You've totally lost me. I have no idea what you're seeing as contradictory between that statement and anything else I wrote.
[edited for brevity] You said if you "lost", then you get to go back and fight again. You when lose a tennis match, do you get to immediately go at them again? The match (or fight) is lost. Your opponent won. You lost. Or do you play with the "do over" rule?
So just think if in tennis you are in a match and you lose 1 point. You are stripped down naked, leave your racket, leave all your gear. Then someone drops you off at some arbitrary point far away where you have to find your way back and you have to swim through shark infested waters or dodge dangerous predators in a jungle all while being completely naked just to have the chance to finish the match.
What does running around naked have to do with the game you play anyways? Just a weird mechanic that some dev started that caught on for a few years.
I suspect under those rules, I wouldn't see many people playing tennis. I suspect people would think that's a retarded rule.
I will admit, that would make some interesting TV thou.
Losing a televised tennis match comes with the associated consequences which being real will transcend the cost of any virtual inconvenience a game may inflict.
What death penalties in games give is consequences beyond that inflicted by failure alone. They were likely intended to give more weight to the outcome of player choices and actions, increasing player engagement accordingly.
Some players find they do enhance their game experience. Others, not so much. As with anything where opinion is divided, the merit of death penalties or lack thereof is in the mind of the beholder.
I agree. But this concept goes beyond just personal interpretation too. In thinking about how it affects the game in other ways, there's the social aspects I mentioned just a few posts up. There's also the thing with players charging in, over and over again (mentioned previously by a couple of posters), until they win by attrition. That's not good game play, IMO, as it really lacks meaning to "victory." Then there's the "solo" drift, if a game isn't challenging enough. Probably a few other aspects that are affected too.
Absolutely. The personal preference aspect relates to the value a particular player places on a game system and how it affects play. Those play elements will affect the game in many significant ways regardless of the worth any particular player assigns to them.
Winning through attrition definitely deprives players of the sense of accomplishment they would have had from a clean victory. It is understandable how some feel it cheapens that player's experience or even a game that allows that as a whole.
I'm personally not so extreme in my view as that, but generally accept my losses in solo play regardless. I will often go back immediately to try again, especially if the battle was very close, but the encounter will have reset so there is no attrition to take advantage of.
When playing with my fiance, which makes up the vast majority of my structured grouping, I will unabashedly res as needed if I die and she is still in peril, but that is a consideration that goes beyond the gaming merit of such.
Yeah, understand that I don't care if other players like that sort of attrition game play. It's all about the better game, IMO. Especially in the social aspects that it creates. I love the challenge of going solo in a game that's challenging even for groups. I love the stealthy assassin strategy, working my way through a very dangerous Dungeon, etc. It wouldn't be nearly the fun if it wasn't a truly challenging victory.
I want challenge for the distinction. Not just for me, but for all the great gamers who deserve the title of "a darn good player."
That you don't care that some like attrition based play is reasonable, as is others not caring that some prefer game play under more rigorous conditions.
Both approaches have their merits to the audience they appeal to.
Ideally both game experiences would be available in sufficient quantity and quality such that the varying preferences of players would all be adequately served.
That all could enjoy game play to the degree you describe would be a wonderful thing.
Amaranthar said: I agree. But this concept goes beyond just personal interpretation too. In thinking about how it affects the game in other ways, there's the social aspects I mentioned just a few posts up. There's also the thing with players charging in, over and over again (mentioned previously by a couple of posters), until they win by attrition. That's not good game play, IMO, as it really lacks meaning to "victory."
Then there's the "solo" drift, if a game isn't challenging enough. Probably a few other aspects that are affected too.
I don't think I have played any MMO's in last 10 years that mobs don't reset once everyone in range is dead. If they heal up to full, then its effectively reset. So where are you seeing this attrition concept?
I believe his point is that so long as at least some players stay engaged, preventing the reset of the battle, it is easier than it had been for slain players to rejoin the fight as effective combatants. Eventually this would result in a victory just as much by attrition as skillful play. When death had stiffer penalties attrition wouldn't have been as viable, with the remaining players having to rise to the occasion instead to succeed as their fallen companions would likely stay so until at least the current battle was over.
Also, we're talking about a shift in game design from the current. So, what that design is, and if it has the old die-res-and go again strategies is something to think about.
You've totally lost me. I have no idea what you're seeing as contradictory between that statement and anything else I wrote.
[edited for brevity] You said if you "lost", then you get to go back and fight again. You when lose a tennis match, do you get to immediately go at them again? The match (or fight) is lost. Your opponent won. You lost. Or do you play with the "do over" rule?
So just think if in tennis you are in a match and you lose 1 point. You are stripped down naked, leave your racket, leave all your gear. Then someone drops you off at some arbitrary point far away where you have to find your way back and you have to swim through shark infested waters or dodge dangerous predators in a jungle all while being completely naked just to have the chance to finish the match.
What does running around naked have to do with the game you play anyways? Just a weird mechanic that some dev started that caught on for a few years.
I suspect under those rules, I wouldn't see many people playing tennis. I suspect people would think that's a retarded rule.
I will admit, that would make some interesting TV thou.
Losing a televised tennis match comes with the associated consequences which being real will transcend the cost of any virtual inconvenience a game may inflict.
What death penalties in games give is consequences beyond that inflicted by failure alone. They were likely intended to give more weight to the outcome of player choices and actions, increasing player engagement accordingly.
Some players find they do enhance their game experience. Others, not so much. As with anything where opinion is divided, the merit of death penalties or lack thereof is in the mind of the beholder.
I agree. But this concept goes beyond just personal interpretation too. In thinking about how it affects the game in other ways, there's the social aspects I mentioned just a few posts up. There's also the thing with players charging in, over and over again (mentioned previously by a couple of posters), until they win by attrition. That's not good game play, IMO, as it really lacks meaning to "victory." Then there's the "solo" drift, if a game isn't challenging enough. Probably a few other aspects that are affected too.
Absolutely. The personal preference aspect relates to the value a particular player places on a game system and how it affects play. Those play elements will affect the game in many significant ways regardless of the worth any particular player assigns to them.
Winning through attrition definitely deprives players of the sense of accomplishment they would have had from a clean victory. It is understandable how some feel it cheapens that player's experience or even a game that allows that as a whole.
I'm personally not so extreme in my view as that, but generally accept my losses in solo play regardless. I will often go back immediately to try again, especially if the battle was very close, but the encounter will have reset so there is no attrition to take advantage of.
When playing with my fiance, which makes up the vast majority of my structured grouping, I will unabashedly res as needed if I die and she is still in peril, but that is a consideration that goes beyond the gaming merit of such.
Yeah, understand that I don't care if other players like that sort of attrition game play. It's all about the better game, IMO. Especially in the social aspects that it creates. I love the challenge of going solo in a game that's challenging even for groups. I love the stealthy assassin strategy, working my way through a very dangerous Dungeon, etc. It wouldn't be nearly the fun if it wasn't a truly challenging victory.
I want challenge for the distinction. Not just for me, but for all the great gamers who deserve the title of "a darn good player."
That you don't care that some like attrition based play is reasonable, as is others not caring that some prefer game play under more rigorous conditions.
Both approaches have their merits to the audience they appeal to.
Ideally both game experiences would be available in sufficient quantity and quality such that the varying preferences of players would all be adequately served.
That all could enjoy game play to the degree you describe would be a wonderful thing.
The only thing I feel needs clarification is this: Please not in a "one MMORPG to rule them all", scenario These are 2 very different ways a game. If one player gets to play an "easier game", as this would be seen, now you 2 different games.
If I'm off base here and reading too much into the comment, my apologies
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Amaranthar said: I agree. But this concept goes beyond just personal interpretation too. In thinking about how it affects the game in other ways, there's the social aspects I mentioned just a few posts up. There's also the thing with players charging in, over and over again (mentioned previously by a couple of posters), until they win by attrition. That's not good game play, IMO, as it really lacks meaning to "victory."
Then there's the "solo" drift, if a game isn't challenging enough. Probably a few other aspects that are affected too.
I don't think I have played any MMO's in last 10 years that mobs don't reset once everyone in range is dead. If they heal up to full, then its effectively reset. So where are you seeing this attrition concept?
I believe his point is that so long as at least some players stay engaged, preventing the reset of the battle, it is easier than it had been for slain players to rejoin the fight as effective combatants. Eventually this would result in a victory just as much by attrition as skillful play. When death had stiffer penalties attrition wouldn't have been as viable, with the remaining players having to rise to the occasion instead to succeed as their fallen companions would likely stay so until at least the current battle was over.
Yeah I guess I dont understand this. So rezing someone while in battle is a problem? When has battle rezes resulted in penalties? What game is penalizing people for rezing while in battle, I'm curious about this?
Amaranthar said: I agree. But this concept goes beyond just personal interpretation too. In thinking about how it affects the game in other ways, there's the social aspects I mentioned just a few posts up. There's also the thing with players charging in, over and over again (mentioned previously by a couple of posters), until they win by attrition. That's not good game play, IMO, as it really lacks meaning to "victory."
Then there's the "solo" drift, if a game isn't challenging enough. Probably a few other aspects that are affected too.
I don't think I have played any MMO's in last 10 years that mobs don't reset once everyone in range is dead. If they heal up to full, then its effectively reset. So where are you seeing this attrition concept?
I believe his point is that so long as at least some players stay engaged, preventing the reset of the battle, it is easier than it had been for slain players to rejoin the fight as effective combatants. Eventually this would result in a victory just as much by attrition as skillful play. When death had stiffer penalties attrition wouldn't have been as viable, with the remaining players having to rise to the occasion instead to succeed as their fallen companions would likely stay so until at least the current battle was over.
Yeah I guess I dont understand this. So rezing someone while in battle is a problem? When has battle rezes resulted in penalties? What game is penalizing people for rezing while in battle, I'm curious about this?
I can only think of gear repair.
This isn't necessarily about what old games did. Part of it is fixing problems they had, part is about, as the OP said, "the world we want."
And "Worldly" is not served well with gamey code, where players are beating the code rather than the worldly design.
What movies or novels have you seen where the characters kept dying and resing over and over, to finally defeat the enemy? It's just not "worldly." And it's not even much "game", either, as it's more like a work-around to the poorly designed code.
Amaranthar said: I agree. But this concept goes beyond just personal interpretation too. In thinking about how it affects the game in other ways, there's the social aspects I mentioned just a few posts up. There's also the thing with players charging in, over and over again (mentioned previously by a couple of posters), until they win by attrition. That's not good game play, IMO, as it really lacks meaning to "victory."
Then there's the "solo" drift, if a game isn't challenging enough. Probably a few other aspects that are affected too.
I don't think I have played any MMO's in last 10 years that mobs don't reset once everyone in range is dead. If they heal up to full, then its effectively reset. So where are you seeing this attrition concept?
I believe his point is that so long as at least some players stay engaged, preventing the reset of the battle, it is easier than it had been for slain players to rejoin the fight as effective combatants. Eventually this would result in a victory just as much by attrition as skillful play. When death had stiffer penalties attrition wouldn't have been as viable, with the remaining players having to rise to the occasion instead to succeed as their fallen companions would likely stay so until at least the current battle was over.
Yeah I guess I dont understand this. So rezing someone while in battle is a problem? When has battle rezes resulted in penalties? What game is penalizing people for rezing while in battle, I'm curious about this?
I can only think of gear repair.
I don't know firsthand, but haven't others mentioned other effects like a "rez sickness" or other debuffs from dying? I'm not certain how any of that would help in a "continuous battle" scenario where players regularly die and come back.
Or was I misreading?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
I don't know firsthand, but haven't others mentioned other effects like a "rez sickness" or other debuffs from dying? I'm not certain how any of that would help in a "continuous battle" scenario where players regularly die and come back.
Or was I misreading?
In lord of the Rings Online there is a debuff if you 'retreat' (that is their solution to the death idea) and you have to wait until it dissipates.
I'm not a believer in these types of debuffs because it makes/promotes players waiting it out.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
You've totally lost me. I have no idea what you're seeing as contradictory between that statement and anything else I wrote.
[edited for brevity] You said if you "lost", then you get to go back and fight again. You when lose a tennis match, do you get to immediately go at them again? The match (or fight) is lost. Your opponent won. You lost. Or do you play with the "do over" rule?
So just think if in tennis you are in a match and you lose 1 point. You are stripped down naked, leave your racket, leave all your gear. Then someone drops you off at some arbitrary point far away where you have to find your way back and you have to swim through shark infested waters or dodge dangerous predators in a jungle all while being completely naked just to have the chance to finish the match.
What does running around naked have to do with the game you play anyways? Just a weird mechanic that some dev started that caught on for a few years.
I suspect under those rules, I wouldn't see many people playing tennis. I suspect people would think that's a retarded rule.
I will admit, that would make some interesting TV thou.
Losing a televised tennis match comes with the associated consequences which being real will transcend the cost of any virtual inconvenience a game may inflict.
What death penalties in games give is consequences beyond that inflicted by failure alone. They were likely intended to give more weight to the outcome of player choices and actions, increasing player engagement accordingly.
Some players find they do enhance their game experience. Others, not so much. As with anything where opinion is divided, the merit of death penalties or lack thereof is in the mind of the beholder.
I agree. But this concept goes beyond just personal interpretation too. In thinking about how it affects the game in other ways, there's the social aspects I mentioned just a few posts up. There's also the thing with players charging in, over and over again (mentioned previously by a couple of posters), until they win by attrition. That's not good game play, IMO, as it really lacks meaning to "victory." Then there's the "solo" drift, if a game isn't challenging enough. Probably a few other aspects that are affected too.
Absolutely. The personal preference aspect relates to the value a particular player places on a game system and how it affects play. Those play elements will affect the game in many significant ways regardless of the worth any particular player assigns to them.
Winning through attrition definitely deprives players of the sense of accomplishment they would have had from a clean victory. It is understandable how some feel it cheapens that player's experience or even a game that allows that as a whole.
I'm personally not so extreme in my view as that, but generally accept my losses in solo play regardless. I will often go back immediately to try again, especially if the battle was very close, but the encounter will have reset so there is no attrition to take advantage of.
When playing with my fiance, which makes up the vast majority of my structured grouping, I will unabashedly res as needed if I die and she is still in peril, but that is a consideration that goes beyond the gaming merit of such.
Yeah, understand that I don't care if other players like that sort of attrition game play. It's all about the better game, IMO. Especially in the social aspects that it creates. I love the challenge of going solo in a game that's challenging even for groups. I love the stealthy assassin strategy, working my way through a very dangerous Dungeon, etc. It wouldn't be nearly the fun if it wasn't a truly challenging victory.
I want challenge for the distinction. Not just for me, but for all the great gamers who deserve the title of "a darn good player."
That you don't care that some like attrition based play is reasonable, as is others not caring that some prefer game play under more rigorous conditions.
Both approaches have their merits to the audience they appeal to.
Ideally both game experiences would be available in sufficient quantity and quality such that the varying preferences of players would all be adequately served.
That all could enjoy game play to the degree you describe would be a wonderful thing.
The only thing I feel needs clarification is this: Please not in a "one MMORPG to rule them all", scenario These are 2 very different ways a game. If one player gets to play an "easier game", as this would be seen, now you 2 different games.
If I'm off base here and reading too much into the comment, my apologies
I don't think it possible to do both well in a single game as what serves each best often conflicts, so my hope is that each audience eventually has a separate pool of games from which to find the one that suits them best.
If sometime someone somehow finds a way to build a game that adequately concurrently serves both I'll be all for that, but such is an indulgence for the imagination elastic.
Amaranthar said: I agree. But this concept goes beyond just personal interpretation too. In thinking about how it affects the game in other ways, there's the social aspects I mentioned just a few posts up. There's also the thing with players charging in, over and over again (mentioned previously by a couple of posters), until they win by attrition. That's not good game play, IMO, as it really lacks meaning to "victory."
Then there's the "solo" drift, if a game isn't challenging enough. Probably a few other aspects that are affected too.
I don't think I have played any MMO's in last 10 years that mobs don't reset once everyone in range is dead. If they heal up to full, then its effectively reset. So where are you seeing this attrition concept?
I believe his point is that so long as at least some players stay engaged, preventing the reset of the battle, it is easier than it had been for slain players to rejoin the fight as effective combatants. Eventually this would result in a victory just as much by attrition as skillful play. When death had stiffer penalties attrition wouldn't have been as viable, with the remaining players having to rise to the occasion instead to succeed as their fallen companions would likely stay so until at least the current battle was over.
Yeah I guess I dont understand this. So rezing someone while in battle is a problem? When has battle rezes resulted in penalties? What game is penalizing people for rezing while in battle, I'm curious about this?
I can only think of gear repair.
In that I was thinking of resurrection as an out-of-combat ability, hence the need for it to be done after battle. That wouldn't apply to those usable in combat. Sorry about the needless confusion there.
City of Heroes had numerous ways to resuscitate, some of which brought the character back in a less than ideal state and were better used outside of combat in other that the most dire of circumstances.
Amaranthar said: I agree. But this concept goes beyond just personal interpretation too. In thinking about how it affects the game in other ways, there's the social aspects I mentioned just a few posts up. There's also the thing with players charging in, over and over again (mentioned previously by a couple of posters), until they win by attrition. That's not good game play, IMO, as it really lacks meaning to "victory."
Then there's the "solo" drift, if a game isn't challenging enough. Probably a few other aspects that are affected too.
I don't think I have played any MMO's in last 10 years that mobs don't reset once everyone in range is dead. If they heal up to full, then its effectively reset. So where are you seeing this attrition concept?
I believe his point is that so long as at least some players stay engaged, preventing the reset of the battle, it is easier than it had been for slain players to rejoin the fight as effective combatants. Eventually this would result in a victory just as much by attrition as skillful play. When death had stiffer penalties attrition wouldn't have been as viable, with the remaining players having to rise to the occasion instead to succeed as their fallen companions would likely stay so until at least the current battle was over.
Yeah I guess I dont understand this. So rezing someone while in battle is a problem? When has battle rezes resulted in penalties? What game is penalizing people for rezing while in battle, I'm curious about this?
I can only think of gear repair.
I don't know firsthand, but haven't others mentioned other effects like a "rez sickness" or other debuffs from dying? I'm not certain how any of that would help in a "continuous battle" scenario where players regularly die and come back.
Brainy said: What game is penalizing people for rezing while in battle, I'm curious about this?
I can only think of gear repair.
To answer this question:
EQ1, you lost EXP upon death, even with a cleric raising you, there was no way to get 100% exp back, IIRC, best was 75%, but I think that got raised to 90% by the time I left.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Brainy said: What game is penalizing people for rezing while in battle, I'm curious about this?
I can only think of gear repair.
To answer this question:
EQ1, you lost EXP upon death, even with a cleric raising you, there was no way to get 100% exp back, IIRC, best was 75%, but I think that got raised to 90% by the time I left.
It was 96% when I left iirc and they were coming out with an AA that I think allowed 100% but was on a timer (maybe once a day use or something).
Amaranthar said: I agree. But this concept goes beyond just personal interpretation too. In thinking about how it affects the game in other ways, there's the social aspects I mentioned just a few posts up. There's also the thing with players charging in, over and over again (mentioned previously by a couple of posters), until they win by attrition. That's not good game play, IMO, as it really lacks meaning to "victory."
Then there's the "solo" drift, if a game isn't challenging enough. Probably a few other aspects that are affected too.
I don't think I have played any MMO's in last 10 years that mobs don't reset once everyone in range is dead. If they heal up to full, then its effectively reset. So where are you seeing this attrition concept?
I believe his point is that so long as at least some players stay engaged, preventing the reset of the battle, it is easier than it had been for slain players to rejoin the fight as effective combatants. Eventually this would result in a victory just as much by attrition as skillful play. When death had stiffer penalties attrition wouldn't have been as viable, with the remaining players having to rise to the occasion instead to succeed as their fallen companions would likely stay so until at least the current battle was over.
Yeah I guess I dont understand this. So rezing someone while in battle is a problem? When has battle rezes resulted in penalties? What game is penalizing people for rezing while in battle, I'm curious about this?
I can only think of gear repair.
It also enables the zerg tactic. Die, respawn close, return and reengage (with penalties) before the encounter resets. That was almost the accepted tactic in several EQ1 raids.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Brainy said: What game is penalizing people for rezing while in battle, I'm curious about this?
I can only think of gear repair.
To answer this question:
EQ1, you lost EXP upon death, even with a cleric raising you, there was no way to get 100% exp back, IIRC, best was 75%, but I think that got raised to 90% by the time I left.
It was 96% when I left iirc and they were coming out with an AA that I think allowed 100% but was on a timer (maybe once a day use or something).
Good to know.
Also, as far as Rez-Rushing went in GW2.
GW2, has 3 states. Active, Downed, Dead.
Players can revive you pretty quick from Downed, and takes them a lot longer if you are Dead. But if you die, you can click the "Retry from Checkpoint" this is the same as other games departing, recalling to bind point, Respawn, in short, the event where in EQ`1, you would be running back to your body naked.
But since in GW2 there is no loss on death.. None At All... players would just Die, Respawn (Not get raised), and charge the Boss Mob again, in fact dying again within seconds of Respawning again, and again, and again, like nothing.
Anet had to fix this, so that if anyone in your group was still in combat, you could not respawn, which shows that the idea of a lack of death penalty overall is a bad design, but you could still be raised by your fellow players, again with no loss.
Anet had to then remove raising people in combat from WvW, as people would just form zergs, and during fights, they would pop dead people back up in the middle of combat, in a matter of seconds, and they would be ready to hit the fights again.
So the idea that Death should have no impact overall is not a good idea, when games like GW2, which tried to be a casuals playpen discovered that there needed to be at least some cost involved with dying.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
We're not going back. It's never going back to what it was; I think honestly you all should revisit John Smedley's comments when they were working on EQ Next. He hit the nail on the head of where the MMORPG world was headed next; Which is what some talked about in the front of the comments section. It's an expansive world where exploration will be a reward and there isn't a rails system toward end-game. MMORPGs really the goal should be that there isn't end game. Just like in real life you wouldn't call being 80-90 the end game where most players want to be; All of the journey is the game and it doesn't end until you stop playing. That's where MMORPGs should be heading but we just don't have the tech to get us there yet. But John wasn't wrong, he knew that the formula that he helped worked on in EQ has an end stage, and if you go play WoW retail right now M+ and anything beyond Normal raiding is it...
...But no--we're not going back and you can't expect the games of today to change. WoW retail I think is kind of the hallmark of what MMORPGs are right now. They're games that aren't great, the combat is boring with wayyyy too many buttons, you basically have to do keyboard kung-fu in raids which also makes the game not feel as RPG as other games, and then to top it off when you get to the top the only thing to do is chase items that make your numbers go up, and items that make your armor look cool. That's what happens when you take EverQuest's original idea and streamline it, we're a niche game genre that gets absolutely owned in terms of numbers when compared to MOBAs, or FPS and really that's where WoW has moved to essentially becoming a game that mirrors the demands of what their top player base in e-sports need. With that comes sacrificing the RPG elements of the game.
We're not going back. It's never going back to what it was; I think honestly you all should revisit John Smedley's comments when they were working on EQ Next. He hit the nail on the head of where the MMORPG world was headed next; Which is what some talked about in the front of the comments section. It's an expansive world where exploration will be a reward and there isn't a rails system toward end-game. MMORPGs really the goal should be that there isn't end game. Just like in real life you wouldn't call being 80-90 the end game where most players want to be; All of the journey is the game and it doesn't end until you stop playing. That's where MMORPGs should be heading but we just don't have the tech to get us there yet. But John wasn't wrong, he knew that the formula that he helped worked on in EQ has an end stage, and if you go play WoW retail right now M+ and anything beyond Normal raiding is it...
...But no--we're not going back and you can't expect the games of today to change. WoW retail I think is kind of the hallmark of what MMORPGs are right now. They're games that aren't great, the combat is boring with wayyyy too many buttons, you basically have to do keyboard kung-fu in raids which also makes the game not feel as RPG as other games, and then to top it off when you get to the top the only thing to do is chase items that make your numbers go up, and items that make your armor look cool. That's what happens when you take EverQuest's original idea and streamline it, we're a niche game genre that gets absolutely owned in terms of numbers when compared to MOBAs, or FPS and really that's where WoW has moved to essentially becoming a game that mirrors the demands of what their top player base in e-sports need. With that comes sacrificing the RPG elements of the game.
Welcome to the forums!
Definitely a new person, doesn't know you never should invoke the name Smedley when trying to prove a point.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Definitely a new person, doesn't know you never should invoke the name Smedley when trying to prove a point.
What's next, Derek Smart was right about SC?
You have not seen some of the first posts I do a welcome to; massively negative, barely there sentences, trying to find one of the first few posts that does not have swearing, staff members doing a first post after one of us made a joke about his name, we have had them all. This is totes OK by comparison.
i don't think it'll be the same because that's basically a brand new thing that no one has done & was new & exciting for many people around the world & the creators of those sucessful MMORPGs have made a killing in those years. nowdays game creators companies r trying throw games together for quick cash. not all MMORPGs are bad just could of been better in ways.... one MMORPG i will point out it is sucessful game but if they do some fixing that i think could be better i think it'll take off through the roof...that game is Albion online. i love that it is classless but the weapons & armor you chose will make what you r which is smart don't get me wrong but i think could of been better if like for example weapons still have it's own fight style & abilies that comes with it, but the spells/magic & so on should be all in the toon so the players can really choose how they want to play without have to choose weapons/armors to be able to do what they want to do spell/ magic/ fighting wise. i like the crafting/ gathering but feel that crafting part should be more on players actually crafting their own stuff instead of having to go to crafting place to pay them to make your own stuff after tier 3. i like the whole PvP, GvG, ZvZ, fighting for control of lands, factions & so on...but i for the red & black zones deaths you lose your gears & whatever you have on you i think is alittle harsh expectly for someone worked so hard to get those gears & stuff....i know only take what you need & leave the rest back in town makes sense but instead of losing gears & whatever you have on you. they should go by how good of a player they r & when the player die they don't lose their loots & all but reward the kill with money & loot eqaul to the player's value so that still fighting smart but you won't have as much angry players losing their stuff. i think that would be a win/win there. for own island eveything you build there should be free cause it's your instead of still paying to repairing your own gears or whatever unless you have it setup with someone else come yo your place then they should pay for it however you want set it up. should have weather effects i didn't or don't remember seeing any through out the game...i think that small effects would bring more life to the game more than they think. thoses r some of the things i feel would really bring alot of players to this game other than that i do still really like the game i think with some of the cons of the game i think it's a fairly strong game. it almost fits my game style....still looking for that MMORPG that'll steal my heart. give my your thoughts positives & negatives i welcome both of them. without going off the path i think if the MMORPG creators take their time & see what works & doesn't with all MMORPG over the years & with their plan for MMORPG i really feel someone out there can really come up with something really special .....i'm not a fan of a really high detailed grapics MMORPGs games because with all that memories it takes to run all that plus thousands of players in the same area/servers/world however you want call it will lag big time or crash alot unlesss got a super computer which not everyone can afford that on top paying fees & so on to play the game. look at Albion online the grapics r not nearly top notch but still really beautiful & works really well...i'm not crazy of the move controls but i understand why they did it that way since it's crossplatform with PC, Ipad, Iphone, & something else i can't remember but i get it. i actually think with all the experiences over the years of MMORPGs i feel it can be alot better than it was just gotta have a plan what kind style MMORPGs want make with a thoughtout plan with the crews & not think of being a WoW killer or the next big one or so on. i think that's the biggest problem with game creators nowdays instead of really try come up with a really fresh new MMORPG. hopefully in time we'll finally get to play one...
Comments
That you don't care that some like attrition based play is reasonable, as is others not caring that some prefer game play under more rigorous conditions.
Both approaches have their merits to the audience they appeal to.
So, what that design is, and if it has the old die-res-and go again strategies is something to think about.
Once upon a time....
If I'm off base here and reading too much into the comment, my apologies
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
I can only think of gear repair.
And "Worldly" is not served well with gamey code, where players are beating the code rather than the worldly design.
What movies or novels have you seen where the characters kept dying and resing over and over, to finally defeat the enemy? It's just not "worldly." And it's not even much "game", either, as it's more like a work-around to the poorly designed code.
Once upon a time....
Or was I misreading?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
I'm not a believer in these types of debuffs because it makes/promotes players waiting it out.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I don't think it possible to do both well in a single game as what serves each best often conflicts, so my hope is that each audience eventually has a separate pool of games from which to find the one that suits them best.
If sometime someone somehow finds a way to build a game that adequately concurrently serves both I'll be all for that, but such is an indulgence for the imagination elastic.
In that I was thinking of resurrection as an out-of-combat ability, hence the need for it to be done after battle. That wouldn't apply to those usable in combat. Sorry about the needless confusion there.
City of Heroes had numerous ways to resuscitate, some of which brought the character back in a less than ideal state and were better used outside of combat in other that the most dire of circumstances.
I just messed up. Don't tell anybody.
To answer this question:
EQ1, you lost EXP upon death, even with a cleric raising you, there was no way to get 100% exp back, IIRC, best was 75%, but I think that got raised to 90% by the time I left.
It was 96% when I left iirc and they were coming out with an AA that I think allowed 100% but was on a timer (maybe once a day use or something).
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Also, as far as Rez-Rushing went in GW2.
GW2, has 3 states. Active, Downed, Dead.
Players can revive you pretty quick from Downed, and takes them a lot longer if you are Dead. But if you die, you can click the "Retry from Checkpoint" this is the same as other games departing, recalling to bind point, Respawn, in short, the event where in EQ`1, you would be running back to your body naked.
But since in GW2 there is no loss on death.. None At All... players would just Die, Respawn (Not get raised), and charge the Boss Mob again, in fact dying again within seconds of Respawning again, and again, and again, like nothing.
Anet had to fix this, so that if anyone in your group was still in combat, you could not respawn, which shows that the idea of a lack of death penalty overall is a bad design, but you could still be raised by your fellow players, again with no loss.
Anet had to then remove raising people in combat from WvW, as people would just form zergs, and during fights, they would pop dead people back up in the middle of combat, in a matter of seconds, and they would be ready to hit the fights again.
So the idea that Death should have no impact overall is not a good idea, when games like GW2, which tried to be a casuals playpen discovered that there needed to be at least some cost involved with dying.
What's next, Derek Smart was right about SC?
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
i like the crafting/ gathering but feel that crafting part should be more on players actually crafting their own stuff instead of having to go to crafting place to pay them to make your own stuff after tier 3.
i like the whole PvP, GvG, ZvZ, fighting for control of lands, factions & so on...but i for the red & black zones deaths you lose your gears & whatever you have on you i think is alittle harsh expectly for someone worked so hard to get those gears & stuff....i know only take what you need & leave the rest back in town makes sense but instead of losing gears & whatever you have on you. they should go by how good of a player they r & when the player die they don't lose their loots & all but reward the kill with money & loot eqaul to the player's value so that still fighting smart but you won't have as much angry players losing their stuff. i think that would be a win/win there.
for own island eveything you build there should be free cause it's your instead of still paying to repairing your own gears or whatever unless you have it setup with someone else come yo your place then they should pay for it however you want set it up.
should have weather effects i didn't or don't remember seeing any through out the game...i think that small effects would bring more life to the game more than they think.
thoses r some of the things i feel would really bring alot of players to this game other than that i do still really like the game i think with some of the cons of the game i think it's a fairly strong game. it almost fits my game style....still looking for that MMORPG that'll steal my heart. give my your thoughts positives & negatives i welcome both of them.
without going off the path i think if the MMORPG creators take their time & see what works & doesn't with all MMORPG over the years & with their plan for MMORPG i really feel someone out there can really come up with something really special .....i'm not a fan of a really high detailed grapics MMORPGs games because with all that memories it takes to run all that plus thousands of players in the same area/servers/world however you want call it will lag big time or crash alot unlesss got a super computer which not everyone can afford that on top paying fees & so on to play the game. look at Albion online the grapics r not nearly top notch but still really beautiful & works really well...i'm not crazy of the move controls but i understand why they did it that way since it's crossplatform with PC, Ipad, Iphone, & something else i can't remember but i get it.
i actually think with all the experiences over the years of MMORPGs i feel it can be alot better than it was just gotta have a plan what kind style MMORPGs want make with a thoughtout plan with the crews & not think of being a WoW killer or the next big one or so on. i think that's the biggest problem with game creators nowdays instead of really try come up with a really fresh new MMORPG. hopefully in time we'll finally get to play one...