While a floating fortress would be cool, you're kinda being short-sighted about your own features. (not trying to flame, just keep reading).
The system (as currently described) could certainly make for floating buildings, but what else can it do that you AREN'T thinking of?
I can think of a whole host of ways a system like that could be exploited in a manner harmful towards the game. First of all, it would be very hard to see why anyone would play anything except a mage given how powerful you are making them. Secondly, even if the only class in the game was a mage (and various kinds of mages) the ability to share mana alone could be exploited to make fights basically last forever. A mini-version of this happened in LotRO with their lore-master class.
Basically, cool idea, but the system needs a lot of balance-tweaks. Maybe just have mana channels that can be bound to an object, and you can charge them to do a number of things (from levetation to small energy leaching). Think it through, you've got endless possibilities at this point.
Ah ah, I based on my game on some fundamental concepts. One of them is no healing. So no fights last forever. Further there is no PvP. There are no classes either. You have to the words of power to cast magic and we limited how far out they can spread while remaining powerful.
I can tell you that I have considered many many ways to exploit the game systems. And I am more creative than your average person.
There are no mana pots per say, only non stackable regeneration increasers. Even if they were stacked you can spend mana much faster than you regenerate it.
Further the game has an open ended skill system. There are effective caps but not hard coded ones. This means that the best groups are based on specialists. So a player who spends most of his time as a mage couldn't even create an item with a high magic capacity to hold powerful enchantments or store lots of mana.
I could go on but I don't wanna write an off topic book.
Yes, players might come up with a game damaging strategy, but that happens in the most obsessively balanced themepark too.
wow they removed levitation skill from a single player game to preserve balance? what balance?.... since when a single player game with modding capabilities worry about balance? I havent seen levitation in Skyrim but if Bethesda dont add it in a DLC i hope a modder adds it. They forgot that mods fix unbalanced games and also can unbalance fixed games... they just didnt want levitation and removed it, which sux for them
wow they removed levitation skill from a single player game to preserve balance? what balance?.... since when a single player game with modding capabilities worry about balance? I havent seen levitation in Skyrim but if Bethesda dont add it in a DLC i hope a modder adds it. They forgot that mods fix unbalanced games and also can unbalance fixed games... they just didnt want levitation and removed it, which sux for them
I believe they said it messed up the game because of cities being in separate cells which is different from previous games.
wow they removed levitation skill from a single player game to preserve balance? what balance?.... since when a single player game with modding capabilities worry about balance? I havent seen levitation in Skyrim but if Bethesda dont add it in a DLC i hope a modder adds it. They forgot that mods fix unbalanced games and also can unbalance fixed games... they just didnt want levitation and removed it, which sux for them
Balance begets decisions begets fun.
Singleplayer or not, when something is overpowered, decisions are less interesting.
If a game offers a choice of spells or weapons each strengths/weaknesses, that's fun and interesting. If the same game adds a spell with no weaknesses and double the strengths of the next-best thing, all the other spells and weapons become meaningless. And instead of an interesting selection between playstyles you're left with "always choose X, because it's strongest" which is a lot less interesting (and therefore a lot less fun.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
wow they removed levitation skill from a single player game to preserve balance? what balance?.... since when a single player game with modding capabilities worry about balance? I havent seen levitation in Skyrim but if Bethesda dont add it in a DLC i hope a modder adds it. They forgot that mods fix unbalanced games and also can unbalance fixed games... they just didnt want levitation and removed it, which sux for them
Balance begets decisions begets fun.
Singleplayer or not, when something is overpowered, decisions are less interesting.
If a game offers a choice of spells or weapons each strengths/weaknesses, that's fun and interesting. If the same game adds a spell with no weaknesses and double the strengths of the next-best thing, all the other spells and weapons become meaningless. And instead of an interesting selection between playstyles you're left with "always choose X, because it's strongest" which is a lot less interesting (and therefore a lot less fun.)
Balance is not required for fun. Only the lack of knowledge of the optimal set of actions in the possibility space. Bethesda games are not at all balanced for instance. Decisions are interesting for other reasons.
In a direct PvP game it might be important to have balanced options, but not in any other game type.
Balance is not required for fun. Only the lack of knowledge of the optimal set of actions in the possibility space. Bethesda games are not at all balanced for instance. Decisions are interesting for other reasons.
In a direct PvP game it might be important to have balanced options, but not in any other game type.
Everywhere where that's true in Bethesda games is a failure to be fun when the system could've provided an interesting decision instead.
Like how combat is terrible in part due to the game-breaking trump cards (standing on a rock against a melee opponent, or having stealth above ~75.)
With balance, combat would've been interesting. Instead it falls flat.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I've made a lot of threads about crazy stuff I wanna do with my game, but you don't even know the half of it. I am going to give you some facts about my game and I want you to try and guess what crazy sandbox shenanigan I am up to now:
oh yes, I have heard a lot of stuff you want to do with your game, but I am more looking forward to the part where you get to actaly start working on the game and see that you can't put in 80% of the stuff you wrote due to money and or technological limitations
I think you think mud (container system) plus morrowind (enchants having mana) and lineage2 (mana batteries, buff reducing mana cost)
Anyways, as for balance, balance is important, where people usually get confused is what to take into account when considering balance, say ranger on a rock vs meelee - UNBALANCED! , but if the said ranger needs to train a extra very slow skill to be able to jump that rock, some mobs have heavy armor and thus are nearly immune - needs to buy costly enchanted arrows for them, ranged is slower in general, and so on, is it still so UNBALANCED?
Moreover, "beating the system" is fun, too, i mean, it CAN be fun to overenchant ones defense skill so one can tank mobs which would normally require a group and to spend a hour dpsing them down , just without the hour it becomes stupid, or if you are designwise in a dead end and one class can "enchant" its defense and a other cannot and they are same otherwise...
It works both ways. Sometimes the ambiguity and simplicity of game rules allow 'hidden features' for games. Some themeparks have it (existence of finisher skill in Cabal simply because of the way damage is applied in the game), some RTS games have it (animation cancelling in DotA), and sandboxes (Minecraft).
I've made a lot of threads about crazy stuff I wanna do with my game, but you don't even know the half of it. I am going to give you some facts about my game and I want you to try and guess what crazy sandbox shenanigan I am up to now:
oh yes, I have heard a lot of stuff you want to do with your game, but I am more looking forward to the part where you get to actaly start working on the game and see that you can't put in 80% of the stuff you wrote due to money and or technological limitations
Money and technical limitations are largely a product of graphics. Art assets take up the bulk of time and money in game design. Just ask tarn. Dwarf Fortress can do some crazy shit because its just ascii. I am not doing anything nearly as complex as the stuff in DF. Verily I can use superior graphics. Although not AAA level.
I can do every single thing I described already in text or even ascii display format already. Probably in sprites as well. It wouldn't even take that long. Maybe a year all by myself and about $1000 dollars.
Obviously the game isn't coming out tomorrow. Chill.
I think you think mud (container system) plus morrowind (enchants having mana) and lineage2 (mana batteries, buff reducing mana cost)
Anyways, as for balance, balance is important, where people usually get confused is what to take into account when considering balance, say ranger on a rock vs meelee - UNBALANCED! , but if the said ranger needs to train a extra very slow skill to be able to jump that rock, some mobs have heavy armor and thus are nearly immune - needs to buy costly enchanted arrows for them, ranged is slower in general, and so on, is it still so UNBALANCED?
Moreover, "beating the system" is fun, too, i mean, it CAN be fun to overenchant ones defense skill so one can tank mobs which would normally require a group and to spend a hour dpsing them down , just without the hour it becomes stupid, or if you are designwise in a dead end and one class can "enchant" its defense and a other cannot and they are same otherwise...
Well there are significant costs to having a sky fortress. Although they can be circumvented if you know what to do. And quite intentionally I might add. Its an aspect of the magic system to encourage players to travel through world gates. It comes with its own problems though because of the way the rift system, the origin of creatures, functions.
Honestly if someone gathers 100 mages and 900 crafters and spends the time to level skills and gather materials and keep batteries charged, thats a shitload of work they aren't using to do other things in the game. The most interesting decisions in the game are not in the day to day single player workings of the game. Building a sky fort to farm the kinds of monsters that can't ever hurt you is not a good use of resources.
Balance is not required for fun. Only the lack of knowledge of the optimal set of actions in the possibility space. Bethesda games are not at all balanced for instance. Decisions are interesting for other reasons.
In a direct PvP game it might be important to have balanced options, but not in any other game type.
Everywhere where that's true in Bethesda games is a failure to be fun when the system could've provided an interesting decision instead.
Like how combat is terrible in part due to the game-breaking trump cards (standing on a rock against a melee opponent, or having stealth above ~75.)
With balance, combat would've been interesting. Instead it falls flat.
You cannot possbily understand how wrong this is? Do you know how much fun I had creating a spell that can be shot at a spire and produce a pretty globe of color? Or a spell to draw instant aggro from a whole fort? Or a spell that acts like a short term lightning storm or wild fire? Or trying to see how high I could go by levitating? Or running across the sky with a fireshield up looking like a meteor?
You need to get off this bush league game crap and come join the Virtual World. Stop living in meatspace bro.
the whole concept is really nice .... but if fail to see where you want to go with this. Of course people will say this is impossible because the time factor required to implement this simple feature is astronomous unless you base a large part of your game around batteries and levitation.
Take for example Xsyon ... it is a masterpiece in itself ... year ahead of minecraft in term of world change but the problem is that it had to invest SO much time in the basic coding for allowing player to modify terrain that the rest of the game is made of the stuff that makes player run away. The goal here isn't to say it's impossible it's to say while your idea is great if it is too great it will completely drive away people .
Another good example is dragon nest wich is a great game but the major complaint is that the gender are class locked ... ( who cares right ? well i guess mmorpg REQUIRES you to be able to choose gender at any given time) and so you have to ask yourself wich feature are core and wich feature can be expanded upon.
You cannot possbily understand how wrong this is? Do you know how much fun I had creating a spell that can be shot at a spire and produce a pretty globe of color? Or a spell to draw instant aggro from a whole fort? Or a spell that acts like a short term lightning storm or wild fire? Or trying to see how high I could go by levitating? Or running across the sky with a fireshield up looking like a meteor?
You need to get off this bush league game crap and come join the Virtual World. Stop living in meatspace bro.
There's nothing wrong with customization when done in a balanced way. Only when it completely breaks game mechanics does it ruin the game.
Virtual worlds are crap. I'll take a game over a world anyday, because worlds tend to be shallow toys, easily broken.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You cannot possbily understand how wrong this is? Do you know how much fun I had creating a spell that can be shot at a spire and produce a pretty globe of color? Or a spell to draw instant aggro from a whole fort? Or a spell that acts like a short term lightning storm or wild fire? Or trying to see how high I could go by levitating? Or running across the sky with a fireshield up looking like a meteor?
You need to get off this bush league game crap and come join the Virtual World. Stop living in meatspace bro.
There's nothing wrong with customization when done in a balanced way. Only when it completely breaks game mechanics does it ruin the game.
Virtual worlds are crap. I'll take a game over a world anyday, because worlds tend to be shallow toys, easily broken.
Customization is good, yes.
But virtual worlds and games can both be very fun if they are made right, and crap if you mess them up. If a virtual world is easy to break it isn´t done correctly. Of course it is harder to make a good virtual world for more than a few players at the same time, but hard and impossible are 2 very different things.
I am not sure if Cauthons mechanics actually works or not because I only know the info about his game he have told us in threads like this and mechanics like that needs a lot of testing to work as intended, but trying doesn´t hurt.
Sandbox games usually have exactly the same problems as themepark games: almost all devs assume that you only can use the same mechanics and features everyone else already done. But already the old slow C-64 proved to us that the possibilities are almost limitless as long as you have imagination, patience and no fear of having to scrap the things that doesn´t work no matter what you do.
You cannot possbily understand how wrong this is? Do you know how much fun I had creating a spell that can be shot at a spire and produce a pretty globe of color? Or a spell to draw instant aggro from a whole fort? Or a spell that acts like a short term lightning storm or wild fire? Or trying to see how high I could go by levitating? Or running across the sky with a fireshield up looking like a meteor?
You need to get off this bush league game crap and come join the Virtual World. Stop living in meatspace bro.
There's nothing wrong with customization when done in a balanced way. Only when it completely breaks game mechanics does it ruin the game.
Virtual worlds are crap. I'll take a game over a world anyday, because worlds tend to be shallow toys, easily broken.
the whole concept is really nice .... but if fail to see where you want to go with this. Of course people will say this is impossible because the time factor required to implement this simple feature is astronomous unless you base a large part of your game around batteries and levitation.
Take for example Xsyon ... it is a masterpiece in itself ... year ahead of minecraft in term of world change but the problem is that it had to invest SO much time in the basic coding for allowing player to modify terrain that the rest of the game is made of the stuff that makes player run away. The goal here isn't to say it's impossible it's to say while your idea is great if it is too great it will completely drive away people .
Another good example is dragon nest wich is a great game but the major complaint is that the gender are class locked ... ( who cares right ? well i guess mmorpg REQUIRES you to be able to choose gender at any given time) and so you have to ask yourself wich feature are core and wich feature can be expanded upon.
The basic systems support this feature unintentionally. There is no dev time spent on anything particular to sky forts. What's more concerning is the amount of PLAYER time to maintain.
Hmm, well yeah absolutely. Very little in TOR has been a broken experience for me. The closest thing is that most mobs don't have reactable abilities so combat often plays out very much the same (but actually the variance occurs in the form of different packs having varied physical locations which causes reaction to take a different form than typical MMORPGs.) Also group conversations didn't pan out well and some craft skills (Armscraft) only make a trickle of best-in-slot items while leveling.
But apart from that it's a very functional, rather fun game.
Not really sure what you're hinting at. Certainly the last sandbox-ish MMO to release (Darkfall) had a much much worse launch. Not just monetarily/population wise but for the fact that it's a sandbox game based around progression and population and AFK-gathering and AFK-crafting and AFK-swimming. That's a lot of very broken gameplay which fails to offer players interesting decisions.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Hmm, well yeah absolutely. Very little in TOR has been a broken experience for me. The closest thing is that most mobs don't have reactable abilities so combat often plays out very much the same (but actually the variance occurs in the form of different packs having varied physical locations which causes reaction to take a different form than typical MMORPGs.) Also group conversations didn't pan out well and some craft skills (Armscraft) only make a trickle of best-in-slot items while leveling.
But apart from that it's a very functional, rather fun game.
Not really sure what you're hinting at. Certainly the last sandbox-ish MMO to release (Darkfall) had a much much worse launch. Not just monetarily/population wise but for the fact that it's a sandbox game based around progression and population and AFK-gathering and AFK-crafting and AFK-swimming. That's a lot of very broken gameplay which fails to offer players interesting decisions.
B. Despite playing for many hours (probably over 100 at this point) I honestly have no clue what "notable bugs" you're referring to. They must not be very notable.
The closest thing I can think of is sometimes it takes 1 second longer to loot mobs than it should if I try to loot immediately after combat ends. 1 lousy second. So the most noticeable bug isn't very notable at all because it's incredibly minor.
You're really stretching for reasons to dislike ToR. Why not accept that it's a well-made game whose primary flaws are mob variety and grouping accessibility?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
B. Despite playing for many hours (probably over 100 at this point) I honestly have no clue what "notable bugs" you're referring to. They must not be very notable.
The closest thing I can think of is sometimes it takes 1 second longer to loot mobs than it should if I try to loot immediately after combat ends. 1 lousy second. So the most noticeable bug isn't very notable at all because it's incredibly minor.
You're really stretching for reasons to dislike ToR. Why not accept that it's a well-made game whose primary flaws are mob variety and grouping accessibility?
That is a discussion for the TOR forum. Focus guys...
B. Despite playing for many hours (probably over 100 at this point) I honestly have no clue what "notable bugs" you're referring to. They must not be very notable.
The closest thing I can think of is sometimes it takes 1 second longer to loot mobs than it should if I try to loot immediately after combat ends. 1 lousy second. So the most noticeable bug isn't very notable at all because it's incredibly minor.
You're really stretching for reasons to dislike ToR. Why not accept that it's a well-made game whose primary flaws are mob variety and grouping accessibility?
Ilum bugs, animation bugs. Several other bugs. I don't even play ToR and this stuff is common knowledge.
B. Despite playing for many hours (probably over 100 at this point) I honestly have no clue what "notable bugs" you're referring to. They must not be very notable.
The closest thing I can think of is sometimes it takes 1 second longer to loot mobs than it should if I try to loot immediately after combat ends. 1 lousy second. So the most noticeable bug isn't very notable at all because it's incredibly minor.
You're really stretching for reasons to dislike ToR. Why not accept that it's a well-made game whose primary flaws are mob variety and grouping accessibility?
That is a discussion for the TOR forum. Focus guys...
This topic has pretty much run its course, why not have a nice derail. Who doesn't love derails?
That is a discussion for the TOR forum. Focus guys...
I might not care much for Cauthon veering the thread offtopic in this particular case, but I care even less for threads being locked for being "offtopic".
Conversation happens. Let it.
Unless things become truly nasty (personal attacks) or overly repetitive, let conversation happen. (Overly repetitive meaning I don't much care to see threads locked just because one single thread exists in some random other part of the site which half the time is less active than the one running here in The Pub.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Just going for the topic, but overly complicated systems can also hide disappointingly simple solutions in games. I'm tired of seeing this in games. Too many players are in the illusion that complexity makes a complex and deep game - and this is obviously not true.
If I would design a game, I would constantly ask myself if a feature really had any gameplay value or is it just a needless hassle. I'd much rather have a simple, elegant solution.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Comments
Ah ah, I based on my game on some fundamental concepts. One of them is no healing. So no fights last forever. Further there is no PvP. There are no classes either. You have to the words of power to cast magic and we limited how far out they can spread while remaining powerful.
I can tell you that I have considered many many ways to exploit the game systems. And I am more creative than your average person.
There are no mana pots per say, only non stackable regeneration increasers. Even if they were stacked you can spend mana much faster than you regenerate it.
Further the game has an open ended skill system. There are effective caps but not hard coded ones. This means that the best groups are based on specialists. So a player who spends most of his time as a mage couldn't even create an item with a high magic capacity to hold powerful enchantments or store lots of mana.
I could go on but I don't wanna write an off topic book.
Yes, players might come up with a game damaging strategy, but that happens in the most obsessively balanced themepark too.
wow they removed levitation skill from a single player game to preserve balance? what balance?.... since when a single player game with modding capabilities worry about balance? I havent seen levitation in Skyrim but if Bethesda dont add it in a DLC i hope a modder adds it. They forgot that mods fix unbalanced games and also can unbalance fixed games... they just didnt want levitation and removed it, which sux for them
I believe they said it messed up the game because of cities being in separate cells which is different from previous games.
Balance begets decisions begets fun.
Singleplayer or not, when something is overpowered, decisions are less interesting.
If a game offers a choice of spells or weapons each strengths/weaknesses, that's fun and interesting. If the same game adds a spell with no weaknesses and double the strengths of the next-best thing, all the other spells and weapons become meaningless. And instead of an interesting selection between playstyles you're left with "always choose X, because it's strongest" which is a lot less interesting (and therefore a lot less fun.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Balance is not required for fun. Only the lack of knowledge of the optimal set of actions in the possibility space. Bethesda games are not at all balanced for instance. Decisions are interesting for other reasons.
In a direct PvP game it might be important to have balanced options, but not in any other game type.
Everywhere where that's true in Bethesda games is a failure to be fun when the system could've provided an interesting decision instead.
Like how combat is terrible in part due to the game-breaking trump cards (standing on a rock against a melee opponent, or having stealth above ~75.)
With balance, combat would've been interesting. Instead it falls flat.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
oh yes, I have heard a lot of stuff you want to do with your game, but I am more looking forward to the part where you get to actaly start working on the game and see that you can't put in 80% of the stuff you wrote due to money and or technological limitations
What you are thinking?
I think you think mud (container system) plus morrowind (enchants having mana) and lineage2 (mana batteries, buff reducing mana cost)
Anyways, as for balance, balance is important, where people usually get confused is what to take into account when considering balance, say ranger on a rock vs meelee - UNBALANCED! , but if the said ranger needs to train a extra very slow skill to be able to jump that rock, some mobs have heavy armor and thus are nearly immune - needs to buy costly enchanted arrows for them, ranged is slower in general, and so on, is it still so UNBALANCED?
Moreover, "beating the system" is fun, too, i mean, it CAN be fun to overenchant ones defense skill so one can tank mobs which would normally require a group and to spend a hour dpsing them down
, just without the hour it becomes stupid, or if you are designwise in a dead end and one class can "enchant" its defense and a other cannot and they are same otherwise...
It works both ways. Sometimes the ambiguity and simplicity of game rules allow 'hidden features' for games. Some themeparks have it (existence of finisher skill in Cabal simply because of the way damage is applied in the game), some RTS games have it (animation cancelling in DotA), and sandboxes (Minecraft).
My Blog About Hellgate Global, an ARPG/FPS hybrid MMO:
http://kashiewannaplay.wordpress.com/
Hellgate Global Official Fan Blog
http://t3funhellgate.wordpress.com/
Currently Playing: Hellgate Global, LoL, Skyrim, Morrowind
Recently Played: Cardmon Hero, Cabal, Oblivion
Money and technical limitations are largely a product of graphics. Art assets take up the bulk of time and money in game design. Just ask tarn. Dwarf Fortress can do some crazy shit because its just ascii. I am not doing anything nearly as complex as the stuff in DF. Verily I can use superior graphics. Although not AAA level.
I can do every single thing I described already in text or even ascii display format already. Probably in sprites as well. It wouldn't even take that long. Maybe a year all by myself and about $1000 dollars.
Obviously the game isn't coming out tomorrow. Chill.
Well there are significant costs to having a sky fortress. Although they can be circumvented if you know what to do. And quite intentionally I might add. Its an aspect of the magic system to encourage players to travel through world gates. It comes with its own problems though because of the way the rift system, the origin of creatures, functions.
Honestly if someone gathers 100 mages and 900 crafters and spends the time to level skills and gather materials and keep batteries charged, thats a shitload of work they aren't using to do other things in the game. The most interesting decisions in the game are not in the day to day single player workings of the game. Building a sky fort to farm the kinds of monsters that can't ever hurt you is not a good use of resources.
You cannot possbily understand how wrong this is? Do you know how much fun I had creating a spell that can be shot at a spire and produce a pretty globe of color? Or a spell to draw instant aggro from a whole fort? Or a spell that acts like a short term lightning storm or wild fire? Or trying to see how high I could go by levitating? Or running across the sky with a fireshield up looking like a meteor?
You need to get off this bush league game crap and come join the Virtual World. Stop living in meatspace bro.
the whole concept is really nice .... but if fail to see where you want to go with this. Of course people will say this is impossible because the time factor required to implement this simple feature is astronomous unless you base a large part of your game around batteries and levitation.
Take for example Xsyon ... it is a masterpiece in itself ... year ahead of minecraft in term of world change but the problem is that it had to invest SO much time in the basic coding for allowing player to modify terrain that the rest of the game is made of the stuff that makes player run away. The goal here isn't to say it's impossible it's to say while your idea is great if it is too great it will completely drive away people .
Another good example is dragon nest wich is a great game but the major complaint is that the gender are class locked ... ( who cares right ? well i guess mmorpg REQUIRES you to be able to choose gender at any given time) and so you have to ask yourself wich feature are core and wich feature can be expanded upon.
There's nothing wrong with customization when done in a balanced way. Only when it completely breaks game mechanics does it ruin the game.
Virtual worlds are crap. I'll take a game over a world anyday, because worlds tend to be shallow toys, easily broken.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Customization is good, yes.
But virtual worlds and games can both be very fun if they are made right, and crap if you mess them up. If a virtual world is easy to break it isn´t done correctly. Of course it is harder to make a good virtual world for more than a few players at the same time, but hard and impossible are 2 very different things.
I am not sure if Cauthons mechanics actually works or not because I only know the info about his game he have told us in threads like this and mechanics like that needs a lot of testing to work as intended, but trying doesn´t hurt.
Sandbox games usually have exactly the same problems as themepark games: almost all devs assume that you only can use the same mechanics and features everyone else already done. But already the old slow C-64 proved to us that the possibilities are almost limitless as long as you have imagination, patience and no fear of having to scrap the things that doesn´t work no matter what you do.
Um, as opposed to SWTOR with its flawless launch?
The basic systems support this feature unintentionally. There is no dev time spent on anything particular to sky forts. What's more concerning is the amount of PLAYER time to maintain.
Hmm, well yeah absolutely. Very little in TOR has been a broken experience for me. The closest thing is that most mobs don't have reactable abilities so combat often plays out very much the same (but actually the variance occurs in the form of different packs having varied physical locations which causes reaction to take a different form than typical MMORPGs.) Also group conversations didn't pan out well and some craft skills (Armscraft) only make a trickle of best-in-slot items while leveling.
But apart from that it's a very functional, rather fun game.
Not really sure what you're hinting at. Certainly the last sandbox-ish MMO to release (Darkfall) had a much much worse launch. Not just monetarily/population wise but for the fact that it's a sandbox game based around progression and population and AFK-gathering and AFK-crafting and AFK-swimming. That's a lot of very broken gameplay which fails to offer players interesting decisions.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
TOR had several notable bugs.
A. Every game has several notable bugs at launch.
B. Despite playing for many hours (probably over 100 at this point) I honestly have no clue what "notable bugs" you're referring to. They must not be very notable.
The closest thing I can think of is sometimes it takes 1 second longer to loot mobs than it should if I try to loot immediately after combat ends. 1 lousy second. So the most noticeable bug isn't very notable at all because it's incredibly minor.
You're really stretching for reasons to dislike ToR. Why not accept that it's a well-made game whose primary flaws are mob variety and grouping accessibility?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
That is a discussion for the TOR forum. Focus guys...
Ilum bugs, animation bugs. Several other bugs. I don't even play ToR and this stuff is common knowledge.
This topic has pretty much run its course, why not have a nice derail. Who doesn't love derails?
I might not care much for Cauthon veering the thread offtopic in this particular case, but I care even less for threads being locked for being "offtopic".
Conversation happens. Let it.
Unless things become truly nasty (personal attacks) or overly repetitive, let conversation happen. (Overly repetitive meaning I don't much care to see threads locked just because one single thread exists in some random other part of the site which half the time is less active than the one running here in The Pub.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Just going for the topic, but overly complicated systems can also hide disappointingly simple solutions in games. I'm tired of seeing this in games. Too many players are in the illusion that complexity makes a complex and deep game - and this is obviously not true.
If I would design a game, I would constantly ask myself if a feature really had any gameplay value or is it just a needless hassle. I'd much rather have a simple, elegant solution.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky