For the love of god, its never BEEN Theorycrafting that was the issue. Idiots, like always, are the issue. The fact that weapon and skillset A do more damage than Weapon and Skillset B does is a GOOD thing to know. Its productive to the game, and ensures that everyone has a nice ideal of how the very mechanics of a game work on their most basic level.
The problem is that most people are just too stupid to apply this math into the encounter. For instance, yeah...Weapon A does more damage...but you by NO means need it to beat the boss. In fact, in most cases...the idiots clamoring for ONLY certain builds and gear choices are making a lot of noise over what amounts to a couple of seconds shaved off the encounter. Seriously, a couple of seconds? If THAT is what was the deciding factor for your guild to beat something...then its very likely you needed more time in the woodshed, ya know, learning how to play.
One of the biggest examples I saw of this was actually in WoW. Back before any expansions. I was...level 48 I think. I got a quest to do Mauradon, an instance designed for groups of players level 48-52 or so. I had already been IN the place alone killing things, I had helped a group of friends not long before for a moment and was waiting for them. But most of the players I saw REFUSED to group with me. They told me I had to be 55.....FIFTY-F(*&ING-FIVE.....to run an instance designed for players FAR lower than that. They also told me I needed MUCh better gear (truth be told, I later managed to out-dps many of THEM).
In short, yeah, they realized that X was better than Y. Tragically, they were also too stupid to realize that X was more than enough for the job. Oh, and that by holding out for Y....you also pretty much wasted whatever use you would have gained from having done the place. I don't mind people wanting to make things easier...but for %&^$'s sake, theorycrafting to the point or retardation is just wasteful of a good brain.
Another thought, based on my view that "theorycrafting is good for the individual, but bad for the community" is to partly conceal information about other people's builds and performance. You should not be allowed to see other people's exact damage numbers. You should probally see broad indicates of what they did "Bob attacked!" or "bob cast a healing spell!" to make sure they are doing SOMETHING and to be able to coordinate strategy. And yeah you should probally see changes on something like a health bar if it impacts broad group strategy. But you should not see "bob did 56.8 damage!" or "Bob cast a healing spell that healed precisely 58.1 hit points and took 2.13 seconds to cast!" You should not be able to see other people's "talent builds" or the equivalent. You should not be able to see other people's exact hit points, stats, etc. Apearance should be cosmetic choice, and not give information about someone's gear quality.
If there is information that you absolutely have to know (class, level, maybe a marker of average gear quality if you have "leveling via gear") maybe the game should provide that, but even that should be minimized. I think instead it would be better to have badges/titles that a player could selectively show and conceal that are based on player accomplishments. I.e. if you needed someone with a certain minimum competance level, you can look for a badge that requires a certain challenging task to accomplish. If you are doing a "teir 3" dungeon, you could look for a "completed a teir 2 dungeon ten times" badge so you can infer they probally have the gear/level/player skill to handle a tier 3. If you are looking for someone who has alot of experience healing, you could look for a "healed people for 1 million+ points" badge. And so forth.
Put obsticles in the way of OTHER PEOPLE judging you on precise theorycraft parameters, and hopefully the community will get less anal and unforgiving about deviating from "perfect builds." Then give each individual full information about their own characters so they can theorycraft by themselves as much or as little as they wish.
In WoW, the rule of thumb is that if nothing in an instance is more than two levels above you, you're high enough level for it. In Maraudon, that means at least level 48 for the second half, or somewhat lower for the first half. When I played, I'd have tried to avoid grouping with a 55 for Maraudon on the basis that that's too high level and would make everything trivial and stupid.
The very narrow level ranges at which you could reasonably fight particular mobs was one of the big flaws in WoW. It's something common to a lot of leveling games, but WoW takes it to a much greater extreme than any other game I've played.
Another thought, based on my view that "theorycrafting is good for the individual, but bad for the community" is to partly conceal information about other people's builds and performance. You should not be allowed to see other people's exact damage numbers. You should probally see broad indicates of what they did "Bob attacked!" or "bob cast a healing spell!" to make sure they are doing SOMETHING and to be able to coordinate strategy. And yeah you should probally see changes on something like a health bar if it impacts broad group strategy. But you should not see "bob did 56.8 damage!" or "Bob cast a healing spell that healed precisely 58.1 hit points and took 2.13 seconds to cast!" You should not be able to see other people's "talent builds" or the equivalent. You should not be able to see other people's exact hit points, stats, etc. Apearance should be cosmetic choice, and not give information about someone's gear quality.
The problem with this is that in order to have a good group, you have to have good players in the group. That requires that you must have some way of determining if a player is competent.
In Guild Wars, for example, I'd routinely ask to see everyone's build and max HP. Some people had terrible builds that desperately needed to be fixed. Some had merely unorthodox builds that were reasonable but not what I expected, and I needed to know what they had to plan around it in choosing which heroes to bring. I once grouped with a necromancer who didn't carry any necromancer skills at all in his build; apparently he fancied himself a paragon with weaker armor. Checking max HP is necessary because occasionally someone likes to load up on health malus gear that will ensure that they die more quickly than healers can react.
There isn't one universal "best" build. If there were, it would be in desperate need of a heavy nerf. (You can argue that some of the PvE-only skills are indeed superior, but they're basically cheat codes.) But that doesn't mean that there aren't bad builds. I've seen people leave a large fraction of their attribute points completely unallocated. I've seen people put a ton of attribute points into a non-primary attribute for which they carried no linked skills. Often those are due to a player changing skills and forgetting to redo their attribute points. The dumbest non-joke build I've seen is a warrior who put about half of his points into hammer mastery and the other half into swordsmanship, eschewing strength and tactics, even though he could only wield one weapon at a time.
I guess you could argue that in some games, some attribute builds really are a lot better than others in general, and not just for particular places. That's a game imbalance problem that the company needs to fix. Trying to prevent players from figuring out which builds are better only tries to cover up the problem--and thereby makes it worse.
Originally posted by nariusseldon Min/maxing does NOT ruin a game. It adds to the fun. We are problem solving animals and we find satisfaction of finding a good solution. Min/Maxing is part of the game. Accept it.
It ruins the game when that is all people focus on. Magic: The Gathering used to be a fun game when it was all about making crazy decks. When tournaments started getting popular and there was a potential for real money everyone suddenly got interested in building the perfect turn 2 kill deck. It wasn't fun anymore. It was like sitting down with your friends for a good round of Microsoft Excel.
Originally posted by crossmr Originally posted by nariusseldon Min/maxing does NOT ruin a game. It adds to the fun. We are problem solving animals and we find satisfaction of finding a good solution. Min/Maxing is part of the game. Accept it.
It ruins the game when that is all people focus on. Magic: The Gathering used to be a fun game when it was all about making crazy decks. When tournaments started getting popular and there was a potential for real money everyone suddenly got interested in building the perfect turn 2 kill deck. It wasn't fun anymore. It was like sitting down with your friends for a good round of Microsoft Excel. Seems like a lot of the complainys about theorycrafting or min/maxing are based on one giant fallacy - the fear that once the best build is discovered EVERYONE will gravitate towards it.
Well, guess what, that is not the case. Only the most hardcore of the hardcore players will do that. A regular casual player, which comprises a grand majority of the populace, wont know about it and even if they did they probably wouldnt care.
Just because the top hardcore raiders or PvPers are doing something and discussing on it websites and forums does not mean the entire game's population will fall in line.
Lastly, if your friends are using tournament tactics in a friendly game then dont play with your friends. Ive played in video game tournaments before and won. To win I used whatever tactics or tricks outside of cheating I could to gain an advantage because money was on the line. When Im playing with friends on a Saturday afternoon I dont play like that.
It ruins the game when that is all people focus on. Magic: The Gathering used to be a fun game when it was all about making crazy decks. When tournaments started getting popular and there was a potential for real money everyone suddenly got interested in building the perfect turn 2 kill deck. It wasn't fun anymore. It was like sitting down with your friends for a good round of Microsoft Excel.
You are in effect arguing that the problem with the game is that people are trying to win. If people are not trying to win, then it arguably isn't even a game at all.
Imagine that several people line up to participate in a 100 meter dash. When the race begins, two don't even notice but just stand there chatting. A couple of others start jogging at a leisurely pace. Most of the rest of the participants walk or otherwise take their time. One runner sprints the entire distance, and wins the race by a huge margin.
If the race was ruined, then who ruined it? Surely not the only person who was really participating.
It ruins the game when that is all people focus on. Magic: The Gathering used to be a fun game when it was all about making crazy decks. When tournaments started getting popular and there was a potential for real money everyone suddenly got interested in building the perfect turn 2 kill deck. It wasn't fun anymore. It was like sitting down with your friends for a good round of Microsoft Excel.
You are in effect arguing that the problem with the game is that people are trying to win. If people are not trying to win, then it arguably isn't even a game at all. Imagine that several people line up to participate in a 100 meter dash. When the race begins, two don't even notice but just stand there chatting. A couple of others start jogging at a leisurely pace. Most of the rest of the participants walk or otherwise take their time. One runner sprints the entire distance, and wins the race by a huge margin. If the race was ruined, then who ruined it? Surely not the only person who was really participating.
There is a difference between trying to win and min/maxing in roleplaying games there is no "winner". That isn't the point of a roleplaying game. That isn't the point of D&D. The point of roleplaying games is to adventure often with a group usually for some story driven purpose. It is bad enough that the stories are static in MMORPGs that most of the groups out there are focused only on dps, how much loot they can get, etc Comparing an MMORPG to a 100 meter dash is comparing apples and oranges.
Seems like a lot of the complainys about theorycrafting or min/maxing are based on one giant fallacy - the fear that once the best build is discovered EVERYONE will gravitate towards it.
That isn't a fallacy though. As I observed with Magic The Gathering in late 90s, all it takes is one person in a group to start doing it. Suddenly everyone is tired of getting hammered in every game by one person. In an MMORPG group if one person starts doing it, everyone gets tired of seeing this one person excel so much and they start doing it. Maybe they like to do some casual PVP, but one person in the group is always winning because he's min/maxing. He had his build done on a spreadsheet before he even bought the game so its utterly perfect.
I want to see the damage I do to someone, if I hit them with a sword I want to see blood and know I've done them in, then I can move onto their mates...
But I dont want to see a stream of numbers.
Its about informing us yet leaving the numbers out. I actually want to see an enemy fall and when I turn my back have them get up... annoying sure, and I'll make sure I finish him next time, but its opening more options for game play... and that must be a good thing.
Sure you can deduce your best weapon fit, why not, just keep hitting stuff and sooner of later you'll know. Indeed I'd want a skilled character to know pretty much straight away when they've picked up a better weapon (balance, weight, etc)
But my skills and abilities must be perceived, not simply read off my character sheet, an opponent should be able to deduce my abilities from watching me in action, assuming I'm not trying to look bad. Yeah another ability, simple enough to add and again more open game play.
I dont mind people trying to build the greatest warrior/crafter/monkey, its only natural, but lets permit some subterfuge, and with it more open game play.
Originally posted by nariusseldon Min/maxing does NOT ruin a game. It adds to the fun. We are problem solving animals and we find satisfaction of finding a good solution. Min/Maxing is part of the game. Accept it.
It ruins the game when that is all people focus on. Magic: The Gathering used to be a fun game when it was all about making crazy decks. When tournaments started getting popular and there was a potential for real money everyone suddenly got interested in building the perfect turn 2 kill deck. It wasn't fun anymore. It was like sitting down with your friends for a good round of Microsoft Excel.
How is that ruining the game? It makes it more competitive. I thought people here want a challenge?
There is a difference between trying to win and min/maxing
in roleplaying games there is no "winner". That isn't the point of a roleplaying game. That isn't the point of D&D. The point of roleplaying games is to adventure often with a group usually for some story driven purpose. It is bad enough that the stories are static in MMORPGs that most of the groups out there are focused only on dps, how much loot they can get, etc
Comparing an MMORPG to a 100 meter dash is comparing apples and oranges.
Says who? The point of hack-n-slash RPG (like Diablo) is to become more powerful and theorycrafting let you do that more efficiently.
It is FUN to focus on DPS, boss strategy (u need to know how to play to down teh boss), cool loot as Diablo & WOW so succintly have demonstrated.
Originally posted by nariusseldon Min/maxing does NOT ruin a game. It adds to the fun. We are problem solving animals and we find satisfaction of finding a good solution. Min/Maxing is part of the game. Accept it.
It ruins the game when that is all people focus on. Magic: The Gathering used to be a fun game when it was all about making crazy decks. When tournaments started getting popular and there was a potential for real money everyone suddenly got interested in building the perfect turn 2 kill deck. It wasn't fun anymore. It was like sitting down with your friends for a good round of Microsoft Excel.
How is that ruining the game? It makes it more competitive. I thought people here want a challenge?
If I wanted to be staring at math all day I certainly would not be playing a video game.
Min/maxing in most cases goes above and beyond what theorycrafting should be. You should be interested in your class and improving yourself. This is twofold if you are partifipating in grouped content. How is it a challenge for me to use the same rotation, the same spec, the same group composition, etc as Joe over there simply because it is "optimal"? Isn't it more challenging for me to figure out how to accomplish what I want to do without min/maxing?
Min/maxing in my experience takes challenges OUT of the game. By always using the optimal setups for everything you are making it easier for yourself. You are using these setups because they are the most effective. However because they are the most effective the have the effect on making the game easier for you.
Min/maxing takes out a level of difficulty out of the game, weither you will admit it or not. I don't believe that is a positive effect at all.
There is a difference between trying to win and min/maxing
in roleplaying games there is no "winner". That isn't the point of a roleplaying game. That isn't the point of D&D. The point of roleplaying games is to adventure often with a group usually for some story driven purpose. It is bad enough that the stories are static in MMORPGs that most of the groups out there are focused only on dps, how much loot they can get, etc
Comparing an MMORPG to a 100 meter dash is comparing apples and oranges.
Says who? The point of hack-n-slash RPG (like Diablo) is to become more powerful and theorycrafting let you do that more efficiently.
It is FUN to focus on DPS, boss strategy (u need to know how to play to down teh boss), cool loot as Diablo & WOW so succintly have demonstrated.
If you like story-driven MMORPG, wait for SW:TOR.
I think I must agree with Crossmr, roleplaying has been around a lot longer than the home-computer and it is about assuming a role in a story, sure it usually has some degree of stats to permit players to know if they've done a task or not, and stop them attempting impossible tasks, but this has always been secondary to the human interaction and pursuit of a fun story. To the point where most RPGs expressly instructed the GM/DM (guy running the game) to throw out the dice and even the rules if the story and the players enjoyment of it is advanced by doing so.
Now I'm not saying that we should drop the rules, but we need to move the emphasis from simply charging around a nameless (pointless) world killing the boss and looting him, so I can do it again, and again, for no reason. If the game for you is all about collecting ubergear and then playing PvP, then this can be achieved with a very simple game, we dont need to call it an RPG. No I'm not saying I'm against PvP, I'm simply highlighting that an RPG is more than just a quest to cause as much DPS as possible in a series of instanced battlefields.
And yeah, it makes sense that if you must fight you ensure success. But it cant be as simple as it is now. Thats the prob, these games are far to simplistic and so permit themselves to become little more than gladitorial combat.
Originally posted by nariusseldon Min/maxing does NOT ruin a game. It adds to the fun. We are problem solving animals and we find satisfaction of finding a good solution. Min/Maxing is part of the game. Accept it.
It ruins the game when that is all people focus on. Magic: The Gathering used to be a fun game when it was all about making crazy decks. When tournaments started getting popular and there was a potential for real money everyone suddenly got interested in building the perfect turn 2 kill deck. It wasn't fun anymore. It was like sitting down with your friends for a good round of Microsoft Excel.
How is that ruining the game? It makes it more competitive. I thought people here want a challenge?
If I wanted to be staring at math all day I certainly would not be playing a video game.
Min/maxing in most cases goes above and beyond what theorycrafting should be. You should be interested in your class and improving yourself. This is twofold if you are partifipating in grouped content. How is it a challenge for me to use the same rotation, the same spec, the same group composition, etc as Joe over there simply because it is "optimal"? Isn't it more challenging for me to figure out how to accomplish what I want to do without min/maxing?
Min/maxing in my experience takes challenges OUT of the game. By always using the optimal setups for everything you are making it easier for yourself. You are using these setups because they are the most effective. However because they are the most effective the have the effect on making the game easier for you.
Min/maxing takes out a level of difficulty out of the game, weither you will admit it or not. I don't believe that is a positive effect at all.
You assume there is a single solution to all fights, which is wrong. Just take a mage in WOW. A different spec/gear set up is optimal for different fights. It is different if it involves moving, it is different for longer and shorter fight.
So you have to know something and do different things at different times.
I think I must agree with Crossmr, roleplaying has been around a lot longer than the home-computer and it is about assuming a role in a story, sure it usually has some degree of stats to permit players to know if they've done a task or not, and stop them attempting impossible tasks, but this has always been secondary to the human interaction and pursuit of a fun story. To the point where most RPGs expressly instructed the GM/DM (guy running the game) to throw out the dice and even the rules if the story and the players enjoyment of it is advanced by doing so. Now I'm not saying that we should drop the rules, but we need to move the emphasis from simply charging around a nameless (pointless) world killing the boss and looting him, so I can do it again, and again, for no reason. If the game for you is all about collecting ubergear and then playing PvP, then this can be achieved with a very simple game, we dont need to call it an RPG. No I'm not saying I'm against PvP, I'm simply highlighting that an RPG is more than just a quest to cause as much DPS as possible in a series of instanced battlefields. And yeah, it makes sense that if you must fight you ensure success. But it cant be as simple as it is now. Thats the prob, these games are far to simplistic and so permit themselves to become little more than gladitorial combat.
That is the OLD definition that no longer applies. It is just semantic. You can call those hack-n-slash games anything .. but the acceptable term is "action RPG". It is about power, advancement and loot.
Many MMORPG has moved into this direction because this mode of gaming is fun and what people like. Now you can petition every company to change the name of the genre, but it does not change what the games themselves.
And who says this kind of game have to be simple? Just look at the huge number of items in WOW you have to sort though to optimize ur char. It can take days.
If I wanted to be staring at math all day I certainly would not be playing a video game
Take it from someone who does stare at math all day: the math involved in MMORPGs that would be useful for a player to understand is usually pretty trivial.
Originally posted by nariusseldon Min/maxing does NOT ruin a game. It adds to the fun. We are problem solving animals and we find satisfaction of finding a good solution. Min/Maxing is part of the game. Accept it.
It ruins the game when that is all people focus on. Magic: The Gathering used to be a fun game when it was all about making crazy decks. When tournaments started getting popular and there was a potential for real money everyone suddenly got interested in building the perfect turn 2 kill deck. It wasn't fun anymore. It was like sitting down with your friends for a good round of Microsoft Excel.
How is that ruining the game? It makes it more competitive. I thought people here want a challenge?
If I wanted to be staring at math all day I certainly would not be playing a video game.
Min/maxing in most cases goes above and beyond what theorycrafting should be. You should be interested in your class and improving yourself. This is twofold if you are partifipating in grouped content. How is it a challenge for me to use the same rotation, the same spec, the same group composition, etc as Joe over there simply because it is "optimal"? Isn't it more challenging for me to figure out how to accomplish what I want to do without min/maxing?
Min/maxing in my experience takes challenges OUT of the game. By always using the optimal setups for everything you are making it easier for yourself. You are using these setups because they are the most effective. However because they are the most effective the have the effect on making the game easier for you.
Min/maxing takes out a level of difficulty out of the game, weither you will admit it or not. I don't believe that is a positive effect at all.
You assume there is a single solution to all fights, which is wrong. Just take a mage in WOW. A different spec/gear set up is optimal for different fights. It is different if it involves moving, it is different for longer and shorter fight.
So you have to know something and do different things at different times.
I don't assume their is a single solution to all fights. It is those who min/max who assume that their is only one way to do something because it is not "optimal" to do otherwise.
On the contrary it is those who min/max that say that and not me. I am always open to new ideas as a player. There is never one way to do something. Take the mage in WoW for example, a min/maxer will swear by the highest dps spec for the encounter all the way. Very little will they take into account the pros/cons of a lower dps spec they just find the highest dps and label that "viable".
If I wanted to be staring at math all day I certainly would not be playing a video game
Take it from someone who does stare at math all day: the math involved in MMORPGs that would be useful for a player to understand is usually pretty trivial.
I don't think we are talking about the same things here. I'm talking about always using optimal conditions, aka min/maxing. Basic theorycrafting is quite interesting and can be fun. I don't personally have any problems with basic theorycrafting even if it does involve math I may or may not understand.
I'm talking about those who are seriously parsing numbers over a videogame. It didn't bother me until they shoved said numbers down my throat telling me the way I play wasn't viable because X produces 200 points more damage then Y.
I don't assume their is a single solution to all fights. It is those who min/max who assume that their is only one way to do something because it is not "optimal" to do otherwise. On the contrary it is those who min/max that say that and not me. I am always open to new ideas as a player. There is never one way to do something. Take the mage in WoW for example, a min/maxer will swear by the highest dps spec for the encounter all the way. Very little will they take into account the pros/cons of a lower dps spec they just find the highest dps and label that "viable".
Well, if you says that, then you don't know the tru min/maxer very well. If you actually read the detailed messages on EJ, no one says that there is one solution for everything. In fact, there is an in-depth discussion about the arcane spec vs frostfire depending on gear levels & length of fight.
I am a min/maxer and i never assumethere is only one way of doing thing. In fact, true min/maxers play with programs like RAWR and everyone knows that you results can change (and the optimal solution changes with it) when you have a different fight.
Plus, all these discussion is moot. Lots of people find min/maxing fun and it will be done regardless of what a vocal minority says.
I don't assume their is a single solution to all fights. It is those who min/max who assume that their is only one way to do something because it is not "optimal" to do otherwise. On the contrary it is those who min/max that say that and not me. I am always open to new ideas as a player. There is never one way to do something. Take the mage in WoW for example, a min/maxer will swear by the highest dps spec for the encounter all the way. Very little will they take into account the pros/cons of a lower dps spec they just find the highest dps and label that "viable".
Well, if you says that, then you don't know the tru min/maxer very well. If you actually read the detailed messages on EJ, no one says that there is one solution for everything. In fact, there is an in-depth discussion about the arcane spec vs frostfire depending on gear levels & length of fight.
I am a min/maxer and i never assumethere is only one way of doing thing. In fact, true min/maxers play with programs like RAWR and everyone knows that you results can change (and the optimal solution changes with it) when you have a different fight.
Plus, all these discussion is moot. Lots of people find min/maxing fun and it will be done regardless of what a vocal minority says.
Mages have three trees not two. Until you include frost in that comparsion you are not looking at all your options. It is the min/maxers that do this. It is the min/maxers that write things off because they aren't optimal. Blizzard is even thinking about giving replenishment to the mage's frost tree. Hardly anybody at EJ will care because I'm pretty certain they will not take a 5% dps hit or whatever to bring a buff to the raid.
EJ cares about pigeonhole roles and nothing else. I have been apart of the raiding scene in WoW long enough to know that mages were pigeonholed into being fire mages for all of TBC. The only reason it is any different now because the mechanics of the game changed and allowed arcane to put up numbers beyond a goofy tier set bonus.
...roleplaying ... is about assuming a role in a story, ... the human interaction and pursuit of a fun story ... we need to move the emphasis from simply charging around a nameless (pointless) world killing the boss and looting him, so I can do it again, and again, for no reason .... Thats the prob, these games are far to simplistic and so permit themselves to become little more than gladitorial combat.
That is the OLD definition that no longer applies. It is just semantic. You can call those hack-n-slash games anything .. but the acceptable term is "action RPG". It is about power, advancement and loot.
Many MMORPG has moved into this direction because this mode of gaming is fun and what people like. Now you can petition every company to change the name of the genre, but it does not change what the games themselves.
And who says this kind of game have to be simple? Just look at the huge number of items in WOW you have to sort though to optimize ur char. It can take days.
The old definition no longer applies?
Just because you play games that say RPG in their title that are simple Hack n Slash games doesn't mean you can alter the meaning of the phrase RPG. There are a great many RPG games still in existance and they are doing fine with their original 'alive and well' definition thanks. The issue for me is that the MMOs we're currently playing should be aspiring to RPG standards. It wont prevent you from hacking, I enjoy a good hack myself, but it will permit greater freedom for players... and surely you not going to argue that it would be a bad thing.
I think most games have gone the current direction because it was easier to do, and sure its a logical step on the path to creating a more impressive world. Gotta learn how to walk first, yeah? I believe a number of people have been forwarding their own proposals for what the next generation of games should have, in their pursuit of the better RPG, and this thread is about hiding numbers to remove them as the focus of attention and unltimately the point of the game. I am concerned that you would want a game that is very simple and therefore capable of being played by a bot.
And please if you honestly think that WOW is complex and a few uber items make it so, then I understand why your having trouble grasping what I mean by the phrase 'far too simple'. Please read my previous posts if you believe I am simply against numbers, its an issue of deception and opportunity.
Mages have three trees not two. Until you include frost in that comparsion you are not looking at all your options. It is the min/maxers that do this. It is the min/maxers that write things off because they aren't optimal. Blizzard is even thinking about giving replenishment to the mage's frost tree. Hardly anybody at EJ will care because I'm pretty certain they will not take a 5% dps hit or whatever to bring a buff to the raid. EJ cares about pigeonhole roles and nothing else. I have been apart of the raiding scene in WoW long enough to know that mages were pigeonholed into being fire mages for all of TBC. The only reason it is any different now because the mechanics of the game changed and allowed arcane to put up numbers beyond a goofy tier set bonus.
Multiple solution != everything is a solution. Frost is OBVIOUSLY (and a lot worse than 5%) not a DPS solution. However, it is a PvP solution. And what is the problem of eliminating some spec from DPS considerations?
And if you brought in the other classes, there are MANY viable DPS solutions so what is the problem here?
Obviously you won't want a HOLY priest to DPS, do u?
The old definition no longer applies? Just because you play games that say RPG in their title that are simple Hack n Slash games doesn't mean you can alter the meaning of the phrase RPG. There are a great many RPG games still in existance and they are doing fine with their original 'alive and well' definition thanks. The issue for me is that the MMOs we're currently playing should be aspiring to RPG standards. It wont prevent you from hacking, I enjoy a good hack myself, but it will permit greater freedom for players... and surely you not going to argue that it would be a bad thing. I think most games have gone the current direction because it was easier to do, and sure its a logical step on the path to creating a more impressive world. Gotta learn how to walk first, yeah? I believe a number of people have been forwarding their own proposals for what the next generation of games should have, in their pursuit of the better RPG, and this thread is about hiding numbers to remove them as the focus of attention and unltimately the point of the game. I am concerned that you would want a game that is very simple and therefore capable of being played by a bot. And please if you honestly think that WOW is complex and a few uber items make it so, then I understand why your having trouble grasping what I mean by the phrase 'far too simple'. Please read my previous posts if you believe I am simply against numbers, its an issue of deception and opportunity.
Of course i can. In fact, it is already DONE. Just look for Diablo, Champion of Norrath and similar hack-n-slash games and see where they are listed under. The term RPG is already altered by Gamestop, Bestbuy, Gameranking.com, IGN and now it is acceptable usage for teh masses. Bloody screams won't change a thing. You still have to go to the "RPG" section to find Diable 3 when it comes out.
If you call the fact that we need a monte carlo type sim to calculate DPS and that optimal gear changes with spec, & fight (try change the assumption of fight duration and see for yourself) and it can take hours to figure it out, and you can call it "far too simple" .... then i don't know what you want for your entertainment .. scientific research???
Do you top DPS chart in every raids? Can you write your own optimizer? Do you know how to solve multiple dimensional LP programs with discrete constraints? Just setting a right spreadsheet model can take hours, not to mention if you want all the timing/mana effect then you have to go to either monte carlo sim or structural modeling.
Theocrafting or not, the ultimate goal of these games are getting powerful and kill stuff .. simple and yet entertaining if there is enough variety. Nothing more and nothing less.
Of course i can. In fact, it is already DONE. Just look for Diablo, Champion of Norrath and similar hack-n-slash games and see where they are listed under. The term RPG is already altered by Gamestop, Bestbuy, Gameranking.com, IGN and now it is acceptable usage for teh masses. Bloody screams won't change a thing. You still have to go to the "RPG" section to find Diable 3 when it comes out. If you call the fact that we need a monte carlo type sim to calculate DPS and that optimal gear changes with spec, & fight (try change the assumption of fight duration and see for yourself) and it can take hours to figure it out, and you can call it "far too simple" .... then i don't know what you want for your entertainment .. scientific research??? Do you top DPS chart in every raids? Can you write your own optimizer? Do you know how to solve multiple dimensional LP programs with discrete constraints? Just setting a right spreadsheet model can take hours, not to mention if you want all the timing/mana effect then you have to go to either monte carlo sim or structural modeling. Theocrafting or not, the ultimate goal of these games are getting powerful and kill stuff .. simple and yet entertaining if there is enough variety. Nothing more and nothing less.
I think you missed my point, they aspire to be RPG games, just like football sims aspire to give the feeling of football. Each generation gets a little closer, they are never actualy football, but they keep trying. Likewise, as I wrote, these games have taken their current path to a more advanced RPG (it will come) computer game, and some people (the OP) have proposed that reduction of emphasis on numbers may be a good step along that path. RPG hasn't changed its definition, its simply applied to these games as an aspiration. They are not there yet, and to claim that they have and simply change the meaning of RPG to meet their current position is foolish. No need to give up the future just 'cos today we're having fun.
And yes, since having studied Nuclear & Particle Physics with Astrophysics at University I have developed a great many relativly complex modelling systems, and I assure you that the WOW is not that complex. But you dont need to have an indepth understanding of math just to be told what the optimium spec for your character is, and I think at last we arrive at the point (again) with each class there is proven build, and yes it may change over time as new patches come out, but it wont take long for someone to deduce the new build. And everyone who has a non-'perfect' character is scorned for being an amateur. And yes, I know that the different equipment and precise encounter will alter the precise spec needed, but that does't matter to the 'expert'-theocrafter they've read their perfect spec on a website or got some spreadsheet and so they know best. I'd sooner have rid of that.
I'm not saying that removing numbers will solve the issue, as has previously been raised within this thread, people will just time how long it takes to kill a given animal and then change spec and repeat. But , also as I said before, if we increase the number of potential skills, actions, and add a bit of deception; its possible to make it effectively impossible to theocraft for anyone other than yourself. And that would be best, yeah?
Mages have three trees not two. Until you include frost in that comparsion you are not looking at all your options. It is the min/maxers that do this. It is the min/maxers that write things off because they aren't optimal. Blizzard is even thinking about giving replenishment to the mage's frost tree. Hardly anybody at EJ will care because I'm pretty certain they will not take a 5% dps hit or whatever to bring a buff to the raid. EJ cares about pigeonhole roles and nothing else. I have been apart of the raiding scene in WoW long enough to know that mages were pigeonholed into being fire mages for all of TBC. The only reason it is any different now because the mechanics of the game changed and allowed arcane to put up numbers beyond a goofy tier set bonus.
Multiple solution != everything is a solution. Frost is OBVIOUSLY (and a lot worse than 5%) not a DPS solution. However, it is a PvP solution. And what is the problem of eliminating some spec from DPS considerations?
And if you brought in the other classes, there are MANY viable DPS solutions so what is the problem here?
Obviously you won't want a HOLY priest to DPS, do u?
On the contrary my holy priest can put out 1500DPS that's more then most DPS I find in PUGs. Just because I'm way better at healing then DPS doesn't mean I can't DPS in a pinch. However most end game WoW players would probably never bother to DPS on a holy priest.
Eliminating specs is exactly the problem, thats what ruins the game. Paladins were lolret, and very weak as protection for a very long time in TBC. I suppose that is fine too? Wrong.
Comments
I swear, some of you.....
For the love of god, its never BEEN Theorycrafting that was the issue. Idiots, like always, are the issue. The fact that weapon and skillset A do more damage than Weapon and Skillset B does is a GOOD thing to know. Its productive to the game, and ensures that everyone has a nice ideal of how the very mechanics of a game work on their most basic level.
The problem is that most people are just too stupid to apply this math into the encounter. For instance, yeah...Weapon A does more damage...but you by NO means need it to beat the boss. In fact, in most cases...the idiots clamoring for ONLY certain builds and gear choices are making a lot of noise over what amounts to a couple of seconds shaved off the encounter. Seriously, a couple of seconds? If THAT is what was the deciding factor for your guild to beat something...then its very likely you needed more time in the woodshed, ya know, learning how to play.
One of the biggest examples I saw of this was actually in WoW. Back before any expansions. I was...level 48 I think. I got a quest to do Mauradon, an instance designed for groups of players level 48-52 or so. I had already been IN the place alone killing things, I had helped a group of friends not long before for a moment and was waiting for them. But most of the players I saw REFUSED to group with me. They told me I had to be 55.....FIFTY-F(*&ING-FIVE.....to run an instance designed for players FAR lower than that. They also told me I needed MUCh better gear (truth be told, I later managed to out-dps many of THEM).
In short, yeah, they realized that X was better than Y. Tragically, they were also too stupid to realize that X was more than enough for the job. Oh, and that by holding out for Y....you also pretty much wasted whatever use you would have gained from having done the place. I don't mind people wanting to make things easier...but for %&^$'s sake, theorycrafting to the point or retardation is just wasteful of a good brain.
Another thought, based on my view that "theorycrafting is good for the individual, but bad for the community" is to partly conceal information about other people's builds and performance. You should not be allowed to see other people's exact damage numbers. You should probally see broad indicates of what they did "Bob attacked!" or "bob cast a healing spell!" to make sure they are doing SOMETHING and to be able to coordinate strategy. And yeah you should probally see changes on something like a health bar if it impacts broad group strategy. But you should not see "bob did 56.8 damage!" or "Bob cast a healing spell that healed precisely 58.1 hit points and took 2.13 seconds to cast!" You should not be able to see other people's "talent builds" or the equivalent. You should not be able to see other people's exact hit points, stats, etc. Apearance should be cosmetic choice, and not give information about someone's gear quality.
If there is information that you absolutely have to know (class, level, maybe a marker of average gear quality if you have "leveling via gear") maybe the game should provide that, but even that should be minimized. I think instead it would be better to have badges/titles that a player could selectively show and conceal that are based on player accomplishments. I.e. if you needed someone with a certain minimum competance level, you can look for a badge that requires a certain challenging task to accomplish. If you are doing a "teir 3" dungeon, you could look for a "completed a teir 2 dungeon ten times" badge so you can infer they probally have the gear/level/player skill to handle a tier 3. If you are looking for someone who has alot of experience healing, you could look for a "healed people for 1 million+ points" badge. And so forth.
Put obsticles in the way of OTHER PEOPLE judging you on precise theorycraft parameters, and hopefully the community will get less anal and unforgiving about deviating from "perfect builds." Then give each individual full information about their own characters so they can theorycraft by themselves as much or as little as they wish.
In WoW, the rule of thumb is that if nothing in an instance is more than two levels above you, you're high enough level for it. In Maraudon, that means at least level 48 for the second half, or somewhat lower for the first half. When I played, I'd have tried to avoid grouping with a 55 for Maraudon on the basis that that's too high level and would make everything trivial and stupid.
The very narrow level ranges at which you could reasonably fight particular mobs was one of the big flaws in WoW. It's something common to a lot of leveling games, but WoW takes it to a much greater extreme than any other game I've played.
The problem with this is that in order to have a good group, you have to have good players in the group. That requires that you must have some way of determining if a player is competent.
In Guild Wars, for example, I'd routinely ask to see everyone's build and max HP. Some people had terrible builds that desperately needed to be fixed. Some had merely unorthodox builds that were reasonable but not what I expected, and I needed to know what they had to plan around it in choosing which heroes to bring. I once grouped with a necromancer who didn't carry any necromancer skills at all in his build; apparently he fancied himself a paragon with weaker armor. Checking max HP is necessary because occasionally someone likes to load up on health malus gear that will ensure that they die more quickly than healers can react.
There isn't one universal "best" build. If there were, it would be in desperate need of a heavy nerf. (You can argue that some of the PvE-only skills are indeed superior, but they're basically cheat codes.) But that doesn't mean that there aren't bad builds. I've seen people leave a large fraction of their attribute points completely unallocated. I've seen people put a ton of attribute points into a non-primary attribute for which they carried no linked skills. Often those are due to a player changing skills and forgetting to redo their attribute points. The dumbest non-joke build I've seen is a warrior who put about half of his points into hammer mastery and the other half into swordsmanship, eschewing strength and tactics, even though he could only wield one weapon at a time.
I guess you could argue that in some games, some attribute builds really are a lot better than others in general, and not just for particular places. That's a game imbalance problem that the company needs to fix. Trying to prevent players from figuring out which builds are better only tries to cover up the problem--and thereby makes it worse.
It ruins the game when that is all people focus on. Magic: The Gathering used to be a fun game when it was all about making crazy decks. When tournaments started getting popular and there was a potential for real money everyone suddenly got interested in building the perfect turn 2 kill deck. It wasn't fun anymore. It was like sitting down with your friends for a good round of Microsoft Excel.
Jeonsa - Korean video games for Foreigners
It ruins the game when that is all people focus on. Magic: The Gathering used to be a fun game when it was all about making crazy decks. When tournaments started getting popular and there was a potential for real money everyone suddenly got interested in building the perfect turn 2 kill deck. It wasn't fun anymore. It was like sitting down with your friends for a good round of Microsoft Excel.
Seems like a lot of the complainys about theorycrafting or min/maxing are based on one giant fallacy - the fear that once the best build is discovered EVERYONE will gravitate towards it.
Well, guess what, that is not the case. Only the most hardcore of the hardcore players will do that. A regular casual player, which comprises a grand majority of the populace, wont know about it and even if they did they probably wouldnt care.
Just because the top hardcore raiders or PvPers are doing something and discussing on it websites and forums does not mean the entire game's population will fall in line.
Lastly, if your friends are using tournament tactics in a friendly game then dont play with your friends. Ive played in video game tournaments before and won. To win I used whatever tactics or tricks outside of cheating I could to gain an advantage because money was on the line. When Im playing with friends on a Saturday afternoon I dont play like that.
You are in effect arguing that the problem with the game is that people are trying to win. If people are not trying to win, then it arguably isn't even a game at all.
Imagine that several people line up to participate in a 100 meter dash. When the race begins, two don't even notice but just stand there chatting. A couple of others start jogging at a leisurely pace. Most of the rest of the participants walk or otherwise take their time. One runner sprints the entire distance, and wins the race by a huge margin.
If the race was ruined, then who ruined it? Surely not the only person who was really participating.
in roleplaying games there is no "winner". That isn't the point of a roleplaying game. That isn't the point of D&D. The point of roleplaying games is to adventure often with a group usually for some story driven purpose. It is bad enough that the stories are static in MMORPGs that most of the groups out there are focused only on dps, how much loot they can get, etc
Comparing an MMORPG to a 100 meter dash is comparing apples and oranges. That isn't a fallacy though. As I observed with Magic The Gathering in late 90s, all it takes is one person in a group to start doing it. Suddenly everyone is tired of getting hammered in every game by one person. In an MMORPG group if one person starts doing it, everyone gets tired of seeing this one person excel so much and they start doing it. Maybe they like to do some casual PVP, but one person in the group is always winning because he's min/maxing. He had his build done on a spreadsheet before he even bought the game so its utterly perfect.
Jeonsa - Korean video games for Foreigners
I want to see the damage I do to someone, if I hit them with a sword I want to see blood and know I've done them in, then I can move onto their mates...
But I dont want to see a stream of numbers.
Its about informing us yet leaving the numbers out. I actually want to see an enemy fall and when I turn my back have them get up... annoying sure, and I'll make sure I finish him next time, but its opening more options for game play... and that must be a good thing.
Sure you can deduce your best weapon fit, why not, just keep hitting stuff and sooner of later you'll know. Indeed I'd want a skilled character to know pretty much straight away when they've picked up a better weapon (balance, weight, etc)
But my skills and abilities must be perceived, not simply read off my character sheet, an opponent should be able to deduce my abilities from watching me in action, assuming I'm not trying to look bad. Yeah another ability, simple enough to add and again more open game play.
I dont mind people trying to build the greatest warrior/crafter/monkey, its only natural, but lets permit some subterfuge, and with it more open game play.
It ruins the game when that is all people focus on. Magic: The Gathering used to be a fun game when it was all about making crazy decks. When tournaments started getting popular and there was a potential for real money everyone suddenly got interested in building the perfect turn 2 kill deck. It wasn't fun anymore. It was like sitting down with your friends for a good round of Microsoft Excel.
How is that ruining the game? It makes it more competitive. I thought people here want a challenge?
in roleplaying games there is no "winner". That isn't the point of a roleplaying game. That isn't the point of D&D. The point of roleplaying games is to adventure often with a group usually for some story driven purpose. It is bad enough that the stories are static in MMORPGs that most of the groups out there are focused only on dps, how much loot they can get, etc
Comparing an MMORPG to a 100 meter dash is comparing apples and oranges.
Says who? The point of hack-n-slash RPG (like Diablo) is to become more powerful and theorycrafting let you do that more efficiently.
It is FUN to focus on DPS, boss strategy (u need to know how to play to down teh boss), cool loot as Diablo & WOW so succintly have demonstrated.
If you like story-driven MMORPG, wait for SW:TOR.
It ruins the game when that is all people focus on. Magic: The Gathering used to be a fun game when it was all about making crazy decks. When tournaments started getting popular and there was a potential for real money everyone suddenly got interested in building the perfect turn 2 kill deck. It wasn't fun anymore. It was like sitting down with your friends for a good round of Microsoft Excel.
How is that ruining the game? It makes it more competitive. I thought people here want a challenge?
If I wanted to be staring at math all day I certainly would not be playing a video game.
Min/maxing in most cases goes above and beyond what theorycrafting should be. You should be interested in your class and improving yourself. This is twofold if you are partifipating in grouped content. How is it a challenge for me to use the same rotation, the same spec, the same group composition, etc as Joe over there simply because it is "optimal"? Isn't it more challenging for me to figure out how to accomplish what I want to do without min/maxing?
Min/maxing in my experience takes challenges OUT of the game. By always using the optimal setups for everything you are making it easier for yourself. You are using these setups because they are the most effective. However because they are the most effective the have the effect on making the game easier for you.
Min/maxing takes out a level of difficulty out of the game, weither you will admit it or not. I don't believe that is a positive effect at all.
Says who? The point of hack-n-slash RPG (like Diablo) is to become more powerful and theorycrafting let you do that more efficiently.
It is FUN to focus on DPS, boss strategy (u need to know how to play to down teh boss), cool loot as Diablo & WOW so succintly have demonstrated.
If you like story-driven MMORPG, wait for SW:TOR.
I think I must agree with Crossmr, roleplaying has been around a lot longer than the home-computer and it is about assuming a role in a story, sure it usually has some degree of stats to permit players to know if they've done a task or not, and stop them attempting impossible tasks, but this has always been secondary to the human interaction and pursuit of a fun story. To the point where most RPGs expressly instructed the GM/DM (guy running the game) to throw out the dice and even the rules if the story and the players enjoyment of it is advanced by doing so.
Now I'm not saying that we should drop the rules, but we need to move the emphasis from simply charging around a nameless (pointless) world killing the boss and looting him, so I can do it again, and again, for no reason. If the game for you is all about collecting ubergear and then playing PvP, then this can be achieved with a very simple game, we dont need to call it an RPG. No I'm not saying I'm against PvP, I'm simply highlighting that an RPG is more than just a quest to cause as much DPS as possible in a series of instanced battlefields.
And yeah, it makes sense that if you must fight you ensure success. But it cant be as simple as it is now. Thats the prob, these games are far to simplistic and so permit themselves to become little more than gladitorial combat.
It ruins the game when that is all people focus on. Magic: The Gathering used to be a fun game when it was all about making crazy decks. When tournaments started getting popular and there was a potential for real money everyone suddenly got interested in building the perfect turn 2 kill deck. It wasn't fun anymore. It was like sitting down with your friends for a good round of Microsoft Excel.
How is that ruining the game? It makes it more competitive. I thought people here want a challenge?
If I wanted to be staring at math all day I certainly would not be playing a video game.
Min/maxing in most cases goes above and beyond what theorycrafting should be. You should be interested in your class and improving yourself. This is twofold if you are partifipating in grouped content. How is it a challenge for me to use the same rotation, the same spec, the same group composition, etc as Joe over there simply because it is "optimal"? Isn't it more challenging for me to figure out how to accomplish what I want to do without min/maxing?
Min/maxing in my experience takes challenges OUT of the game. By always using the optimal setups for everything you are making it easier for yourself. You are using these setups because they are the most effective. However because they are the most effective the have the effect on making the game easier for you.
Min/maxing takes out a level of difficulty out of the game, weither you will admit it or not. I don't believe that is a positive effect at all.
You assume there is a single solution to all fights, which is wrong. Just take a mage in WOW. A different spec/gear set up is optimal for different fights. It is different if it involves moving, it is different for longer and shorter fight.
So you have to know something and do different things at different times.
That is the OLD definition that no longer applies. It is just semantic. You can call those hack-n-slash games anything .. but the acceptable term is "action RPG". It is about power, advancement and loot.
Many MMORPG has moved into this direction because this mode of gaming is fun and what people like. Now you can petition every company to change the name of the genre, but it does not change what the games themselves.
And who says this kind of game have to be simple? Just look at the huge number of items in WOW you have to sort though to optimize ur char. It can take days.
Take it from someone who does stare at math all day: the math involved in MMORPGs that would be useful for a player to understand is usually pretty trivial.
It ruins the game when that is all people focus on. Magic: The Gathering used to be a fun game when it was all about making crazy decks. When tournaments started getting popular and there was a potential for real money everyone suddenly got interested in building the perfect turn 2 kill deck. It wasn't fun anymore. It was like sitting down with your friends for a good round of Microsoft Excel.
How is that ruining the game? It makes it more competitive. I thought people here want a challenge?
If I wanted to be staring at math all day I certainly would not be playing a video game.
Min/maxing in most cases goes above and beyond what theorycrafting should be. You should be interested in your class and improving yourself. This is twofold if you are partifipating in grouped content. How is it a challenge for me to use the same rotation, the same spec, the same group composition, etc as Joe over there simply because it is "optimal"? Isn't it more challenging for me to figure out how to accomplish what I want to do without min/maxing?
Min/maxing in my experience takes challenges OUT of the game. By always using the optimal setups for everything you are making it easier for yourself. You are using these setups because they are the most effective. However because they are the most effective the have the effect on making the game easier for you.
Min/maxing takes out a level of difficulty out of the game, weither you will admit it or not. I don't believe that is a positive effect at all.
You assume there is a single solution to all fights, which is wrong. Just take a mage in WOW. A different spec/gear set up is optimal for different fights. It is different if it involves moving, it is different for longer and shorter fight.
So you have to know something and do different things at different times.
I don't assume their is a single solution to all fights. It is those who min/max who assume that their is only one way to do something because it is not "optimal" to do otherwise.
On the contrary it is those who min/max that say that and not me. I am always open to new ideas as a player. There is never one way to do something. Take the mage in WoW for example, a min/maxer will swear by the highest dps spec for the encounter all the way. Very little will they take into account the pros/cons of a lower dps spec they just find the highest dps and label that "viable".
Take it from someone who does stare at math all day: the math involved in MMORPGs that would be useful for a player to understand is usually pretty trivial.
I don't think we are talking about the same things here. I'm talking about always using optimal conditions, aka min/maxing. Basic theorycrafting is quite interesting and can be fun. I don't personally have any problems with basic theorycrafting even if it does involve math I may or may not understand.
I'm talking about those who are seriously parsing numbers over a videogame. It didn't bother me until they shoved said numbers down my throat telling me the way I play wasn't viable because X produces 200 points more damage then Y.
Well, if you says that, then you don't know the tru min/maxer very well. If you actually read the detailed messages on EJ, no one says that there is one solution for everything. In fact, there is an in-depth discussion about the arcane spec vs frostfire depending on gear levels & length of fight.
I am a min/maxer and i never assumethere is only one way of doing thing. In fact, true min/maxers play with programs like RAWR and everyone knows that you results can change (and the optimal solution changes with it) when you have a different fight.
Plus, all these discussion is moot. Lots of people find min/maxing fun and it will be done regardless of what a vocal minority says.
Well, if you says that, then you don't know the tru min/maxer very well. If you actually read the detailed messages on EJ, no one says that there is one solution for everything. In fact, there is an in-depth discussion about the arcane spec vs frostfire depending on gear levels & length of fight.
I am a min/maxer and i never assumethere is only one way of doing thing. In fact, true min/maxers play with programs like RAWR and everyone knows that you results can change (and the optimal solution changes with it) when you have a different fight.
Plus, all these discussion is moot. Lots of people find min/maxing fun and it will be done regardless of what a vocal minority says.
Mages have three trees not two. Until you include frost in that comparsion you are not looking at all your options. It is the min/maxers that do this. It is the min/maxers that write things off because they aren't optimal. Blizzard is even thinking about giving replenishment to the mage's frost tree. Hardly anybody at EJ will care because I'm pretty certain they will not take a 5% dps hit or whatever to bring a buff to the raid.
EJ cares about pigeonhole roles and nothing else. I have been apart of the raiding scene in WoW long enough to know that mages were pigeonholed into being fire mages for all of TBC. The only reason it is any different now because the mechanics of the game changed and allowed arcane to put up numbers beyond a goofy tier set bonus.
That is the OLD definition that no longer applies. It is just semantic. You can call those hack-n-slash games anything .. but the acceptable term is "action RPG". It is about power, advancement and loot.
Many MMORPG has moved into this direction because this mode of gaming is fun and what people like. Now you can petition every company to change the name of the genre, but it does not change what the games themselves.
And who says this kind of game have to be simple? Just look at the huge number of items in WOW you have to sort though to optimize ur char. It can take days.
The old definition no longer applies?
Just because you play games that say RPG in their title that are simple Hack n Slash games doesn't mean you can alter the meaning of the phrase RPG. There are a great many RPG games still in existance and they are doing fine with their original 'alive and well' definition thanks. The issue for me is that the MMOs we're currently playing should be aspiring to RPG standards. It wont prevent you from hacking, I enjoy a good hack myself, but it will permit greater freedom for players... and surely you not going to argue that it would be a bad thing.
I think most games have gone the current direction because it was easier to do, and sure its a logical step on the path to creating a more impressive world. Gotta learn how to walk first, yeah? I believe a number of people have been forwarding their own proposals for what the next generation of games should have, in their pursuit of the better RPG, and this thread is about hiding numbers to remove them as the focus of attention and unltimately the point of the game. I am concerned that you would want a game that is very simple and therefore capable of being played by a bot.
And please if you honestly think that WOW is complex and a few uber items make it so, then I understand why your having trouble grasping what I mean by the phrase 'far too simple'. Please read my previous posts if you believe I am simply against numbers, its an issue of deception and opportunity.
Multiple solution != everything is a solution. Frost is OBVIOUSLY (and a lot worse than 5%) not a DPS solution. However, it is a PvP solution. And what is the problem of eliminating some spec from DPS considerations?
And if you brought in the other classes, there are MANY viable DPS solutions so what is the problem here?
Obviously you won't want a HOLY priest to DPS, do u?
Of course i can. In fact, it is already DONE. Just look for Diablo, Champion of Norrath and similar hack-n-slash games and see where they are listed under. The term RPG is already altered by Gamestop, Bestbuy, Gameranking.com, IGN and now it is acceptable usage for teh masses. Bloody screams won't change a thing. You still have to go to the "RPG" section to find Diable 3 when it comes out.
If you call the fact that we need a monte carlo type sim to calculate DPS and that optimal gear changes with spec, & fight (try change the assumption of fight duration and see for yourself) and it can take hours to figure it out, and you can call it "far too simple" .... then i don't know what you want for your entertainment .. scientific research???
Do you top DPS chart in every raids? Can you write your own optimizer? Do you know how to solve multiple dimensional LP programs with discrete constraints? Just setting a right spreadsheet model can take hours, not to mention if you want all the timing/mana effect then you have to go to either monte carlo sim or structural modeling.
Theocrafting or not, the ultimate goal of these games are getting powerful and kill stuff .. simple and yet entertaining if there is enough variety. Nothing more and nothing less.
I think you missed my point, they aspire to be RPG games, just like football sims aspire to give the feeling of football. Each generation gets a little closer, they are never actualy football, but they keep trying. Likewise, as I wrote, these games have taken their current path to a more advanced RPG (it will come) computer game, and some people (the OP) have proposed that reduction of emphasis on numbers may be a good step along that path. RPG hasn't changed its definition, its simply applied to these games as an aspiration. They are not there yet, and to claim that they have and simply change the meaning of RPG to meet their current position is foolish. No need to give up the future just 'cos today we're having fun.
And yes, since having studied Nuclear & Particle Physics with Astrophysics at University I have developed a great many relativly complex modelling systems, and I assure you that the WOW is not that complex. But you dont need to have an indepth understanding of math just to be told what the optimium spec for your character is, and I think at last we arrive at the point (again) with each class there is proven build, and yes it may change over time as new patches come out, but it wont take long for someone to deduce the new build. And everyone who has a non-'perfect' character is scorned for being an amateur. And yes, I know that the different equipment and precise encounter will alter the precise spec needed, but that does't matter to the 'expert'-theocrafter they've read their perfect spec on a website or got some spreadsheet and so they know best. I'd sooner have rid of that.
I'm not saying that removing numbers will solve the issue, as has previously been raised within this thread, people will just time how long it takes to kill a given animal and then change spec and repeat. But , also as I said before, if we increase the number of potential skills, actions, and add a bit of deception; its possible to make it effectively impossible to theocraft for anyone other than yourself. And that would be best, yeah?
Multiple solution != everything is a solution. Frost is OBVIOUSLY (and a lot worse than 5%) not a DPS solution. However, it is a PvP solution. And what is the problem of eliminating some spec from DPS considerations?
And if you brought in the other classes, there are MANY viable DPS solutions so what is the problem here?
Obviously you won't want a HOLY priest to DPS, do u?
On the contrary my holy priest can put out 1500DPS that's more then most DPS I find in PUGs. Just because I'm way better at healing then DPS doesn't mean I can't DPS in a pinch. However most end game WoW players would probably never bother to DPS on a holy priest.
Eliminating specs is exactly the problem, thats what ruins the game. Paladins were lolret, and very weak as protection for a very long time in TBC. I suppose that is fine too? Wrong.