So? .. still there is no successful SIM game with a persistent virtual world. I am not the one who wants to prove that a persistent virtual world SIM game is going to be successful.
Most of the early tablets were failures. Does that mean that tablets now aren't successful. Just because one half ass attempt at a Sims MMO failed doesn't mean another one done right at the right time can't succeed.
But it also does not mean that a new one will succeed. You simply has no proof that it will. Note that i did NOT say it will fail for sure .. i merely say that "there is no successful SIM game with a persistent virtual world" .. a fact that clearly will not support any assertions that a future one will be successful.
And why would devs take any risks when there are plenty of other better ideas to sink their investments in? It is not like they are steve jobs.
There has never been a true attempt at simulation as a MMORPG unless you count UO and SWG which were decently successful.
I don't understand why balancing classes for pvp causes problems in pve. So the pve player is mad cuz they are no longer overpowered?
No.
Generally the reason people get annoyed is because there is no reason to balance skills in a PvE game. In a PvE game you want your DPS doing as much damage as possible. You want your Healers to be healing as much as possible. You want your tanks to be as resilient as possible. You want your crowd control to be as controlling as possible.
When you try to balance skills because some some crowd control class is annoyed that some DPS class killed them quickly so DPS must be nurffed...that is the problem.
The problem is not that the classes need to be balanced. The problem is that the players need to stop complaining when their class is not doing as high DPS as a DPS class when they are not a DPS class.
PvP just brings a lot of whinny gameplay that PvE games can just do without.
So? .. still there is no successful SIM game with a persistent virtual world. I am not the one who wants to prove that a persistent virtual world SIM game is going to be successful.
Most of the early tablets were failures. Does that mean that tablets now aren't successful. Just because one half ass attempt at a Sims MMO failed doesn't mean another one done right at the right time can't succeed.
But it also does not mean that a new one will succeed. You simply has no proof that it will. Note that i did NOT say it will fail for sure .. i merely say that "there is no successful SIM game with a persistent virtual world" .. a fact that clearly will not support any assertions that a future one will be successful.
And why would devs take any risks when there are plenty of other better ideas to sink their investments in? It is not like they are steve jobs.
There has never been a true attempt at simulation as a MMORPG unless you count UO and SWG which were decently successful.
So what? Given how SIM online go down, why bother with anything like it when there are plenty of better fish to fry?
And those two games are ancient, plus they survived precisely because they change the core tenet (Trammel). So again, no proof that a new persistent virtual world sim game will be successful. Devs are better off making games like Destiny & The Division. Here are two recent financial successes for you.
The two play styles never worked together and all the nerfing of classes because of it has ruin more mmo's than anything else. I wish devs would wake up and stop doing this. But the way it looks now for the genre we don't have to worry about it anymore. No AAA companies are making mmo's anymore. And so far all the indie mmo's on kickstarter seem like crap to me.
t0nyd said: I love reading pve player comments on the subject of pvp. I love it when they say things like "PvPers just want easy kills" as the pve player kills his 9000th ogre without struggle. In most mmo players are the only thing challenging.
I also love reading pvp players comments on the subject of pve.
They think they are so almighty because they combat players and not a "simple ai" that they fail to realize that ultimately you too will do the same rotation of skills after a certain amount of time.
Now before you come jumping on me saying there's different scenarios and classes each having their "unique" way on fighting them, I can also say you don't fight most bosses the same way. Most of them have different rotations to master before beating them just like when you fight another player.
So? .. still there is no successful SIM game with a persistent virtual world. I am not the one who wants to prove that a persistent virtual world SIM game is going to be successful.
Most of the early tablets were failures. Does that mean that tablets now aren't successful. Just because one half ass attempt at a Sims MMO failed doesn't mean another one done right at the right time can't succeed.
But it also does not mean that a new one will succeed. You simply has no proof that it will. Note that i did NOT say it will fail for sure .. i merely say that "there is no successful SIM game with a persistent virtual world" .. a fact that clearly will not support any assertions that a future one will be successful.
And why would devs take any risks when there are plenty of other better ideas to sink their investments in? It is not like they are steve jobs.
There has never been a true attempt at simulation as a MMORPG unless you count UO and SWG which were decently successful.
So what? Given how SIM online go down, why bother with anything like it when there are plenty of better fish to fry?
And those two games are ancient, plus they survived precisely because they change the core tenet (Trammel). So again, no proof that a new persistent virtual world sim game will be successful. Devs are better off making games like Destiny & The Division. Here are two recent financial successes for you.
Sims Online failed by bad design period. Whether it succeed if done in a playable manner? Probably so. Would it rival WoW's peak? Probably not.
Being old has nothing to do with current success. AA which has open world PvP and sandbox is still profitable. Technically more complex game like SWG could carve it's own niche because the market is flooded with themepark MMORPG.
The Division like games are the end game for Themepark only MMORPG. Has nothing to do with sandbox games.
I don't understand why balancing classes for pvp causes problems in pve. So the pve player is mad cuz they are no longer overpowered?
No.
Generally the reason people get annoyed is because there is no reason to balance skills in a PvE game. In a PvE game you want your DPS doing as much damage as possible. You want your Healers to be healing as much as possible. You want your tanks to be as resilient as possible. You want your crowd control to be as controlling as possible.
When you try to balance skills because some some crowd control class is annoyed that some DPS class killed them quickly so DPS must be nurffed...that is the problem.
The problem is not that the classes need to be balanced. The problem is that the players need to stop complaining when their class is not doing as high DPS as a DPS class when they are not a DPS class.
PvP just brings a lot of whinny gameplay that PvE games can just do without.
Which brings me directly to my question. It is clear that a particular class is outshining others when it comes to dps or healing. So the pvp aspect tries to balance this so the other healing classes and other dps builds are viable. In a pve game with the cookie cutter builds being the only thing successfull. Balance is exactly what is necessary to prevent cookie cutters and dominating classes.
I don't understand why balancing classes for pvp causes problems in pve. So the pve player is mad cuz they are no longer overpowered?
No.
Generally the reason people get annoyed is because there is no reason to balance skills in a PvE game. In a PvE game you want your DPS doing as much damage as possible. You want your Healers to be healing as much as possible. You want your tanks to be as resilient as possible. You want your crowd control to be as controlling as possible.
When you try to balance skills because some some crowd control class is annoyed that some DPS class killed them quickly so DPS must be nurffed...that is the problem.
The problem is not that the classes need to be balanced. The problem is that the players need to stop complaining when their class is not doing as high DPS as a DPS class when they are not a DPS class.
PvP just brings a lot of whinny gameplay that PvE games can just do without.
Which brings me directly to my question. It is clear that a particular class is outshining others when it comes to dps or healing. So the pvp aspect tries to balance this so the other healing classes and other dps builds are viable. In a pve game with the cookie cutter builds being the only thing successfull. Balance is exactly what is necessary to prevent cookie cutters and dominating classes.
Same class balance is fine. Complaining that your DPS can't heal as well as a cleric or that your tank doesn't do enough DPS....THAT is the moronic part of balancing games skills for PvE games. And to be honest, most of that comes from games WITH PvP. Not 100% but for the most part any balancing I have seen that is downright stupid is in games where you also have PvP.
The problem isn't mixing PVE and PVP. The problem is mixin cry baby carebears and people who PVP. Without PVE elements a world would be pretty barren. There's nothing wrong with fighting over world bosses or gathering/farming nodes. People can dungeon crawl when they're battle weary.
It's all a matter of who is playing. As you can see there are some pretty violently raw butt hurt victims who call other players sociopaths and other idiocy. THESE are the folks who need themeparks with absolutely no OWPVP, EVER... EVER. They need to be made understood that if a game contains OWPVP that means the game isn't for them. Once a developer makes the mistake of saying "you can do either exclusiely" the game will be absolutely ruined by people who cry, get beat up and stuffed in their lockers for a living.
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
I don't understand why balancing classes for pvp causes problems in pve. So the pve player is mad cuz they are no longer overpowered?
No.
Generally the reason people get annoyed is because there is no reason to balance skills in a PvE game. In a PvE game you want your DPS doing as much damage as possible. You want your Healers to be healing as much as possible. You want your tanks to be as resilient as possible. You want your crowd control to be as controlling as possible.
When you try to balance skills because some some crowd control class is annoyed that some DPS class killed them quickly so DPS must be nurffed...that is the problem.
The problem is not that the classes need to be balanced. The problem is that the players need to stop complaining when their class is not doing as high DPS as a DPS class when they are not a DPS class.
PvP just brings a lot of whinny gameplay that PvE games can just do without.
Which brings me directly to my question. It is clear that a particular class is outshining others when it comes to dps or healing. So the pvp aspect tries to balance this so the other healing classes and other dps builds are viable. In a pve game with the cookie cutter builds being the only thing successfull. Balance is exactly what is necessary to prevent cookie cutters and dominating classes.
Same class balance is fine. Complaining that your DPS can't heal as well as a cleric or that your tank doesn't do enough DPS....THAT is the moronic part of balancing games skills for PvE games. And to be honest, most of that comes from games WITH PvP. Not 100% but for the most part any balancing I have seen that is downright stupid is in games where you also have PvP.
Balance is always an issue unless its a single player game. The problem is that with PvP class imbalance is much more obvious than with PvE. If you continuously harass and destroy the same NPC it doesnt complain about it.
There is this myth that class balance doesnt matter in a PvE mmorpg. You can play any PvE based mmorpg with raiding and its obvious which classes are OP and cookie cutter builds still exist. If people didnt care about class balance and having the most powerful character they wouldnt copy other peoples builds and raid damage mods wouldnt exist. How many times have you heard someone complain that their dps class is out shined in every way by another dps class. How many times have you heard someone bitch that its easier to tank as a paladin than warrior.
Yeah that is down to bad players mostly. And that applies to both PvE and PvP games.
I'm still waiting for a massively cooperative online rpg. Sometimes I think maybe I'm just stupid and ther eason every MMO dev slaps pvp into their game is because they know what they're doing and I don't, then I think about the shit they release and realize that's certainly not the case and go back to wanting a MCORPG.
The problem isn't mixing PVE and PVP. The problem is mixin cry baby carebears and people who PVP. Without PVE elements a world would be pretty barren. There's nothing wrong with fighting over world bosses or gathering/farming nodes. People can dungeon crawl when they're battle weary.
It's all a matter of who is playing. As you can see there are some pretty violently raw butt hurt victims who call other players sociopaths and other idiocy. THESE are the folks who need themeparks with absolutely no OWPVP, EVER... EVER. They need to be made understood that if a game contains OWPVP that means the game isn't for them. Once a developer makes the mistake of saying "you can do either exclusiely" the game will be absolutely ruined by people who cry, get beat up and stuffed in their lockers for a living.
So the people who like PVE are nothing but care bear cry baby's and the people who prefer PVP are god's chosen?
Don't get me wrong, i like PVP but i prefer a good PVE mmo, there are some mmo that actually do a good job of blending both together if you get the 'western mmo's are the bestest' mentality out of your head.
Personally i think a PVE mmo should just be a PVE mmo, ok i played EQ which had some decent PVP servers but back the the community was not the same as of today.
There are a few mmo's that combine the two play styles
Take Age Of Wulin, nope i'm not talking about the mess that was Age Of Wushu North America version of the game. I'm talking about the Asian and European version which are damn good mmo's which blend both play styles pretty good.
I'm still waiting for a massively cooperative online rpg. Sometimes I think maybe I'm just stupid and ther eason every MMO dev slaps pvp into their game is because they know what they're doing and I don't, then I think about the shit they release and realize that's certainly not the case and go back to wanting a MCORPG.
If you get rid of the word "massively" .. there are plenty of good coop online RPGs. In fact, you can't coop with 200 people all at once anyway, and most fantasy is about small group adventures.
I'm still waiting for a massively cooperative online rpg. Sometimes I think maybe I'm just stupid and ther eason every MMO dev slaps pvp into their game is because they know what they're doing and I don't, then I think about the shit they release and realize that's certainly not the case and go back to wanting a MCORPG.
If you get rid of the word "massively" .. there are plenty of good coop online RPGs. In fact, you can't coop with 200 people all at once anyway, and most fantasy is about small group adventures.
So what is this obsession with "massively"?
I have an obsession with the word massively. I want a massive world to explore that is so big that I never see even half of it. I want massive amount of character customization options. I want a massive amount of allies and enemies destroying and building things. I want a massive in game economy.
What I want is a massive world where I can build, explore, destroy, and live. A world where I begin by struggling to survive, working my way up to whatever goal(s) I choose. I want a challenge.
None of that sounds like small group co-op RPG (particularly like the tabletop D&D which I play) to me.
But obviously it is your prerogative to obsess with your fancy.
BTW, you know that plenty of open world single player games have massive world to explore, right? And what does "massive" has to do with challenge. If you want a challenge, you can simply play pro e-sports, D3 greater rift push, or Dark Souls. "Massive" is not needed.
And i thought you are obsessed with "massively MP". I guess I am wrong.
What I would like to know, is why do pvpers want to play in a virtual world where your prey is non-pvpers? How is that any different than a pver wanting to live in a virtual world where your prey are npcs... in the first example pvpers wipe their butts with the non-pvpers and in the second example pvers wipe their butts with the npcs... same objective(to win) right? The big difference is that in the first example one set of players gets to ruin the game for the other set of players whereas in the second example everyone has fun.
Final Fantasy XIV has a completely different rule set for PvP, so I don't see why other games aren't able to accomplish the same feat. (this only applies to instanced PvP though. I imagine open-world PvP would be a lot harder to balance)
I never understood people that liked pvp in fantasy games. I mean wizards and fireballs juts dont scream in depth pvp to me.
But reall imo games should be more or less separated. Either make it a pvp centric game and limit effort spent on PVE systems or vice versa. Nothing worse than a watered down mess, or some stupid pve adjustments that are made to accommodate pvp.
No, it was intended to be a life simulator none the less. It's just set in the Sims world which the setting isn't this world. Just like mech games are simulations but don't have real world settings nor "realistic." I consider pooping, changing diapers, working, and etc to be a life simulator.
You went on a tangent that if it didn't meet all realistic standards it wasn't simulation. What's a game is vs.simulation is subjective if there is any difference. My view is that a simulation attempts to emulate realistic approach in a setting over pure fun. Like in sports games it attempts to have more realism like injuries, fouls and etc. Non sim games have anything goes or no rules like going out of bounds.
Where exactly do you think this post takes us?
The distinction I'm making between simulation-focused and gameplay-focused games is the distinction that matters. If every design decision is made with the goal of creating plentiful interesting decisions in the game, that's a gameplay-focus, and that type of game design is consistently much more successful.
So it really doesn't matter whether you uselessly call a gameplay-focused mech simulation a simulation or not, because what does matter is that game had a gameplay focus and did quite well.
The distinction I'm talking about matters, while your arbitrary label doesn't matter.
Which takes us back to my original comment where the only thing wrong was slight hyperbole (saying simulation MMORPGs "failed" when I should've said they were less successful.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
No, it was intended to be a life simulator none the less. It's just set in the Sims world which the setting isn't this world. Just like mech games are simulations but don't have real world settings nor "realistic." I consider pooping, changing diapers, working, and etc to be a life simulator.
You went on a tangent that if it didn't meet all realistic standards it wasn't simulation. What's a game is vs.simulation is subjective if there is any difference. My view is that a simulation attempts to emulate realistic approach in a setting over pure fun. Like in sports games it attempts to have more realism like injuries, fouls and etc. Non sim games have anything goes or no rules like going out of bounds.
Where exactly do you think this post takes us?
The distinction I'm making between simulation-focused and gameplay-focused games is the distinction that matters. If every design decision is made with the goal of creating plentiful interesting decisions in the game, that's a gameplay-focus, and that type of game design is consistently much more successful.
So it really doesn't matter whether you uselessly call a gameplay-focused mech simulation a simulation or not, because what does matter is that game had a gameplay focus and did quite well.
The distinction I'm talking about matters, while your arbitrary label doesn't matter.
Which takes us back to my original comment where the only thing wrong was slight hyperbole (saying simulation MMORPGs "failed" when I should've said they were less successful.)
But SWG had more depth, complexity and game play choices than other MMORPG. WoW was simplistic questing with tons of running around yet it was more popular. Kind of goes against what you say.
When PvP is added to a PvE centered game and the other way around PvE added to PvE centered game a disbalance occurs. If the game is PvE centered and PvP is added, then curtain classes end up being over powered. That happens, because these curtain classes need these skills to be competative in PvE, but it makes them OP in PvP. When PvE is added to PvP centered game we have the other way around, curtain classes end up being useless. And there's the 3rd case when the game is badly designed in both aspects or maybe the center of the game is different. An example is Skyforge, where PvE only few dps classes are viable and PvP few classes are OP. Why did it happen? Bad design? Game is centered not to PvE or PvP.. maybe it's centered to yolo solo grind? Who knows, but it's terribly unbalanced game despite the cool story idea and especially the great combat it offers.
Good way to balance stuff is to have CC reduce items, DMG taken reduce items, and in general items that control the curtain aspect of the game. Like in World of warcraft having curtain amount of resilience (im speaking wotlk language, never played the shitty afterwards expansion) you would be less killable and if you are good you can do stuff, while games where there is no control over the damge in PvP things like one shooting can occur, like for example again in Skyforge where you can literally die from 1 damage over time, because there is nothing in the game to deal with it, well unless you are healer but that doesnt count.
But SWG had more depth, complexity and game play choices than other MMORPG. WoW was simplistic questing with tons of running around yet it was more popular. Kind of goes against what you say.
Citation needed.
This is evidence of WOW's depth. It's a hard to master base rotation (not shown is the way that monster abilities forcibly vary your rotation; when the mob needs to be interrupted or puts fire under your feet, those decisions (to interrupt or move) take priority, which in some WOW rotations can result in you returning to your rotation in a different spot than you left off.)
If you can provide evidence that SWG involved decisions more challenging than that, then you've successfully established your claim that "SWG had more depth".
Without evidence, it's an empty claim.
With evidence, you've said something meaningful.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
What I would like to know, is why do pvpers want to play in a virtual world where your prey is non-pvpers? How is that any different than a pver wanting to live in a virtual world where your prey are npcs... in the first example pvpers wipe their butts with the non-pvpers and in the second example pvers wipe their butts with the npcs... same objective(to win) right? The big difference is that in the first example one set of players gets to ruin the game for the other set of players whereas in the second example everyone has fun.
Well, there you have it. Any PvE player who plays a PvP centric game has to realize they are just there to add reality to the PvPers game. You know, to provide the "target rich environment" that game developers love to call "challenging" in their promos.
You'll notice that there is not really much difference between the PvPers disdain for PvEers (who they desperate need to play so they can kill them) and the Raiders disdain for Filthy Casuals (who they desperate need to play so they can feel superior to them).
Apparently players who are not interested in filling in a role in another's psychofantasy are crybaby carebears who are ruining gaming and should just go play Bejeweled. If they want to play in the same game with the Big Boys, then they need to know their place, shut up and enjoy being ganked and griefed.
Comments
Generally the reason people get annoyed is because there is no reason to balance skills in a PvE game. In a PvE game you want your DPS doing as much damage as possible. You want your Healers to be healing as much as possible. You want your tanks to be as resilient as possible. You want your crowd control to be as controlling as possible.
When you try to balance skills because some some crowd control class is annoyed that some DPS class killed them quickly so DPS must be nurffed...that is the problem.
The problem is not that the classes need to be balanced. The problem is that the players need to stop complaining when their class is not doing as high DPS as a DPS class when they are not a DPS class.
PvP just brings a lot of whinny gameplay that PvE games can just do without.
And those two games are ancient, plus they survived precisely because they change the core tenet (Trammel). So again, no proof that a new persistent virtual world sim game will be successful. Devs are better off making games like Destiny & The Division. Here are two recent financial successes for you.
We are talking about playing games here, right?
They think they are so almighty because they combat players and not a "simple ai" that they fail to realize that ultimately you too will do the same rotation of skills after a certain amount of time.
Now before you come jumping on me saying there's different scenarios and classes each having their "unique" way on fighting them, I can also say you don't fight most bosses the same way. Most of them have different rotations to master before beating them just like when you fight another player.
Being old has nothing to do with current success. AA which has open world PvP and sandbox is still profitable. Technically more complex game like SWG could carve it's own niche because the market is flooded with themepark MMORPG.
The Division like games are the end game for Themepark only MMORPG. Has nothing to do with sandbox games.
It's all a matter of who is playing. As you can see there are some pretty violently raw butt hurt victims who call other players sociopaths and other idiocy. THESE are the folks who need themeparks with absolutely no OWPVP, EVER... EVER. They need to be made understood that if a game contains OWPVP that means the game isn't for them. Once a developer makes the mistake of saying "you can do either exclusiely" the game will be absolutely ruined by people who cry, get beat up and stuffed in their lockers for a living.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Don't get me wrong, i like PVP but i prefer a good PVE mmo, there are some mmo that actually do a good job of blending both together if you get the 'western mmo's are the bestest' mentality out of your head.
Personally i think a PVE mmo should just be a PVE mmo, ok i played EQ which had some decent PVP servers but back the the community was not the same as of today.
There are a few mmo's that combine the two play styles
Take Age Of Wulin, nope i'm not talking about the mess that was Age Of Wushu North America version of the game. I'm talking about the Asian and European version which are damn good mmo's which blend both play styles pretty good.
So what is this obsession with "massively"?
But obviously it is your prerogative to obsess with your fancy.
BTW, you know that plenty of open world single player games have massive world to explore, right? And what does "massive" has to do with challenge. If you want a challenge, you can simply play pro e-sports, D3 greater rift push, or Dark Souls. "Massive" is not needed.
And i thought you are obsessed with "massively MP". I guess I am wrong.
But reall imo games should be more or less separated. Either make it a pvp centric game and limit effort spent on PVE systems or vice versa. Nothing worse than a watered down mess, or some stupid pve adjustments that are made to accommodate pvp.
The distinction I'm making between simulation-focused and gameplay-focused games is the distinction that matters. If every design decision is made with the goal of creating plentiful interesting decisions in the game, that's a gameplay-focus, and that type of game design is consistently much more successful.
So it really doesn't matter whether you uselessly call a gameplay-focused mech simulation a simulation or not, because what does matter is that game had a gameplay focus and did quite well.
The distinction I'm talking about matters, while your arbitrary label doesn't matter.
Which takes us back to my original comment where the only thing wrong was slight hyperbole (saying simulation MMORPGs "failed" when I should've said they were less successful.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
When PvE is added to PvP centered game we have the other way around, curtain classes end up being useless.
And there's the 3rd case when the game is badly designed in both aspects or maybe the center of the game is different. An example is Skyforge, where PvE only few dps classes are viable and PvP few classes are OP. Why did it happen? Bad design? Game is centered not to PvE or PvP.. maybe it's centered to yolo solo grind? Who knows, but it's terribly unbalanced game despite the cool story idea and especially the great combat it offers.
Good way to balance stuff is to have CC reduce items, DMG taken reduce items, and in general items that control the curtain aspect of the game. Like in World of warcraft having curtain amount of resilience (im speaking wotlk language, never played the shitty afterwards expansion) you would be less killable and if you are good you can do stuff, while games where there is no control over the damge in PvP things like one shooting can occur, like for example again in Skyforge where you can literally die from 1 damage over time, because there is nothing in the game to deal with it, well unless you are healer but that doesnt count.
This is evidence of WOW's depth. It's a hard to master base rotation (not shown is the way that monster abilities forcibly vary your rotation; when the mob needs to be interrupted or puts fire under your feet, those decisions (to interrupt or move) take priority, which in some WOW rotations can result in you returning to your rotation in a different spot than you left off.)
If you can provide evidence that SWG involved decisions more challenging than that, then you've successfully established your claim that "SWG had more depth".
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You'll notice that there is not really much difference between the PvPers disdain for PvEers (who they desperate need to play so they can kill them) and the Raiders disdain for Filthy Casuals (who they desperate need to play so they can feel superior to them).
Apparently players who are not interested in filling in a role in another's psychofantasy are crybaby carebears who are ruining gaming and should just go play Bejeweled. If they want to play in the same game with the Big Boys, then they need to know their place, shut up and enjoy being ganked and griefed.
And now, back to Bejeweled, where I am AWESOME.