I want zero forced downtime. If I want to keep active, I want the option to do so. After all, the party can always voluntarily stop if they want to, they aren't forced to keep moving on to the next mob, they can sit around and sing kumbayah all they want.. It should be at the whim of the players, not built into the game.
This
Games that I thought did well with the amount of downtime are Age of Conan and Guild Wars. Games where I can't do anything due to the downtime I absolutely hate and they quickly go to the garbage bin.
I think theres' definitely a market for the kind of kill, kill, kill, game you want, and I hope devs make plenty of games like that for you to play.
I'd prefer something a little bit slower paced, and I hope devs will make something like taht for me to play.
I want zero forced downtime. If I want to keep active, I want the option to do so. After all, the party can always voluntarily stop if they want to, they aren't forced to keep moving on to the next mob, they can sit around and sing kumbayah all they want.. It should be at the whim of the players, not built into the game.
This
Games that I thought did well with the amount of downtime are Age of Conan and Guild Wars. Games where I can't do anything due to the downtime I absolutely hate and they quickly go to the garbage bin.
I think theres' definitely a market for the kind of kill, kill, kill, game you want, and I hope devs make plenty of games like that for you to play.
I'd prefer something a little bit slower paced, and I hope devs will make something like taht for me to play.
Diversity is good.
Absolutely.
There should be a varied amount of games for different gameplay. With my comment above I don't necessarily want all kill action but just that I don't want to be forced to slow down due to game mechanics. But yeah, different game styles for different folks is good, I agree.
Downtime implementation is not sufficient for players to “socialize”, in some cases it can be only a prerequisite. One group needs 0 minutes (members know each other, roles are distributed, tactics established), another group cannot be properly organized even in an hour: random people, different play styles and goals, different speed of typing, knowledge of language used in conversations, etc. Downtime is foreseen definitely not for chatting but for organization of coordinated team actions be it a raid or a massive PvP battle. It should be somehow proportional to the number of players in a group and difficulty of a task. For instance: preparation for a massive PvP battle: a general/leader/commander/Feldherr should be elected/selected/self-declared; he/she should learn what kind of troops he/she has; tactics, plan of a battle elaborated and explained to all soldiers; some sort of formations and training should be organized by the leader; etc. All that needs more time than a “simple” group fight with a single boss. Downtime alone will not resolve that, other features of game mechanics should be implemented in order to promote organization, “civilized” battle, otherwise it will be the same frustrating chaos we observe. I admit that some players (usually hardcore high level game veterans) like that, feel comfortable in this laggy mess.
I want zero forced downtime. If I want to keep active, I want the option to do so. After all, the party can always voluntarily stop if they want to, they aren't forced to keep moving on to the next mob, they can sit around and sing kumbayah all they want.. It should be at the whim of the players, not built into the game.
This
Games that I thought did well with the amount of downtime are Age of Conan and Guild Wars. Games where I can't do anything due to the downtime I absolutely hate and they quickly go to the garbage bin.
I think theres' definitely a market for the kind of kill, kill, kill, game you want, and I hope devs make plenty of games like that for you to play.
I'd prefer something a little bit slower paced, and I hope devs will make something like taht for me to play.
Diversity is good.
Shouldn't that diversity be in one game? Is it good for games to be all one way, and having all the same types of players? Or should they be diverse enough within themselves to allow for both types? Honestly, I tend to go with "diverse enough", and go for diverse player types, but I'm not sure. I strongly believe in diversity of players, but in this particular case I'm not sure.
I think there's a way to be diverse enough. And in this case I think that would be done by having a tiredness factor. So you go for a while and gain skills, get tired and stop gaining until you rest (also lose a tad bit of stats/speed/etc.), but you can still loot kills to your heart's content. "Rest" can be short for a short period of gain, or long to fully refill the bar. This would allow teams to keep moving as a team, and taking short periods of rest individually, which would make teamwork a factor. (See, there are other ways to enhance grouping than giving out tupperware points. But then I guess if I ever built a game I'd not include the segment that wants free handouts. Go figure.)
As little as possible. Certainly not enough to get bored.
If people want to take more time to chat between fight, they can ALWAYS do that with or without downtime. Downtime forces people to find other things to do, which is BAD design.
When we are raiding, after a few fights, we will just take 10 min break, and sometimes people will hang around to chat. That is MUCH better than we are forced to have a 10 min "break" every time we finish a fight.
The problem is not downtime, the problem is that while you are trying to enjoy the game to the fullest, that *bleep* over there is going to get ahead of you because he wants to reach the ghiest level to beat everyone.
This is the problem that comes from the progression level system gap (Example: a very dumb and slow lvl 80 can beat a cunning level 79 with his eyes closed).
If progression is done via accomplishments, personal flavor and lore, obtaining clues or information other do not, changes and events in the world then the progression gap can be greatly minimized as well as the level cap (Instead of 80 or 40, why not lvl 20?, its not like the game is a static room that doesn't ever ever change).
We need to make a world dynamic and easily changed by players' actions and leave the level gap behind (Seriously it is a very poor progression system).
Originally posted by wisesquirrel The problem is not downtime, the problem is that while you are trying to enjoy the game to the fullest, that *bleep* over there is going to get ahead of you because he wants to reach the ghiest level to beat everyone. This is the problem that comes from the progression level system gap (Example: a very dumb and slow lvl 80 can beat a cunning level 79 with his eyes closed). If progression is done via accomplishments, personal flavor and lore, obtaining clues or information other do not, changes and events in the world then the progression gap can be greatly minimized as well as the level cap (Instead of 80 or 40, why not lvl 20?, its not like the game is a static room that doesn't ever ever change). We need to make a world dynamic and easily changed by players' actions and leave the level gap behind (Seriously it is a very poor progression system).
Agreed. The difference between 20 levels and 80 levels is how many imaginary biscuits you get from the machine. At the very least less levels would make it easier for people to play together.
Sent me an email if you want me to mail you some pizza rolls.
Y'all are looking back on EQ through rose-colored glasses. The only reason EQ was fun for me was because I played a monk, which meant I was the puller in groups, which in turn allowed me to dictate the pace at which we killed mobs. In most dungeons I could keep a steady supply of mobs coming; while the group was finishing one off I was dragging another one in, keeping everyone constantly fighting. Groups absolutely loved it when I did that. Sometimes I'd get a request to stop pulls because a healer was LOM. I don't remember anyone ever asking me to stop pulls so they could chat for a while.
When I could keep a group constantly busy for 15-30 minutes at a time with short breaks in between for mana recovery/bio/whatever, it was just about perfect. Interestingly enough, 15-30 minutes is often the time it takes to clear a 5-man instance in WoW or a mission in CoH as well. Maybe that's why I enjoyed those games.
Definately Everquest 1 it had the perfect downtime. Nothing better than having nice hours with others, then just stopping the action because the cleric is LOM or stuff like that. I really hope some future game will capture the perfect downtime again.
I hate all the action based combat with almost zero downtime, fast mana/hp regen feels more like an FPS than a MMO.
We need a MMORPG Cataclysm asap, finish the dark age of MMORPGS now!
"Everything you're bitching about is wrong. People don't have the time to invest in corpse runs, impossible zones, or long winded quests. Sometimes, they just want to pop on and play." "Then maybe MMORPGs aren't for you."
I thought the amount of downtime in EQ was just right...
For grouping, it was zero in the right setup. I agree, perfection.
The difference is the community(partly due to game mechanics and partly due changing demographics) and every single class has the option of being as demanding, or more, than an oldschool EQ bard.
Forever looking for employment. Life is rather dull without it.
I thought the amount of downtime in EQ was just right...
I was just going to say that.. It helped that we had med time, pull time, fight time.. Having the puller go out and find our group a mob to play with gave us time to yap at times.. especially if healer was /oom and need to med.. LOL
As little as possible. Certainly not enough to get bored.
If people want to take more time to chat between fight, they can ALWAYS do that with or without downtime. Downtime forces people to find other things to do, which is BAD design.
When we are raiding, after a few fights, we will just take 10 min break, and sometimes people will hang around to chat. That is MUCH better than we are forced to have a 10 min "break" every time we finish a fight.
I think you shoud be more accurate in your statements. BAD design would be a game that no one likes.
You can certainly like a feature, or not like a feature.
But if you dislike a feature, it's not "bad design" if someone else likes it.
Again, if you like the fight, fight, fight, kthxbye game design, thats' fine. Play those games, enjoy them, and advocate for more of them to be made.
However, some people enjoy a game design that allows for more relaxed game play. If you dislike those games, then you should of course not play them.
However, I don't see the point in advocating they not be made. After all, such games will have no impact on you at all. You won't play them, and people liek you won't play them, so they are not competition for the games you like.
Y'all are looking back on EQ through rose-colored glasses. The only reason EQ was fun for me was because I played a monk, which meant I was the puller in groups, which in turn allowed me to dictate the pace at which we killed mobs. In most dungeons I could keep a steady supply of mobs coming; while the group was finishing one off I was dragging another one in, keeping everyone constantly fighting. Groups absolutely loved it when I did that. Sometimes I'd get a request to stop pulls because a healer was LOM. I don't remember anyone ever asking me to stop pulls so they could chat for a while.
Just a side note, this brings up one of one my favorite parts of EQ. Having monk/sk (a lull caster when desperate) to split mobs was a valid tactic among several others for handling encounters. It added nice variety to gameplay.
Sorry, monk pulling was not my favorite, but I played a chanter most of the time so I'm rather biased
Forever looking for employment. Life is rather dull without it.
have a problem with all those saying you can always take your time to chat if want to....there will always be the jerk going eeerhm why arent we fighting, I dont really care if someone missed an update or whatever, they could just have paid attention...or something along those lines.
other than that I love when the game got power management, even if its hard to agree on what is neccesary. really miss the days of raiding where managing your power mattered.....fight fight fight only is boring to me.
have a problem with all those saying you can always take your time to chat if want to....there will always be the jerk going eeerhm why arent we fighting, I dont really care if someone missed an update or whatever, they could just have paid attention...or something along those lines.
other than that I love when the game got power management, even if its hard to agree on what is neccesary. really miss the days of raiding where managing your power mattered.....fight fight fight only is boring to me.
I've had that issue in WoW (during WotLK), purposely pulling even when they knew the healer is afk. Fortunately paladins were god mode and I could practically solo everything anyways.
Of course, I've had that problem in EQ as well. "LoL, the tank has full life, we'll be fine!", followed by, "oops, I pulled the entire area!"
Forever looking for employment. Life is rather dull without it.
have a problem with all those saying you can always take your time to chat if want to....there will always be the jerk going eeerhm why arent we fighting, I dont really care if someone missed an update or whatever, they could just have paid attention...or something along those lines.
other than that I love when the game got power management, even if its hard to agree on what is neccesary. really miss the days of raiding where managing your power mattered.....fight fight fight only is boring to me.
Kick the jerk. You have a CHOICE of whom you are playing with. Forcing people to do nothing is just BAD design.
Fight fight fight is LESS BORING than staring at a spell book.
As little as possible. Certainly not enough to get bored.
If people want to take more time to chat between fight, they can ALWAYS do that with or without downtime. Downtime forces people to find other things to do, which is BAD design.
When we are raiding, after a few fights, we will just take 10 min break, and sometimes people will hang around to chat. That is MUCH better than we are forced to have a 10 min "break" every time we finish a fight.
I think you shoud be more accurate in your statements. BAD design would be a game that no one likes.
You can certainly like a feature, or not like a feature.
But if you dislike a feature, it's not "bad design" if someone else likes it.
Again, if you like the fight, fight, fight, kthxbye game design, thats' fine. Play those games, enjoy them, and advocate for more of them to be made.
However, some people enjoy a game design that allows for more relaxed game play. If you dislike those games, then you should of course not play them.
However, I don't see the point in advocating they not be made. After all, such games will have no impact on you at all. You won't play them, and people liek you won't play them, so they are not competition for the games you like.
Well, there is only a small percentage of people who like downtime .. it is CLOSE TO a bad design then. Aside from some vocal people here, i have yet met anyone who wants to do NOTHING in a MMORPG.
Like I said before, you *can* have more relaxed gameplay. Down-time is restrictive. You can always stop more in a game without down-time but you cannot stop less in one that has down-time.
Sure I wont play them except it would be a tragedy for a game that is good in other aspects to be marred from this one bad "feature" that few people want.
As little as possible. Certainly not enough to get bored. If people want to take more time to chat between fight, they can ALWAYS do that with or without downtime. Downtime forces people to find other things to do, which is BAD design. When we are raiding, after a few fights, we will just take 10 min break, and sometimes people will hang around to chat. That is MUCH better than we are forced to have a 10 min "break" every time we finish a fight.
I think you shoud be more accurate in your statements. BAD design would be a game that no one likes.
You can certainly like a feature, or not like a feature.
But if you dislike a feature, it's not "bad design" if someone else likes it.
Again, if you like the fight, fight, fight, kthxbye game design, thats' fine. Play those games, enjoy them, and advocate for more of them to be made.
However, some people enjoy a game design that allows for more relaxed game play. If you dislike those games, then you should of course not play them.
However, I don't see the point in advocating they not be made. After all, such games will have no impact on you at all. You won't play them, and people liek you won't play them, so they are not competition for the games you like.
Well, there is only a small percentage of people who like downtime .. it is CLOSE TO a bad design then. Aside from some vocal people here, i have yet met anyone who wants to do NOTHING in a MMORPG.
Like I said before, you *can* have more relaxed gameplay. Down-time is restrictive. You can always stop more in a game without down-time but you cannot stop less in one that has down-time.
Sure I wont play them except it would be a tragedy for a game that is good in other aspects to be marred from this one bad "feature" that few people want.
If its keeping off people like you its GOOD design. Your small percentage idea is bullshit have you any (real) prove for that if not well I doubt it.
I'm all for downtime: med time, read time in order to learn your new spells, pull time, chat time aso.
We need a MMORPG Cataclysm asap, finish the dark age of MMORPGS now!
"Everything you're bitching about is wrong. People don't have the time to invest in corpse runs, impossible zones, or long winded quests. Sometimes, they just want to pop on and play." "Then maybe MMORPGs aren't for you."
Was best in SWG going to cantinas and that, really fun to have a chat.
been there, done that and it was actually a great design concept in general.. I was a master musician, and met many new friends healing and buffing adventureres.. join a guild, got involved in the player city, owned my own Cantina.. etc etc.. None of which would of happened if it wasnt' for the "down" time forcing the players to come into the Cantina's to begin with..
Oh.. how I miss so much of the ole mmo style.. now it seems to be how fast can we shoot the ducks in the gallery..
As little as possible. Certainly not enough to get bored.
If people want to take more time to chat between fight, they can ALWAYS do that with or without downtime. Downtime forces people to find other things to do, which is BAD design.
When we are raiding, after a few fights, we will just take 10 min break, and sometimes people will hang around to chat. That is MUCH better than we are forced to have a 10 min "break" every time we finish a fight.
I think you shoud be more accurate in your statements. BAD design would be a game that no one likes.
You can certainly like a feature, or not like a feature.
But if you dislike a feature, it's not "bad design" if someone else likes it.
Again, if you like the fight, fight, fight, kthxbye game design, thats' fine. Play those games, enjoy them, and advocate for more of them to be made.
However, some people enjoy a game design that allows for more relaxed game play. If you dislike those games, then you should of course not play them.
However, I don't see the point in advocating they not be made. After all, such games will have no impact on you at all. You won't play them, and people liek you won't play them, so they are not competition for the games you like.
Well, there is only a small percentage of people who like downtime .. it is CLOSE TO a bad design then. Aside from some vocal people here, i have yet met anyone who wants to do NOTHING in a MMORPG.
Like I said before, you *can* have more relaxed gameplay. Down-time is restrictive. You can always stop more in a game without down-time but you cannot stop less in one that has down-time.
Sure I wont play them except it would be a tragedy for a game that is good in other aspects to be marred from this one bad "feature" that few people want.
In a game with no downtime, you can never stop to chat without losing XP because of it.
So there really isn't the "choice" you seem to think is there.
You can't "choose" to chat without losing XP, so you are FORCED to lose XP to chat. I don't want to be forced to lose XP to chat.
There is always a tradeoff in game design.
Usually people try to pretend that trade off doesn't exist, to justify the design they prefer, but it's always there.
Comments
I think theres' definitely a market for the kind of kill, kill, kill, game you want, and I hope devs make plenty of games like that for you to play.
I'd prefer something a little bit slower paced, and I hope devs will make something like taht for me to play.
Diversity is good.
Absolutely.
There should be a varied amount of games for different gameplay. With my comment above I don't necessarily want all kill action but just that I don't want to be forced to slow down due to game mechanics. But yeah, different game styles for different folks is good, I agree.
Well, assuming one uses a keyboard to fight, it's rather difficult to socialize and fight at the same time.
Hopefully more titles will utilize voice chat, so that we can fight AND socialize at the same time....
Yes? No?
I think so.
Downtime implementation is not sufficient for players to “socialize”, in some cases it can be only a prerequisite. One group needs 0 minutes (members know each other, roles are distributed, tactics established), another group cannot be properly organized even in an hour: random people, different play styles and goals, different speed of typing, knowledge of language used in conversations, etc. Downtime is foreseen definitely not for chatting but for organization of coordinated team actions be it a raid or a massive PvP battle. It should be somehow proportional to the number of players in a group and difficulty of a task. For instance: preparation for a massive PvP battle: a general/leader/commander/Feldherr should be elected/selected/self-declared; he/she should learn what kind of troops he/she has; tactics, plan of a battle elaborated and explained to all soldiers; some sort of formations and training should be organized by the leader; etc. All that needs more time than a “simple” group fight with a single boss. Downtime alone will not resolve that, other features of game mechanics should be implemented in order to promote organization, “civilized” battle, otherwise it will be the same frustrating chaos we observe. I admit that some players (usually hardcore high level game veterans) like that, feel comfortable in this laggy mess.
Shouldn't that diversity be in one game? Is it good for games to be all one way, and having all the same types of players? Or should they be diverse enough within themselves to allow for both types? Honestly, I tend to go with "diverse enough", and go for diverse player types, but I'm not sure. I strongly believe in diversity of players, but in this particular case I'm not sure.
I think there's a way to be diverse enough. And in this case I think that would be done by having a tiredness factor. So you go for a while and gain skills, get tired and stop gaining until you rest (also lose a tad bit of stats/speed/etc.), but you can still loot kills to your heart's content. "Rest" can be short for a short period of gain, or long to fully refill the bar. This would allow teams to keep moving as a team, and taking short periods of rest individually, which would make teamwork a factor. (See, there are other ways to enhance grouping than giving out tupperware points. But then I guess if I ever built a game I'd not include the segment that wants free handouts. Go figure.)
Once upon a time....
One thing I'd like to see in games is a reason to want to take downtime. Not really downtime, but switvhing to another aspect of game play.
Searching, inspecting, deciphering, and research would be the kinds of things I mean. Doing so for discoveries and new (or enhanced) knowledge.
Once upon a time....
no downtime
you want downtime?
die
or
log out
or
stay away from battle
Guild Wars 2 is my religion
As little as possible. Certainly not enough to get bored.
If people want to take more time to chat between fight, they can ALWAYS do that with or without downtime. Downtime forces people to find other things to do, which is BAD design.
When we are raiding, after a few fights, we will just take 10 min break, and sometimes people will hang around to chat. That is MUCH better than we are forced to have a 10 min "break" every time we finish a fight.
Exactly. When we WANT to, my guild will take a breather between fight .. but we do NOT want to be forced to do that after EVERY fight.
The problem is not downtime, the problem is that while you are trying to enjoy the game to the fullest, that *bleep* over there is going to get ahead of you because he wants to reach the ghiest level to beat everyone.
This is the problem that comes from the progression level system gap (Example: a very dumb and slow lvl 80 can beat a cunning level 79 with his eyes closed).
If progression is done via accomplishments, personal flavor and lore, obtaining clues or information other do not, changes and events in the world then the progression gap can be greatly minimized as well as the level cap (Instead of 80 or 40, why not lvl 20?, its not like the game is a static room that doesn't ever ever change).
We need to make a world dynamic and easily changed by players' actions and leave the level gap behind (Seriously it is a very poor progression system).
Agreed. The difference between 20 levels and 80 levels is how many imaginary biscuits you get from the machine. At the very least less levels would make it easier for people to play together.
Sent me an email if you want me to mail you some pizza rolls.
Y'all are looking back on EQ through rose-colored glasses. The only reason EQ was fun for me was because I played a monk, which meant I was the puller in groups, which in turn allowed me to dictate the pace at which we killed mobs. In most dungeons I could keep a steady supply of mobs coming; while the group was finishing one off I was dragging another one in, keeping everyone constantly fighting. Groups absolutely loved it when I did that. Sometimes I'd get a request to stop pulls because a healer was LOM. I don't remember anyone ever asking me to stop pulls so they could chat for a while.
When I could keep a group constantly busy for 15-30 minutes at a time with short breaks in between for mana recovery/bio/whatever, it was just about perfect. Interestingly enough, 15-30 minutes is often the time it takes to clear a 5-man instance in WoW or a mission in CoH as well. Maybe that's why I enjoyed those games.
Definately Everquest 1 it had the perfect downtime. Nothing better than having nice hours with others, then just stopping the action because the cleric is LOM or stuff like that. I really hope some future game will capture the perfect downtime again.
I hate all the action based combat with almost zero downtime, fast mana/hp regen feels more like an FPS than a MMO.
We need a MMORPG Cataclysm asap, finish the dark age of MMORPGS now!
"Everything you're bitching about is wrong. People don't have the time to invest in corpse runs, impossible zones, or long winded quests. Sometimes, they just want to pop on and play."
"Then maybe MMORPGs aren't for you."
For grouping, it was zero in the right setup. I agree, perfection.
The difference is the community(partly due to game mechanics and partly due changing demographics) and every single class has the option of being as demanding, or more, than an oldschool EQ bard.
Forever looking for employment. Life is rather dull without it.
I was just going to say that.. It helped that we had med time, pull time, fight time.. Having the puller go out and find our group a mob to play with gave us time to yap at times.. especially if healer was /oom and need to med.. LOL
I think you shoud be more accurate in your statements. BAD design would be a game that no one likes.
You can certainly like a feature, or not like a feature.
But if you dislike a feature, it's not "bad design" if someone else likes it.
Again, if you like the fight, fight, fight, kthxbye game design, thats' fine. Play those games, enjoy them, and advocate for more of them to be made.
However, some people enjoy a game design that allows for more relaxed game play. If you dislike those games, then you should of course not play them.
However, I don't see the point in advocating they not be made. After all, such games will have no impact on you at all. You won't play them, and people liek you won't play them, so they are not competition for the games you like.
Just a side note, this brings up one of one my favorite parts of EQ. Having monk/sk (a lull caster when desperate) to split mobs was a valid tactic among several others for handling encounters. It added nice variety to gameplay.
Sorry, monk pulling was not my favorite, but I played a chanter most of the time so I'm rather biased
Forever looking for employment. Life is rather dull without it.
have a problem with all those saying you can always take your time to chat if want to....there will always be the jerk going eeerhm why arent we fighting, I dont really care if someone missed an update or whatever, they could just have paid attention...or something along those lines.
other than that I love when the game got power management, even if its hard to agree on what is neccesary. really miss the days of raiding where managing your power mattered.....fight fight fight only is boring to me.
I've had that issue in WoW (during WotLK), purposely pulling even when they knew the healer is afk. Fortunately paladins were god mode and I could practically solo everything anyways.
Of course, I've had that problem in EQ as well. "LoL, the tank has full life, we'll be fine!", followed by, "oops, I pulled the entire area!"
Forever looking for employment. Life is rather dull without it.
Kick the jerk. You have a CHOICE of whom you are playing with. Forcing people to do nothing is just BAD design.
Fight fight fight is LESS BORING than staring at a spell book.
Well, there is only a small percentage of people who like downtime .. it is CLOSE TO a bad design then. Aside from some vocal people here, i have yet met anyone who wants to do NOTHING in a MMORPG.
Like I said before, you *can* have more relaxed gameplay. Down-time is restrictive. You can always stop more in a game without down-time but you cannot stop less in one that has down-time.
Sure I wont play them except it would be a tragedy for a game that is good in other aspects to be marred from this one bad "feature" that few people want.
I think you shoud be more accurate in your statements. BAD design would be a game that no one likes.
You can certainly like a feature, or not like a feature.
But if you dislike a feature, it's not "bad design" if someone else likes it.
Again, if you like the fight, fight, fight, kthxbye game design, thats' fine. Play those games, enjoy them, and advocate for more of them to be made.
However, some people enjoy a game design that allows for more relaxed game play. If you dislike those games, then you should of course not play them.
However, I don't see the point in advocating they not be made. After all, such games will have no impact on you at all. You won't play them, and people liek you won't play them, so they are not competition for the games you like.
Well, there is only a small percentage of people who like downtime .. it is CLOSE TO a bad design then. Aside from some vocal people here, i have yet met anyone who wants to do NOTHING in a MMORPG.
Like I said before, you *can* have more relaxed gameplay. Down-time is restrictive. You can always stop more in a game without down-time but you cannot stop less in one that has down-time.
Sure I wont play them except it would be a tragedy for a game that is good in other aspects to be marred from this one bad "feature" that few people want.
If its keeping off people like you its GOOD design. Your small percentage idea is bullshit have you any (real) prove for that if not well I doubt it.
I'm all for downtime: med time, read time in order to learn your new spells, pull time, chat time aso.
We need a MMORPG Cataclysm asap, finish the dark age of MMORPGS now!
"Everything you're bitching about is wrong. People don't have the time to invest in corpse runs, impossible zones, or long winded quests. Sometimes, they just want to pop on and play."
"Then maybe MMORPGs aren't for you."
Was best in SWG going to cantinas and that, really fun to have a chat.
been there, done that and it was actually a great design concept in general.. I was a master musician, and met many new friends healing and buffing adventureres.. join a guild, got involved in the player city, owned my own Cantina.. etc etc.. None of which would of happened if it wasnt' for the "down" time forcing the players to come into the Cantina's to begin with..
Oh.. how I miss so much of the ole mmo style.. now it seems to be how fast can we shoot the ducks in the gallery..
In a game with no downtime, you can never stop to chat without losing XP because of it.
So there really isn't the "choice" you seem to think is there.
You can't "choose" to chat without losing XP, so you are FORCED to lose XP to chat. I don't want to be forced to lose XP to chat.
There is always a tradeoff in game design.
Usually people try to pretend that trade off doesn't exist, to justify the design they prefer, but it's always there.