's declaring that all that's IC is just an excuse for fragging things, and the declaration of death of RP.
Well I'll be damned.
If so, the materials gained from the mobs is the loot everyone will be
after. Unless it drops in such plentiful amounts that the crafting will
be the bottleneck instead.
Actually I like the concept that you loot materials instead of
functional equipment, it is an important feature of a game that aims
for a player-based economy. But it is still loot that keeps the ecomomy going. Expect the crafter types to go farming.
No, mate, don't count on it... and o'course you're even expecting a % drop chance of crafting parts, with rare ones and so on... see that's the problem , it's incredible how people can't think of a videogame ONLY for its environmental coherent problems neither can they leave behind their mundane matters for a couple hours... It's weird then how people like you can't help it but drag along in a fictional world your R/L occupations which is clawing money , like you 're gonna have to pay the taxes in-game too lol.. and you assume that a goddamn economy is what everyone will care about.
In Tabula Rasa All You can and will do is fight for the good of mankind against an aggressive species ... just accept it... the crafting and every other feature is towards this goal. Richard Garriott despises farming and playing just to collect riches.. like it or beat it, my friend.
the best blog of the net
We havent heard anything about players earning income (ie gold) but for me I am expecting to see a barter economy if anything.
The people who enjoy crafting, farming I see as being the supply officers of guilds. Out of ammo - make your own or get some from the supply officer. Need a medi-kit - make your own or see the supply officer.
It could add great twists to the struggle - you are trying to hold an outpost from being overrun and you have to have people continually coming to the outpost just to supply the fighters with ammo, and the medics with kits.
Then you might have groups of soldiers going out to protect the salvagers as they try to recover stuff to make more ammo.
@Gylfi:
Of course there are ways to take the "classical" farming out of the game. I have mentioned one myself - just make the drop chance of crafting parts high enough, and you don't need to farm beyond looting the opponents you kill anyway.
The question is if you (or Richard Garriot
Personally, I consider myself somewhere in-between. I'm not a compulsive collector, but getting a high quality item I had to work towards is more satisfying than if I just pick it up somewhere.
An extreme example of the latter are games like Unreal Tournament, where the good guns are scattered across the map and you can pick them up within minutes. No real accomplishment involved, but then UT is not about being a persistant world with character building.
This said, I still intend to take a look at TR. Depending on what I see, I will then like it or beat it... now we simply don't know exactly how the game is designed.
I don't get it.
Why do people play for OOC purpose ? what's the point ? Why do You assume the main reason is being "Teh b4da$s FTw" and you don't even care naming "purging evil from the hordaland" ?
Also why is it terrible that collectors and farmers are disappointed ? If they wanna play this game, all They can do is defend good against evil. They 'd rather spend their time collecting riches and gear and showing it off ? Warcraft is still there.
All this game "ought" to be is as if you take WoW and strip it of its gear hunt, themoney clawing and the rank and Exp farming, JUST fight the enemy faction for NO material reward beside emotional and spiritual achievement.
Is it so hard to conceive a selfless game ?
the best blog of the net
Achiever, Killer, Explorer and Socializer. (For Bartle's full article, look here: http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm)
The achiever wants to collect the best gear and reach maximum character level because being is "Teh b4da$s FTw" is a goal of its own for him. The achiever is the embodiment of what you dislike, he will spend many hours with mindless farming if necessary.
But considering the success of games that cater to the achievers, it seems risky to make a game that excludes them. We will see if Richard Garriott is willing to take that risk.
Well personally in a war for survival if I found a better weapon I would want to be sharing that with everyone to improve our overall chance of victory. But thats the kind of team player I am.
Its possible to include the achievers by giving them other goals than get the best gear. How about stats - most X killed etc, quickest time to complete mission Y. Then give them visible recognition within the game.
Maybe an in-game news service where their names are displayed, and medals (like in BF2). Even a soldier of the week award (like in Mcdonalds).
I think people collect the best gear in other games because really there is no other recognition structure in place.
Rites of the Four Horsemen
http://www.rotfh.com
That's not good enuff ! You're describing a sports game! In any of these cases ALL the background stories and content will go entirely useless and ridiculous , in favor of personal selfish achievement and vanity. A game can't work like this... a mmog should work like a single player story-based game, where there's no point in power but only in completing the tale-related things... and infact that's why Oblivion sucks (among the hundreds reasons), because it brings Massive Multiplayer power-playing into Single-player gaming.
Argh ! You REALLY understood me, man . not.
Read after that post , you'll understand what i meant
the best blog of the net
People don't role-play in MMORPGs for a number of reasons, not all of them wanting to make the best character. The MMOs have a large social part to the game and some may play to have a chance to play with friends or meet new interesting new people far away.
Even from a role-playing standpoint your PC will want to improve his or her skills and equipment. Your character will naturally want to get better and be able to fight more enemies more effectively in this kind of war against the bad guys. You'll need better gear and more experience to do the more difficult missions. Just because you want to improve your character, doesn't always mean you ignore the storyline and the scope of the world. In single player RPGs people often want better equipment but don't ignore the storyline and just keep leveling to the max. They want to explore and and get on with the game and Tabula Rasa seems to give that feeling to us by letting us discover and "solve a planet".
I'm sorry that's not roleplaying , that's a typical case of power-playing disguised as role-playing, in other words you "use" roleplaying to "justify" power-playing, which is like insulting it.
I don't think you can roleplay if you meddle with stats. that's wargaming at best.
In a single-player there's no point in power-playing cause game will end plus you can't show off. Also you're busy solving puzzles and situations using lntelligence (even if this doesn't happen anymore nowadays) and game is fun at level 1 as it is at level 50... too bad the concept of Mmogs power-playing invaded single player world with major crap like Hellgate and Oblivion.
But anyway, this is a common attempt I've seen a hundreds of times at "mildening" roleplaying so that it may allow power-playing .. It will never work and We've seen it in WoW... you can't farm for money, gear and exp and still role-playing , it will appear ridiculous
the best blog of the net
Let's back up a bit, because I may have misunderstood you. You want more MMORPGs to be more like their pen and pencil roots where the emphasis is more about playing the role of a character in the world and interacting with others, defined as true role playing, and consider other RPGs that focus on entertaining combat systems and your PC's progression, like Diablo II and such, absolute crap because you don't like the idea of people simply fighting to become stronger without regard for the story?
Yup.
Gyfli - take a look at Hero's Journey. Although a fantasy game (and still in development) it offers a great system for character customization, lots of background story and they will have in-game GM's running events to help promote role-play.
Back to the war front - if I am a soldier and I train constantly - then my skills will improve. As better equipment becomes available it will be issued to me to use in the war. If I undergo specialist training then I should be able to join the elite soldiers.
You need to take a few steps back from the mechanics and focus more on the role-playing.
I think you also need to realise that however much you and I want the story to be everything - other people may not care less, and they have as much right to play the game as we do. Also different people are motivated by different things - hence my suggestion of giving recognition. Just like getting a medal for bravery.
Hi all,
Here is an interview that talks about the combat. It's basically a mesh of shooter and RPG attributes /skills [which is kool with me]. My only concern is that their doesn't seem to be a wide varity of profession choices and abilties nor a chance for multiclass avatar [that I've seen so far], I just like have a unique toon both in appearence and abilities.
http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/setview/features/loadFeature/177/gameID/150
GL,
Tauceti
Seven professions.
Everyone starts as recruit then either goes down the specialist of soldier track.
We havent seen full info on the professions, but last I saw was recruit, soldier, medic, engineer and 3 others in there somewhere.