Originally posted by Kaos&Light Class differences should be a matter of style, not of power. It is stupid to say to the newbie "You must play a warrior until you learn the game." It is even more stupid to say to the veteran "Now that you know how to survive, you must play a mage or you'll be gimped."
I understand your point here.
But this is NOT what I'm talking about. I'm saying there should be balance between all classes. If played correctly, then any class should be able to take out any other class (of equal level ofcourse). But that's just it man... IF PLAYED CORRECTLY Skill and challenge needs to come back into the mmo picture if you ask me. And this means putting things back in like reagents and the requirement to straff to avoid the mages bolts as a warrior, etc etc. Nowdays its just all about tapping the same hot keys over and over. In AC, the mages war bolts were devastating. But only if hit. And those bolts could be avoided with skills in dodging those bolts of ice or fire. Nowdays it don't matter cuz the mage just hits his little hotkey and picks his nose cuz the bolt curves and follows its target whereever it goes. Even if the target runs behind a tree, the spell curves behind the tree and hits. This is what im talking about. No skill, no challenge. Just hotkeys and who can hit them the fastest.
Originally posted by Gouki4u I completely on board with the idea that mages need more depth in MMOs. I hate the idea of them just being nuke spammers, and the primary damage dealer. Call me crazy but every class should be able to deal damage, but I'm getting off track here.The nuke spamming wizard prevalent in todays MMOs might as well be a guy with a giant gun. One of the things I loved about D&D (yeah the PnP version) was the fact wizards could be so versatile. They had spells that did stuff besides nuke things.
I agree with that. One of the things I didn't like about D&D was the fact that only wizards could have that versatility. (Okay, it wasn't *quite* that bad... Clerics were potentially up there too, with thieves running not quite out of the running.) One of the things I loved about third edition was that they attempted to change that; didn't *quite* succeed, but they came close.
Originally posted by zaxtor99 Originally posted by Kaos&Light Class differences should be a matter of style, not of power. It is stupid to say to the newbie "You must play a warrior until you learn the game." It is even more stupid to say to the veteran "Now that you know how to survive, you must play a mage or you'll be gimped."
I understand your point here.
But this is NOT what I'm talking about. I'm saying there should be balance between all classes. If played correctly, then any class should be able to take out any other class (of equal level ofcourse). But that's just it man... IF PLAYED CORRECTLY Skill and challenge needs to come back into the mmo picture if you ask me.
Now, that I can agree with.
Must have been all that talk about the 'traditional model' that confused me.
Traditional, old-school model: warrior ruled the early game, wizard ruled the end game, both were practically useless outside their domination-period. Quantity of end-game wizards was kept down only because it was difficult to get one there; quantity of early-game warriors kept down because they lacked long-term potential and were seen as "for noobs who can't play a wizard yet."
Originally posted by LordDarkmist Organization is an alternative playstyle... Given, some people do like it, but not everyone does... Just leave it to the crafters... I play mages, because there's spells that targets ground, AOE, range attack, etc... And you have to atleast think a little more than a warrior in typical mmorpgs to get the maximum impact... In otherwords, there's a little tactics in there...
That, to me, indicates that there's a problem with warriors in the games you've been playing; they've been gimped.
Playing a high-level warriors should involve just as much tactics as playing a high-level mage. It should not be "I'll just stand here and smash until one of us falls..." or worse - "I'll just stand here soaking damage and hope I don't die before the wizard wins the battle for me."
Just about all games are like that... A heavily armoured guy with a melee weapon will just fight upfront... A mage( or any range class) has to worry about position, distance from foe, etc... But then again I just realized it may be just an opinion of mine that melee uses less... The only mmorpg I've played that I would say is an exception would be GW... But just about all the others like WOW, I'd say there's less for the melees... (less available tactics doesn't mean gimped... In fact melee are stronger in some games)
So anyone else reminded of all those "I gm'd taming, it was very hard so now I DESERVE to run around with 10 white wyrms spamming all kill" posts? Actual player skill over easy mode classes and skills, thank you so very much. Who the hell cares if a skill wasn't easy to raise, player skill should decide the fights, not how much time you wasted in PVE or how much money you spent on those regs.
Originally posted by LordDarkmist Just about all games are like that... A heavily armoured guy with a melee weapon will just fight upfront... A mage( or any range class) has to worry about position, distance from foe, etc... But then again I just realized it may be just an opinion of mine that melee uses less... The only mmorpg I've played that I would say is an exception would be GW... But just about all the others like WOW, I'd say there's less for the melees... (less available tactics doesn't mean gimped... In fact melee are stronger in some games)
You're right that most games are like this, and it drives me crazy.
I don't object to the melee fighter being up front. I object to him being a meat shield who does nothing useful besides manage aggro. Maybe if wizards were not such nuke-bots warrior could be useful again.
Meh. I think the entire MMO genre need re-thinking.
When people will pay others to play a game for them it might be a sign the game isn't all that fun.
Originally posted by Achire So anyone else reminded of all those "I gm'd taming, it was very hard so now I DESERVE to run around with 10 white wyrms spamming all kill" posts? Actual player skill over easy mode classes and skills, thank you so very much. Who the hell cares if a skill wasn't easy to raise, player skill should decide the fights, not how much time you wasted in PVE or how much money you spent on those regs.
Oh god, yes. And always they would cite 'balance over time, ala oD&D' as their justification.
I was so glad 3e D&D tried to move away from that model, so I could slap them in the face with it and say "See, even D&D has seen the futility of that approach."
I still say that mages should require components to cast off their spells. Not only does this add depth to the game, it helps the economy and trade between players as well. Remember UO and all the player vendors that sold regs at about double price or more in key areas, especially like right outside of a dungeon or at the crossroads?
Regs to a mage is almost like bullets required for a gun. To say no regs required for the devastating spells a mage might cast is like having an archer that requires no arrows and can shoot limitless arrows without hesitation. Some might argue for no arrows and no regs... but then we end up with much more of an arcade style game then we do a massive multiplayer RPG. Along with this, we could say that the warriors armor and weapons should never, ever take damage or wear and tear and need a smith to repair them. I mean if mages don't need regs, then why should a warrior have to worry about repairing his weapons? I think the warrior should have to fix his stuff to prevent ultimate destruction of his goods. All of these added elements only adds to the game. If I want an arcade shooting style game with no restrictions, I'll play Cabelas Deer Hunter or some BS, not an mmorpg.
Speaking along the lines of balance between warriors and mages, another balance factor is low hit points and typically low STR for a mage, where a warrior not only can carry plate armor to protect vs attacks but also can almost plow thru enemies with much higher health hit points. Some of you are saying that such balances are silly and that mages should also be allowed to run around in plate armor and cast spells and swing axes. To this, I say that you are silly and this freedom only creates so much similarities in all the classes, soon with such freedoms... why even choose a class at all? No. Classes need to have distinct weaknesses and strengths to differentiate them from each other. A mage might be able to wear plate armor, but it should have devastating disadvantages to him, perhaps causing 3 times the casting time needed, and slowing the weak mage down to a crawl.. almost so much disatvantage as to make the mage look really silly in plate armor.
Imagine this for moment... A mage works his way deep into a dragons den and discovers the mighty red dragon hording chests and gold galore. Quickly the mage checks his mana supply and spell books and begins an articulate pattern of high damage spells at the mighty dragon. The dragons fire damage is highly reduced because of previously self-casted fire shield buffs the mage cast just before entering the cave from the forest. After 15 minutes of self healing spells and damage casting spells, the dragon gets down to only a sliver of health remaining and finally charges the mage! As the dragons claws prepare to strike the unprotected mages cloth armor and low hit points for serious damage, the mage does a quick check of mana... Just enough for one last "ice dagger" spell right into the heart of the charging dragons chest! Wahooo exclaims the mage as he can already picture the dragon dropping to its death just before its mighty claw attack. "Por Sa Incibik" come the deadly words of magic from the mages lips in exhaustion of the long battle. A hissing sound is heard as the spell fizzles! AH NO! "I ran out of "Ashen pine" cries the mage just before the angry dragons claws hit the mages ragged body in almost a combo punch. The mage falls to the dragon in a defeated slump as the victorious dragon slashes his tail and breaths fire on the slain human corpse in a celebration of survival.
...Think our poor mage just might stock up on "Ashen pine" the next time he ventures into the depths of this cavern for a rematch with the mighty red dragon?? Think that just perhaps this has added more depth and another element to this mages game plan? This mage is going to be that much more determined to beat that damn lucky dragon next time, heh. In fact, if the npc mage vendor happens to be all out of ashen pine, I'd be willing to bet that this mage will be willing to give up a great deal in a trade with a player that just happens to have some extra regs stashed away.
Especially since the "MMORPG for Dummies" a.k.a. World of Warcraft has been released (to massive popularity).
Unfortunately, we are likely to get more of the same, since Devs will see the success of WoW and pattern new games after it.
Here's the deal:
Back in the "old days," games were complex and had a steep learning curve so that newbies pretty much had to ask newbie questions for simple things, like how to scratch their ass.
Some complained.
Travel. Waaah! It's too hard. It's too time-consuming. Response: Travel was made "easy."
Magic. Waaah! Too hard to learn all those spells and carry reagents. Response: Dumb-down magic use.
Game is too hard to learn for newbies. Waaah! Response: Long tutorials so you would know how to scratch your ass when you finished.
Don't want to search or ask where Quest NPCs are. Don't want complex quests. Don't want to have to "learn" how to do stuff. Waaah! Response: Hand-holding games like WoW.
Old-style games: Steep learning curve, much to learn, took time to become proficient and knowledgeable, hard to master, end-game payoff was HUGE.
New-style games: Virtually NO learning curve, little to learn, takes little time to become proficient and knowledgeable (since there is so little to learn), easy to master, virtually NO end-game payoff whatsoever (welcome to: Raid The Same Instance Over and Over Ad Naseum).
Death penalty too harsh? NP, we'll make it a slap on the wrist.
PvP too rough? NP, we'll make it meaningless slaughter.
Crafting too hard? NP, we'll make it so a chimp can do it.
Money too difficult to accumulate? NP, we'll practically GIVE you all the good stuff.
Rares too hard to find? NP, we'll make them drop like manna from heaven.
Archers don't want to make or carry arrows? NP, *POOF* no more need for arrows at all!
Mages don't want to carry reagents? NP, *POOF* no more need for reagents at all!
***
Games have been made easier and easier to accomodate the "casual" player. Unfortunately, Blizzard has shown this to be highly profitable.
People nowdays hate challenge in their games. Proof is in the high volume of cheat codes published, and the fact that most console games are almost considered unfinished unless they contain cheat codes that take away much or all of that games challenge.
Like you, I agree that these dumb-downed games which contain such a small challenge to master is almost like people wanting to watch a good movie, but then saying that sitting there for 2 hours watching the movie is too challenging.. and demanding their friend tell them the ending of the movie. By hearing what happens at the end of a good movie, and by taking all the challenge out of mmos has exactly the same result. So much potential fun, excitment, and sense of belonging and understanding is missed.
Originally posted by Kaos&Light [quote]Originally posted by zaxtor99 [b]The typical mmorpg mage or wizard. Typically starts out really weak, but ends up by one as one of the most powerful, most damage dealing types of character one can play. Typically gets by with cloth robes or even rags which are MUCH more affordable then the gleaming swords, sparkling metal armor suits worn by the warrior types. Anyone can play a hack and slash warrior. Even a dumb ox. [][quote] Only if there's something seriously wrong with the implementation of the warrior class/archetype. Tho the fact that you are right fairly often is another rant altogether. A good, thinking warrior-type should be both as challenging to play, and as effective to play, as a good, thinking mage-type.
...This is where reagents come into play. In both Ultima Online and Asherons Call, the reagents were usually very costly to obtain.
Eh? Maybe in AC, but in UO you could bloody well get them for free if you wanted to spend the time.
Surely someone out there agrees with me that challenge is a good thing... especially when playing one of the most devastating roles in a game.
- Zaxx
I disagree with the concept of making one class more powerful in the end game and 'balancing' it by making it harder for that class to get there (tho I don't mind so much the idea of one class being devestating at range and a pushover in melee.) Conan, the ultimate 'warrior' archetype, took on his fair share of mages.
wtf? how can you compare a character from a book, where the author had total control over everything, to a character in a mmorpg where the player only has control of his own character?
Originally posted by zaxtor99 you say "Thank God" about how great the current mmo's are today like you've ever even played AC1 or the pre-trammel Ultima Online.You should really try to speak about things you actually KNOW about sir.'Tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool then to speak and remove all doubt.- Zaxx
So people who disagree with Zaxx maybe thought of as fools? I'll remain silent and maintain some doubt. :P
----------------------- Past MMOs- Planetside, WoW. Current MMO: Current Games: L4D, Skyrim Tried- ATITD, EQ2, SoR, Vanguard,SL,LOTRO,SotNW,SWTOR. Anticipating- GW2, Planetside2
Originally posted by Huntn So people who disagree with Zaxx maybe thought of as fools? I'll remain silent and maintain some doubt. :P
LOL... ofcourse not. Everyone certainly has their prefrence in this, and my prefrences are obviously not the mainstream nowdays...otherwise WoW wouldn't be the top mmorpg.
I quoted the old famous quote about "being better to remain silent and be thought a fool then to speak and remove all doubt" only in reference to a young teenager who posted acted like he played the old games like UO and AC like I speak of, when it is pretty obvious that he has never even set foot in the old classics.
Originally posted by zaxtor99The typical mmorpg mage or wizard. Typically starts out really weak, but ends up by one as one of the most powerful, most damage dealing types of character one can play. Typically gets by with cloth robes or even rags which are MUCH more affordable then the gleaming swords, sparkling metal armor suits worn by the warrior types. Anyone can play a hack and slash warrior. Even a dumb ox. [][quote] Only if there's something seriously wrong with the implementation of the warrior class/archetype.Tho the fact that you are right fairly often is another rant altogether. A good, thinking warrior-type should be both as challenging to play, and as effective to play, as a good, thinking mage-type....This is where reagents come into play. In both Ultima Online and Asherons Call, the reagents were usually very costly to obtain. Eh?Maybe in AC, but in UO you could bloody well get them for free if you wanted to spend the time.Surely someone out there agrees with me that challenge is a good thing... especially when playing one of the most devastating roles in a game. - ZaxxI disagree with the concept of making one class more powerful in the end game and 'balancing' it by making it harder for that class to get there (tho I don't mind so much the idea of one class being devestating at range and a pushover in melee.) Conan, the ultimate 'warrior' archetype, took on his fair share of mages. wtf? how can you compare a character from a book, where the author had total control over everything, to a character in a mmorpg where the player only has control of his own character?
When discussing a genre of gaming built around the concept of playing out the type of stories found in the books? Very easily. One simply says "Why build a game to emulate <x> type of story where mages rule and require armies to defeat, instead of this other type of story where mages and warriors could both be extremely powerful and feared?"
Note: one does not say "Conan never got defeated, why can't my warrior be invincible too?" THAT would be a very stupid comparison.
Originally posted by zaxtor99 Originally posted by Huntn So people who disagree with Zaxx maybe thought of as fools? I'll remain silent and maintain some doubt. :P
LOL... ofcourse not. Everyone certainly has their prefrence in this, and my prefrences are obviously not the mainstream nowdays...otherwise WoW wouldn't be the top mmorpg.
I quoted the old famous quote about "being better to remain silent and be thought a fool then to speak and remove all doubt" only in reference to a young teenager who posted acted like he played the old games like UO and AC like I speak of, when it is pretty obvious that he has never even set foot in the old classics.
- Zaxx
Planetside was my first MMO, WoW was my second, but first fantasy based MMORPG. I never had the opportunity to mess with regents. So I don't feel any indignity over the situation you describe. I recently played the NWN demo and was flabbergasted that I had to pull out a scroll to cast a spell. What an inconvienence!
I liked WoW for over a year, but the level 60 gameplay in combination with cumulative effects of grind did me in. I am in search of a new worthy MMO and started a most anticipated mmo thread where I outline what I need in a MMO to hold my interest. Currently Hero's Journey is holding my attention as a possible successor.
-Hunt'n
----------------------- Past MMOs- Planetside, WoW. Current MMO: Current Games: L4D, Skyrim Tried- ATITD, EQ2, SoR, Vanguard,SL,LOTRO,SotNW,SWTOR. Anticipating- GW2, Planetside2
[quote]Originally posted by zaxtor99 Please put some challenge and risk back in the wizard/mage role.
Surely someone out there agrees with me that challenge is a good thing... especially when playing one of the most devastating roles in a game.
- Zaxx[/b][/quote]
I fully agree with you just for a part.
i play Knight Online and like most people; i know that mages are weak at the begin and that they become stronger and stronger untill they are the most powerfull wiards that hit most damage.
by most mmorpgs its just like: click on the cast icon and wait till you damage the monster. now i made up something that might solve this.
what about 2 attack styles; automatic and advanced.
Automatic: like in most mmorpgs, click on the cast item, wait till you do some damage and eventualy gain some xp, and then all over and over, one click is enough and it 'clicks' automaticaly on the cast icon untill the creature has died. Advanced: familiar to automatic but with more action! what i mean is: you click on the cast icon, and move with your mouse to the creature and hit the left mouse button, with a great special effect (people love this you know) if the creature didnt die, it will attack you. if you dont run away you might get killed and lose your items, i think there arn't many people who want that, this keaps people busy. the monster should give allot of experience, but this still doesnt make it easy to level up.
lets say a giant chicken gives 100xp, if your combat level is 1, you'll need 2100 xp to level up to combat level 2. Lets say your a sorcerer or a mage or a wizard, you can cast a spell called lightning blast, you do 40 xp damage to the giant chicken, this means you have to cast that spell about 3 times to kill the giant chicken, if your quick (here's a lil bit action) you can kill him quickly without losing much damage, if your hp is low you have to run away (good action).
and you havent gained the xp cuz you didnt kill the monster, so you might wanna try again with critical low hp, this is good action. unfortunately it won't be fair if your in a clan and you lost all your expensive health and mp potions to do allot of damage on a monster and you would suddenly die and your clan members kill the monster and gain the xp, heres what you can do in this case: if you die let the computer calculate the damage you did so you still get the xp, but ONLY incase you die, because if you gain xp in every hit (like on runescape) then there will be less action, this makes it boring.
what about the loot? if theres a good drop, everyone wants it afcourse, people usualy make trouble about this, heres what you can do in this case: you can let the monsters drop only things that can be shared, lets say, theres a clan of 5 people that is killing a black dragon, at the end it dies and drops 5000 credits, or gold pieces, this can be easily shared. but what if a black dragon drops only one good sword? one good sword can't be shared, this is always the problem, people always make trouble about this, what you can do is the following: let the dragon drop 5 good swords.... no wait, dont do this, it will kill the econemy, uhm.... maybe this: the person who did the most damage gets it, this makes it fair, cuz did the most, but what if your a mage and you hit like 250 while a warrior thats a lower level then the mage hits 125 twice as slow? you can't do much about this, the best you can do is make clans only available to people who are almost the same level, or better warriors, so it would be fair. so lets keap it simple, the mage is level 20, and the warrior level 30, the mage hits just as much as the level 30 warrior, but hes allot weaker, but the warrior can easily survive, but he hits just as much as the lvl 20 mage.
Alex, I like your thinking and your train of thought.
I'd like to comment on the shared loot bit though. You give an example of 5 players in a group who all kill a dragon where 5,000 gold is dropped and an awesome sword. I agree with you that simply having that dragon drop 5 swords for a 5 person group and 7 swords for a 7 person group would absolutely KILL the ecomomy and make that special rare sword not quite so special. You suggest that the person dealing the most damage gets it. Well, that obviously won't work well either bud. What if you have a wizard, a necromancer, two tanks, and a cleric. In big challenging battles, lets pretend that only good teamwork sustain the groups survival. So lets assume for a moment that the necro is using a spell to suck power from the dragon and can then transfer this power (mana) to the wizard and/or the cleric for damage and healing spells respectively. And the warriors are chopping away getting a good deal of damage dealt to them in return.. so the mighty cleric is constanlty healing them keeping them alive and chopping away at the dragons health. Meanwhile the wizzy is sitting back just bombarding this beast with high level fireballs and lightning damage from hell. The wizzy is likely gonna get every good loot item dropped in every battle, despite all the good teamwork that is keeping the group intact expecially from the necro and the cleric.
The only fair way to do this I believe is much the same as Mythics Dark Age of Camelot where loot items are dropped randomly. The only thing I might add for really special and rare drops is a question asked to the winning group member on whether they want to keep the sword or let it pass. Or you could even add in a quick game for super loot drops where every party member as asked to click a button to roll some on screen dice. There is a visual of a two dice roll, and then all party members two dice landing is shown to all members, the highest roll is highlighted and it is announced that "party member X wins the great sword of lightning!" This is still random ofcourse, but would create a little more sense of fair competition for the party members. Obviously if the dice roll method or something similar is used, the game might wanna create some sort of a pause instance for the group so they aren't getting attacked by other mobs while they compete for the loot.
Originally posted by zaxtor99 Alex, I like your thinking and your train of thought.I'd like to comment on the shared loot bit though. You give an example of 5 players in a group who all kill a dragon where 5,000 gold is dropped and an awesome sword. I agree with you that simply having that dragon drop 5 swords for a 5 person group and 7 swords for a 7 person group would absolutely KILL the ecomomy and make that special rare sword not quite so special. You suggest that the person dealing the most damage gets it. Well, that obviously won't work well either bud. What if you have a wizard, a necromancer, two tanks, and a cleric. In big challenging battles, lets pretend that only good teamwork sustain the groups survival. So lets assume for a moment that the necro is using a spell to suck power from the dragon and can then transfer this power (mana) to the wizard and/or the cleric for damage and healing spells respectively. And the warriors are chopping away getting a good deal of damage dealt to them in return.. so the mighty cleric is constanlty healing them keeping them alive and chopping away at the dragons health. Meanwhile the wizzy is sitting back just bombarding this beast with high level fireballs and lightning damage from hell. The wizzy is likely gonna get every good loot item dropped in every battle, despite all the good teamwork that is keeping the group intact expecially from the necro and the cleric.The only fair way to do this I believe is much the same as Mythics Dark Age of Camelot where loot items are dropped randomly. The only thing I might add for really special and rare drops is a question asked to the winning group member on whether they want to keep the sword or let it pass. Or you could even add in a quick game for super loot drops where every party member as asked to click a button to roll some on screen dice. There is a visual of a two dice roll, and then all party members two dice landing is shown to all members, the highest roll is highlighted and it is announced that "party member X wins the great sword of lightning!" This is still random ofcourse, but would create a little more sense of fair competition for the party members. Obviously if the dice roll method or something similar is used, the game might wanna create some sort of a pause instance for the group so they aren't getting attacked by other mobs while they compete for the loot. - Zaxx
i see your point. i played runescape before, and in that game you cannot form a party or a clan, when people fight together and kill a black dragon the person who did the most damage automaticaly gets all the loot. but thats also because theres only one playable race (human).
most people always want the loot, almost every person does. if there are more or maybe even many playable races, it all gets more and more complicated. ok lets say 5 people kill a black dragon, they get 1 great lightsword and 2500 gold pieces, so the loot is:
-1 great sword -2500 gold pieces
5 people cannot share this afcourse (they can only share the gold pieces, its very important to have something like an auto share option that cannot be disabled and that is invisible to players, because there are people who dont share afcourse). the priest who heals didnt do any damage so it wont be fair if the one who did the most damage gets the great sword. what you can do in this case is: teleport or walk to the city or castle and sell the sword (or like you said, i like that idea). If the sword who was dropped by the dragon that was killed by the 5 players cost 6348 (better if items cost more like 6000 or 6500) and they sell it, they would get a number of gold pieces that can be shared, but this number will be VERY close to the origional gp.
Originally posted by zaxtor99 The only fair way to do this I believe is much the same as Mythics Dark Age of Camelot where loot items are dropped randomly.
Although my experience to fantasy MMORPG titles is limited, just WoW, WoW's loot system is hard to beat imo. It's very fair, it has options, "round robin", "group loot", "roll for need", "roll for greed". Some parts of it require trust, everyone passes on blue items or Bind on Pickup items then discuss it. And for the very high value items that bosses drop, the party leader can switch to master looter so no one ninjas high value drops.
-Hunt'n
----------------------- Past MMOs- Planetside, WoW. Current MMO: Current Games: L4D, Skyrim Tried- ATITD, EQ2, SoR, Vanguard,SL,LOTRO,SotNW,SWTOR. Anticipating- GW2, Planetside2
Another point... the title of this topic "No reagents required??? WTF" implies that it is unrealistic or stupid to have a game with reagentless magic. I wonder just how experienced with real magic the poster is?
Point is, there's no reason to assume that if magic did exist it would require reagents to perform... you're confusing magic with potion-making.
I never played UO, but i played AC for a long time. ACs magic system was alot cooler than any other game i've played, but it was also the most broken. You say you wanna play a game where mages are weak at low levels but gods at higher levels? well welcome to a game full of mages. Most gamers now adays are gonna play the best class at end game and they are willing to grind through the low (and fast) levels for abetter payoff. In AC EVERYONE was a mage or hybrid mage class, and PvP was just undoable for the melee class. I know they have worked on balancing the PvP, but the changes they made only made the PvP combat more boring IMO. To say that you think mages should own all other classes end game just tells me that you want an "I Win!" button. Classes should be balanced, easy to play, hard to excel, nearly impossible to master. AC mages weren't more difficult to play after you made your shopping list and got your buff hotkeys lined up. They simply had more downtime. IMO playing a good shield tank in DAoC is alot harder than playing a mage in AC. I guess noone remembers, Drain I, Drain I, Drain I, Harm VI. Old School AC PvP was the most fun i have ever had in an MMO. Unfortunatly, i liked playing melee so if i wanted to win, i'd have to jump on my OG mage.
For the record, the reagents system is awesome and all games should use em, but it should just be one version of class maintenance that adds a degree of depth and difficulty.
Comments
I understand your point here.
But this is NOT what I'm talking about. I'm saying there should be balance between all classes. If played correctly, then any class should be able to take out any other class (of equal level ofcourse). But that's just it man... IF PLAYED CORRECTLY Skill and challenge needs to come back into the mmo picture if you ask me. And this means putting things back in like reagents and the requirement to straff to avoid the mages bolts as a warrior, etc etc. Nowdays its just all about tapping the same hot keys over and over. In AC, the mages war bolts were devastating. But only if hit. And those bolts could be avoided with skills in dodging those bolts of ice or fire. Nowdays it don't matter cuz the mage just hits his little hotkey and picks his nose cuz the bolt curves and follows its target whereever it goes. Even if the target runs behind a tree, the spell curves behind the tree and hits. This is what im talking about. No skill, no challenge. Just hotkeys and who can hit them the fastest.
- Zaxx
I agree with that. One of the things I didn't like about D&D was the fact that only wizards could have that versatility. (Okay, it wasn't *quite* that bad... Clerics were potentially up there too, with thieves running not quite out of the running.) One of the things I loved about third edition was that they attempted to change that; didn't *quite* succeed, but they came close.
I understand your point here.
But this is NOT what I'm talking about. I'm saying there should be balance between all classes. If played correctly, then any class should be able to take out any other class (of equal level ofcourse). But that's just it man... IF PLAYED CORRECTLY Skill and challenge needs to come back into the mmo picture if you ask me.
Now, that I can agree with.
Must have been all that talk about the 'traditional model' that confused me.
Traditional, old-school model: warrior ruled the early game, wizard ruled the end game, both were practically useless outside their domination-period. Quantity of end-game wizards was kept down only because it was difficult to get one there; quantity of early-game warriors kept down because they lacked long-term potential and were seen as "for noobs who can't play a wizard yet."
That, to me, indicates that there's a problem with warriors in the games you've been playing; they've been gimped.
Playing a high-level warriors should involve just as much tactics as playing a high-level mage. It should not be "I'll just stand here and smash until one of us falls..." or worse - "I'll just stand here soaking damage and hope I don't die before the wizard wins the battle for me."
Just about all games are like that... A heavily armoured guy with a melee weapon will just fight upfront... A mage( or any range class) has to worry about position, distance from foe, etc... But then again I just realized it may be just an opinion of mine that melee uses less... The only mmorpg I've played that I would say is an exception would be GW... But just about all the others like WOW, I'd say there's less for the melees... (less available tactics doesn't mean gimped... In fact melee are stronger in some games)
I to just want game where you have to think and need time to make your class srtong and not just hit few keys to attack target.
I like also how morrowind works you can train al sorts of abbilitys and buy those skills you want for your class.
But need to be carefull and alot of thinking on whats best build for that class.
And that alll implemented in a FFA pvp game so its very very importend to do it right or you can lose everything:)
Hope to build full AMD system RYZEN/VEGA/AM4!!!
MB:Asus V De Luxe z77
CPU:Intell Icore7 3770k
GPU: AMD Fury X(waiting for BIG VEGA 10 or 11 HBM2?(bit unclear now))
MEMORY:Corsair PLAT.DDR3 1866MHZ 16GB
PSU:Corsair AX1200i
OS:Windows 10 64bit
So anyone else reminded of all those "I gm'd taming, it was very hard so now I DESERVE to run around with 10 white wyrms spamming all kill" posts? Actual player skill over easy mode classes and skills, thank you so very much. Who the hell cares if a skill wasn't easy to raise, player skill should decide the fights, not how much time you wasted in PVE or how much money you spent on those regs.
Europa / Siege
You're right that most games are like this, and it drives me crazy.
I don't object to the melee fighter being up front. I object to him being a meat shield who does nothing useful besides manage aggro. Maybe if wizards were not such nuke-bots warrior could be useful again.
Meh. I think the entire MMO genre need re-thinking.
When people will pay others to play a game for them it might be a sign the game isn't all that fun.
Oh god, yes. And always they would cite 'balance over time, ala oD&D' as their justification.
I was so glad 3e D&D tried to move away from that model, so I could slap them in the face with it and say "See, even D&D has seen the futility of that approach."
I still say that mages should require components to cast off their spells. Not only does this add depth to the game, it helps the economy and trade between players as well. Remember UO and all the player vendors that sold regs at about double price or more in key areas, especially like right outside of a dungeon or at the crossroads?
Regs to a mage is almost like bullets required for a gun. To say no regs required for the devastating spells a mage might cast is like having an archer that requires no arrows and can shoot limitless arrows without hesitation. Some might argue for no arrows and no regs... but then we end up with much more of an arcade style game then we do a massive multiplayer RPG. Along with this, we could say that the warriors armor and weapons should never, ever take damage or wear and tear and need a smith to repair them. I mean if mages don't need regs, then why should a warrior have to worry about repairing his weapons? I think the warrior should have to fix his stuff to prevent ultimate destruction of his goods. All of these added elements only adds to the game. If I want an arcade shooting style game with no restrictions, I'll play Cabelas Deer Hunter or some BS, not an mmorpg.
Speaking along the lines of balance between warriors and mages, another balance factor is low hit points and typically low STR for a mage, where a warrior not only can carry plate armor to protect vs attacks but also can almost plow thru enemies with much higher health hit points. Some of you are saying that such balances are silly and that mages should also be allowed to run around in plate armor and cast spells and swing axes. To this, I say that you are silly and this freedom only creates so much similarities in all the classes, soon with such freedoms... why even choose a class at all? No. Classes need to have distinct weaknesses and strengths to differentiate them from each other. A mage might be able to wear plate armor, but it should have devastating disadvantages to him, perhaps causing 3 times the casting time needed, and slowing the weak mage down to a crawl.. almost so much disatvantage as to make the mage look really silly in plate armor.
Imagine this for moment...
A mage works his way deep into a dragons den and discovers the mighty red dragon hording chests and gold galore. Quickly the mage checks his mana supply and spell books and begins an articulate pattern of high damage spells at the mighty dragon. The dragons fire damage is highly reduced because of previously self-casted fire shield buffs the mage cast just before entering the cave from the forest. After 15 minutes of self healing spells and damage casting spells, the dragon gets down to only a sliver of health remaining and finally charges the mage! As the dragons claws prepare to strike the unprotected mages cloth armor and low hit points for serious damage, the mage does a quick check of mana... Just enough for one last "ice dagger" spell right into the heart of the charging dragons chest! Wahooo exclaims the mage as he can already picture the dragon dropping to its death just before its mighty claw attack. "Por Sa Incibik" come the deadly words of magic from the mages lips in exhaustion of the long battle. A hissing sound is heard as the spell fizzles! AH NO! "I ran out of "Ashen pine" cries the mage just before the angry dragons claws hit the mages ragged body in almost a combo punch. The mage falls to the dragon in a defeated slump as the victorious dragon slashes his tail and breaths fire on the slain human corpse in a celebration of survival.
...Think our poor mage just might stock up on "Ashen pine" the next time he ventures into the depths of this cavern for a rematch with the mighty red dragon?? Think that just perhaps this has added more depth and another element to this mages game plan? This mage is going to be that much more determined to beat that damn lucky dragon next time, heh. In fact, if the npc mage vendor happens to be all out of ashen pine, I'd be willing to bet that this mage will be willing to give up a great deal in a trade with a player that just happens to have some extra regs stashed away.
- Zaxx
Complexity is what we miss.
Especially since the "MMORPG for Dummies" a.k.a. World of Warcraft has been released (to massive popularity).
Unfortunately, we are likely to get more of the same, since Devs will see the success of WoW and pattern new games after it.
Here's the deal:
Back in the "old days," games were complex and had a steep learning curve so that newbies pretty much had to ask newbie questions for simple things, like how to scratch their ass.
Some complained.
Travel. Waaah! It's too hard. It's too time-consuming. Response: Travel was made "easy."
Magic. Waaah! Too hard to learn all those spells and carry reagents. Response: Dumb-down magic use.
Game is too hard to learn for newbies. Waaah! Response: Long tutorials so you would know how to scratch your ass when you finished.
Don't want to search or ask where Quest NPCs are. Don't want complex quests. Don't want to have to "learn" how to do stuff. Waaah! Response: Hand-holding games like WoW.
Old-style games: Steep learning curve, much to learn, took time to become proficient and knowledgeable, hard to master, end-game payoff was HUGE.
New-style games: Virtually NO learning curve, little to learn, takes little time to become proficient and knowledgeable (since there is so little to learn), easy to master, virtually NO end-game payoff whatsoever (welcome to: Raid The Same Instance Over and Over Ad Naseum).
Death penalty too harsh? NP, we'll make it a slap on the wrist.
PvP too rough? NP, we'll make it meaningless slaughter.
Crafting too hard? NP, we'll make it so a chimp can do it.
Money too difficult to accumulate? NP, we'll practically GIVE you all the good stuff.
Rares too hard to find? NP, we'll make them drop like manna from heaven.
Archers don't want to make or carry arrows? NP, *POOF* no more need for arrows at all!
Mages don't want to carry reagents? NP, *POOF* no more need for reagents at all!
***
Games have been made easier and easier to accomodate the "casual" player. Unfortunately, Blizzard has shown this to be highly profitable.
The future looks bleak.
~ Ancient Membership ~
Agreed Spirit.
People nowdays hate challenge in their games. Proof is in the high volume of cheat codes published, and the fact that most console games are almost considered unfinished unless they contain cheat codes that take away much or all of that games challenge.
Like you, I agree that these dumb-downed games which contain such a small challenge to master is almost like people wanting to watch a good movie, but then saying that sitting there for 2 hours watching the movie is too challenging.. and demanding their friend tell them the ending of the movie. By hearing what happens at the end of a good movie, and by taking all the challenge out of mmos has exactly the same result. So much potential fun, excitment, and sense of belonging and understanding is missed.
- Zaxx
Eh?
Maybe in AC, but in UO you could bloody well get them for free if you wanted to spend the time.
I disagree with the concept of making one class more powerful in the end game and 'balancing' it by making it harder for that class to get there (tho I don't mind so much the idea of one class being devestating at range and a pushover in melee.) Conan, the ultimate 'warrior' archetype, took on his fair share of mages.
wtf? how can you compare a character from a book, where the author had total control over everything, to a character in a mmorpg where the player only has control of his own character?
thats the dumbest comparison i have ever heard.
So people who disagree with Zaxx maybe thought of as fools? I'll remain silent and maintain some doubt. :P
-----------------------
Past MMOs- Planetside, WoW.
Current MMO:
Current Games: L4D, Skyrim
Tried- ATITD, EQ2, SoR, Vanguard,SL,LOTRO,SotNW,SWTOR.
Anticipating- GW2, Planetside2
LOL... ofcourse not. Everyone certainly has their prefrence in this, and my prefrences are obviously not the mainstream nowdays...otherwise WoW wouldn't be the top mmorpg.
I quoted the old famous quote about "being better to remain silent and be thought a fool then to speak and remove all doubt" only in reference to a young teenager who posted acted like he played the old games like UO and AC like I speak of, when it is pretty obvious that he has never even set foot in the old classics.
- Zaxx
[quote]Originally posted by Ashkent
[b]
Originally posted by Kaos&Light
When discussing a genre of gaming built around the concept of playing out the type of stories found in the books? Very easily. One simply says "Why build a game to emulate <x> type of story where mages rule and require armies to defeat, instead of this other type of story where mages and warriors could both be extremely powerful and feared?"
Note: one does not say "Conan never got defeated, why can't my warrior be invincible too?" THAT would be a very stupid comparison.
LOL... ofcourse not. Everyone certainly has their prefrence in this, and my prefrences are obviously not the mainstream nowdays...otherwise WoW wouldn't be the top mmorpg.
I quoted the old famous quote about "being better to remain silent and be thought a fool then to speak and remove all doubt" only in reference to a young teenager who posted acted like he played the old games like UO and AC like I speak of, when it is pretty obvious that he has never even set foot in the old classics.
- Zaxx
Planetside was my first MMO, WoW was my second, but first fantasy based MMORPG. I never had the opportunity to mess with regents. So I don't feel any indignity over the situation you describe. I recently played the NWN demo and was flabbergasted that I had to pull out a scroll to cast a spell. What an inconvienence!
I liked WoW for over a year, but the level 60 gameplay in combination with cumulative effects of grind did me in. I am in search of a new worthy MMO and started a most anticipated mmo thread where I outline what I need in a MMO to hold my interest. Currently Hero's Journey is holding my attention as a possible successor.
-Hunt'n
-----------------------
Past MMOs- Planetside, WoW.
Current MMO:
Current Games: L4D, Skyrim
Tried- ATITD, EQ2, SoR, Vanguard,SL,LOTRO,SotNW,SWTOR.
Anticipating- GW2, Planetside2
[quote]Originally posted by zaxtor99
Please put some challenge and risk back in the wizard/mage role.
Surely someone out there agrees with me that challenge is a good thing... especially when playing one of the most devastating roles in a game.
- Zaxx[/b][/quote]
I fully agree with you just for a part.
i play Knight Online and like most people; i know that mages are weak at the begin and that they become stronger and stronger untill they are the most powerfull wiards that hit most damage.
by most mmorpgs its just like: click on the cast icon and wait till you damage the monster.
now i made up something that might solve this.
what about 2 attack styles; automatic and advanced.
Automatic: like in most mmorpgs, click on the cast item, wait till you do some damage and eventualy gain some xp, and then all over and over, one click is enough and it 'clicks' automaticaly on the cast icon untill the creature has died.
Advanced: familiar to automatic but with more action! what i mean is: you click on the cast icon, and move with your mouse to the creature and hit the left mouse button, with a great special effect (people love this you know) if the creature didnt die, it will attack you. if you dont run away you might get killed and lose your items, i think there arn't many people who want that, this keaps people busy.
the monster should give allot of experience, but this still doesnt make it easy to level up.
lets say a giant chicken gives 100xp, if your combat level is 1, you'll need 2100 xp to level up to combat level 2. Lets say your a sorcerer or a mage or a wizard, you can cast a spell called lightning blast, you do 40 xp damage to the giant chicken, this means you have to cast that spell about 3 times to kill the giant chicken, if your quick (here's a lil bit action) you can kill him quickly without losing much damage, if your hp is low you have to run away (good action).
and you havent gained the xp cuz you didnt kill the monster, so you might wanna try again with critical low hp, this is good action. unfortunately it won't be fair if your in a clan and you lost all your expensive health and mp potions to do allot of damage on a monster and you would suddenly die and your clan members kill the monster and gain the xp, heres what you can do in this case: if you die let the computer calculate the damage you did so you still get the xp, but ONLY incase you die, because if you gain xp in every hit (like on runescape) then there will be less action, this makes it boring.
what about the loot? if theres a good drop, everyone wants it afcourse, people usualy make trouble about this, heres what you can do in this case: you can let the monsters drop only things that can be shared, lets say, theres a clan of 5 people that is killing a black dragon, at the end it dies and drops 5000 credits, or gold pieces, this can be easily shared. but what if a black dragon drops only one good sword? one good sword can't be shared, this is always the problem, people always make trouble about this, what you can do is the following: let the dragon drop 5 good swords.... no wait, dont do this, it will kill the econemy, uhm.... maybe this: the person who did the most damage gets it, this makes it fair, cuz did the most, but what if your a mage and you hit like 250 while a warrior thats a lower level then the mage hits 125 twice as slow? you can't do much about this, the best you can do is make clans only available to people who are almost the same level, or better warriors, so it would be fair.
so lets keap it simple, the mage is level 20, and the warrior level 30, the mage hits just as much as the level 30 warrior, but hes allot weaker, but the warrior can easily survive, but he hits just as much as the lvl 20 mage.
please give me some comments on this idea
~Alex007152~
Alex, I like your thinking and your train of thought.
I'd like to comment on the shared loot bit though. You give an example of 5 players in a group who all kill a dragon where 5,000 gold is dropped and an awesome sword. I agree with you that simply having that dragon drop 5 swords for a 5 person group and 7 swords for a 7 person group would absolutely KILL the ecomomy and make that special rare sword not quite so special. You suggest that the person dealing the most damage gets it. Well, that obviously won't work well either bud. What if you have a wizard, a necromancer, two tanks, and a cleric. In big challenging battles, lets pretend that only good teamwork sustain the groups survival. So lets assume for a moment that the necro is using a spell to suck power from the dragon and can then transfer this power (mana) to the wizard and/or the cleric for damage and healing spells respectively. And the warriors are chopping away getting a good deal of damage dealt to them in return.. so the mighty cleric is constanlty healing them keeping them alive and chopping away at the dragons health. Meanwhile the wizzy is sitting back just bombarding this beast with high level fireballs and lightning damage from hell. The wizzy is likely gonna get every good loot item dropped in every battle, despite all the good teamwork that is keeping the group intact expecially from the necro and the cleric.
The only fair way to do this I believe is much the same as Mythics Dark Age of Camelot where loot items are dropped randomly. The only thing I might add for really special and rare drops is a question asked to the winning group member on whether they want to keep the sword or let it pass. Or you could even add in a quick game for super loot drops where every party member as asked to click a button to roll some on screen dice. There is a visual of a two dice roll, and then all party members two dice landing is shown to all members, the highest roll is highlighted and it is announced that "party member X wins the great sword of lightning!" This is still random ofcourse, but would create a little more sense of fair competition for the party members. Obviously if the dice roll method or something similar is used, the game might wanna create some sort of a pause instance for the group so they aren't getting attacked by other mobs while they compete for the loot.
- Zaxx
i see your point. i played runescape before, and in that game you cannot form a party or a clan, when people fight together and kill a black dragon the person who did the most damage automaticaly gets all the loot. but thats also because theres only one playable race (human).
most people always want the loot, almost every person does.
if there are more or maybe even many playable races, it all gets more and more complicated.
ok lets say 5 people kill a black dragon, they get 1 great lightsword and 2500 gold pieces, so the loot is:
-1 great sword
-2500 gold pieces
5 people cannot share this afcourse (they can only share the gold pieces, its very important to have something like an auto share option that cannot be disabled and that is invisible to players, because there are people who dont share afcourse). the priest who heals didnt do any damage so it wont be fair if the one who did the most damage gets the great sword. what you can do in this case is: teleport or walk to the city or castle and sell the sword (or like you said, i like that idea). If the sword who was dropped by the dragon that was killed by the 5 players cost 6348 (better if items cost more like 6000 or 6500) and they sell it, they would get a number of gold pieces that can be shared, but this number will be VERY close to the origional gp.
i think your idea is the best thing you can do
~Alex007152~
Although my experience to fantasy MMORPG titles is limited, just WoW, WoW's loot system is hard to beat imo. It's very fair, it has options, "round robin", "group loot", "roll for need", "roll for greed". Some parts of it require trust, everyone passes on blue items or Bind on Pickup items then discuss it. And for the very high value items that bosses drop, the party leader can switch to master looter so no one ninjas high value drops.
-Hunt'n
-----------------------
Past MMOs- Planetside, WoW.
Current MMO:
Current Games: L4D, Skyrim
Tried- ATITD, EQ2, SoR, Vanguard,SL,LOTRO,SotNW,SWTOR.
Anticipating- GW2, Planetside2
Another point... the title of this topic "No reagents required??? WTF" implies that it is unrealistic or stupid to have a game with reagentless magic. I wonder just how experienced with real magic the poster is?
Point is, there's no reason to assume that if magic did exist it would require reagents to perform... you're confusing magic with potion-making.
I never played UO, but i played AC for a long time. ACs magic system was alot cooler than any other game i've played, but it was also the most broken. You say you wanna play a game where mages are weak at low levels but gods at higher levels? well welcome to a game full of mages. Most gamers now adays are gonna play the best class at end game and they are willing to grind through the low (and fast) levels for abetter payoff. In AC EVERYONE was a mage or hybrid mage class, and PvP was just undoable for the melee class. I know they have worked on balancing the PvP, but the changes they made only made the PvP combat more boring IMO. To say that you think mages should own all other classes end game just tells me that you want an "I Win!" button. Classes should be balanced, easy to play, hard to excel, nearly impossible to master. AC mages weren't more difficult to play after you made your shopping list and got your buff hotkeys lined up. They simply had more downtime. IMO playing a good shield tank in DAoC is alot harder than playing a mage in AC. I guess noone remembers, Drain I, Drain I, Drain I, Harm VI. Old School AC PvP was the most fun i have ever had in an MMO. Unfortunatly, i liked playing melee so if i wanted to win, i'd have to jump on my OG mage.
For the record, the reagents system is awesome and all games should use em, but it should just be one version of class maintenance that adds a degree of depth and difficulty.
Which FF Character Are You?