Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
What Do You Think About Transmog?
Cactus_LFRez
Member UncommonPosts: 206
I found this Josh Strife Hayes(Says) video about transmogs (and twinking)
And wanted to open it up to discussion, specifically the transmog bits.
I know people don't like long videos, this is only 10 minutes.
So what do you think about what they say about transmog?
What system do you prefer?
My thoughts
I agree with them that aesthetic cohesion is important and all cosmetics should fit within the setting.
Eastern MMOs have a lot of problems with this, having straight up pop culture references.
Western games have this issue too with excessively glowy and gaudy options.
But there is a hint of the idea that transmogs shouldn't exist.
I can't really agree with this point.
Personally I prefer a lot of customization
And prefer a gearless system, like CoH, Secret World, PSO 1&2
To maximize customization and avoid this whole transmog situation.
Having my character be a blank slate for an assortment of gear that I constantly switch out feels way too utilitarian to me.
And stuff like thunderfury or dragon scale armor doesn't have any mystique to me, because it is just a number stick.
The PvP clarity argument does make sense, but again does assume that
1) there is gear
&
2) seeing what specifc gear someone has is important.
And of course you can design a game where this is non applicable.
I do think we all can agree, limiting cosmetic choice to push players to the cash shop is not fun though.
Comments
With that said, a game should have its own artstyle and transmogs etc should remain coherent with that. Not like all those WoW mounts or pets. Gosh darn it!
I agree with the guy in the video when he said that you could garner info just by looking at an opponent.
I also don't like, at all, the huge power gaps that divide the players and the content into small fractions of what they would be in a worldly simulation.
Maybe I shouldn't even post in this thread, others want this stuff and they have their rights to decide on their own.
But you did ask.
Once upon a time....
But what's that got to do with Transmog?
I'd like to see an ability to have armor and clothing magically enhanced using magics from other items, that would be "worldly" and add loads to what players can do in a game, as well as economic game play.
But this Transmog stuff is so gamey feeling that it offends my delicate senses.
Worse, that it's used for CS sales (if that's a game's design).
Once upon a time....
Once upon a time....
It's a different way of doing things. I agree that it's the same basic end result.
But where's the soul of the game's world?
They are being made without much soul, or depth, as it were.
They just focus on Hack and Slash, treadmills (Gear, Levels), and almost-meaningless PvP (largely because there's no "worldliness" to them). Oh, and CS's.
Once upon a time....
Picking the thing you like vs picking the thing that is effective.
It feels starkly utilitarian to just equip things for stats with no real cosmetic customization.
This is why I prefer to totally seperate clothing and stat boosting items.
Like Defiance did with energy shields that give you all your defensive stats, allowing clothing to just be clothing, and fully customizable.
Or Secret World did with magick charms.
Of course that system makes more sense in some settings than others.
Perhaps it shouldn't be allowed in PvP, as being able to recognize gear may affect one's tactics in a fight.
Surpress the character name and level to. Make players decided on if they fight or not solely on what they see.
You walk up to someone on the street you don't know if they're a wimp or black belt that'll cream you, should be the same in game.
You want Pvp excitment, THAT's excitment, not knowing if you're getting in over your head or not.
SWG (pre-cu) - AoC (pre-f2p) - PotBS (pre-boarder) - DDO - LotRO (pre-f2p) - STO (pre-f2p) - GnH (beta tester) - SWTOR - Neverwinter
With the whole camera angle you play at, it's not like you can really see the outfit anyway, not like DDO, LotRO, SWTOR etc.... except on the character selection screen.
SWG (pre-cu) - AoC (pre-f2p) - PotBS (pre-boarder) - DDO - LotRO (pre-f2p) - STO (pre-f2p) - GnH (beta tester) - SWTOR - Neverwinter
I think their points make the assumption that you exist in a universe that has a clear hierarchy of gear, where one sword is significantly more powerful than another one.
Or one plate chest is significantly more powerful than another.
It also implies that players can spot the difference in the first place.
This is a gear centric approach, where gear makes the character more powerful. Or the character is just a blank slate for gear.
Most MMOs work like this, especially post Diablo/WoW.
Maybe it comes from growing up with anime, where the power of believing yourself trumps all.
But I tend to prefer a character centric approach, the power comes from the character, gear is just a tool.
This also implies that weapons and armor are more on equal footing and it is the wielder that makes the difference.
To "it is the wielder that makes the difference", I'd like to see that difference based on more than just the power of numbers. Where a player's choices and strategies are a part of it, beyond just the numbers. Not entirely, though. I do think there's value in gaining more powerful gear, just not in such dominating form. But magic armor that can make you look blurry and reduce the chances of being hit for a few seconds sounds pretty cool to me.
And speaking of that, games have mostly removed "chance." Power gamers seem to want specific numbers to count on (so they can tally up everything in detail). Swings always hit and always do x amount of damage, minus the predictable x value of defense.
Where's the fun in that? "The thrill of victory and the agony of defeat" has value too, in my opinion.
(BTW, I recognize that that predictability is part of that style of game play. Again, as you said, "the kind of world and game play" different players want.
It's all one-sided at the moment, and pretty damn boring if you're not a numbers cruncher.)
Once upon a time....
The chest piece that makes your character hard to hit is neat but you don't want a single best in slot item because people figured out some best combination.
I would figure give items types or traits and let players equip active and passive abilities based on the traits of the item.
Albion Online and ESO kind of do this to an extent but you could go farther with it.
So maybe you give that chest piece the trait, heavy armor and the trait illusion enchantment.
So you can equip heavy armor defense abilities but also defensive illusion abilities, like making your character blurry and hard to hit.
But players don't need that specific chest piece to achieve the same thing.
Any other combination of heavy armor pieces and illusion enchantment could give you access to the same abilities.
More than one way to skin a cat.
Then your equipment matters in the sense that it determines what kinds of things your character can do. And your character determines how strong or effective your abilities are.
That could allow players a bunch of different customization options while also looking the part and not force players into a best in slot situation where everyone is a clone or the mismatched clown armor thing.
Even if there is mathematically a best build, there are a ton of ways to achieve that build so players are never forced into using specific items.
For random chance,
I imagine the more competitive and serious you get about a game the less randomness you want in it, especially to make it a test of strategy and skill.
A lot like turning off hazards and items in competitive Smash Bros.
Then too, there's other items, like rings, that can allow for more choices for the player. Strategic combinations can be developed by the player.
As far as randomness in your last point, yeah, you still can have strategy. Of course.
Strategy is my fav, and I think the most important thing to having exciting combat.
I like strategy to be wide in scope, so it doesn't bog down into the best strategy for any particular situation. And to have defender strategies modify types of attacks.
I still like randomness, too. Not in a huge form, but something that can have a small effect here or there in a combat, and really only matter if it happens at a critical point on somewhat rare occasions.
Once upon a time....
I saw a great BBC mini-series years ago about Richard the Lionheart in the Middle East. They had a scene where he met, in a large tent, with a leader from that region, along with their top assistants, and each were curious about the weapons of the other.
So King Richard takes one of their shields and places it on a table, and pulls out his two-handed sword, and cleaves the shield in two. The Middle Easterners are impressed, and their leader shows what their weapons can do. He takes a scarf of silk and tossed it into the air, and as it floats slowly down he swipes his curved scimitar through it, cutting it in half. (Impossible with any other kind of weapon in RL.)
That great scene highlighted the differences in regional, cultural weaponry and warfare.
Your post reminded me of that scene, and I can see some real possibilities in games.
I'm sure it's all been done before, but that sort of thing could add a lot of "flavor" to a game, and make its world feel more "real", more fantastical, and more interesting.
Then do what you suggest, and allow players to become highly skilled in multiples, and combine their special effects, but in a balanced way.
The results really wouldn't be anything new, but it would add that "flavor" as well as add skill and economic/trade additions to the game.
Once upon a time....
Positive being things like critical hits and proc chances.
Negative being like missing an attack or failing to cast something.
In general regardless of combat system players like to feel in control of what is happening.
Positive randomness can add a nice surprise that makes player actions more effective.
Negative randomness however really let's you know you are not in control.
Even in games like Xcom where you have a percent to hit, they fudge the actual chance to hit to be more in the players favor and work similarly to player intuition.
Eg, 95% chance to hit is basically 100% chance to hit in players' minds
Where the reality is you would miss 1/20 shots.
But they bump up your actual hit chance closer to 99% chance to make it work like people think it should.
But in Xcom you can make the choice how much risk you take in a shot.
In MMOs not so much.
So a lot of it has to do with people being bad at statistics, and also disliking when they fail due to factors outside of their control.
Yes, but my take is that being in total, infallible control is boring. And that's what most games have to offer.
Yes, >the knowing< of said control opportunities (by the numbers) is the game that power gamers enjoy.
Is it just coincidence that people who are good with numbers and have a good memory are also good with programming? "We're making the game that we want to play" takes on new meaning. But what about the rest of us gamers? (And many are like me, good at that also, but just get bored with it.)
Is that numbers game what we might call strategy? Even many power gamers enjoy some strategy, and thus the "end game" quests. But again, those are fixed, and once strategized they become meaningless, and "end game" becomes real.
Excitement in game play comes from the unexpected. Then it's a new game (briefly) as players figure out what to do about it.
That's much more enjoyable than knowing the numbers, as well as knowing the fixed content.
Once upon a time....
Input or output randomness,
Input randomness would be things like random opponents, dungeon layouts, procedural generation, or just the actions of the human or CPU enemies being unpredictable.
This can mix well with strategy so long as there is no output randomness.
Output randomness is where you don't know the exact effect of your actions.
In general I would say output randomness and strategy don't mix very well.
Games like chess or Into the Breach have virtually no output randomness and as a result you are able to create strategies for any given situation because you know what you can do and know you can execute it.
Adding output randomness would inherently mean any strategy could become more or less effective but in a way the player can't control.
The more randomness of the outcome of the players choice, the less meaningful the choice becomes.
That necessitates a more casual style of play.
Casual play isn't a bad thing though, games like Hearthstone are played more casually than MTG, because it has a lot of cards that have random effects, targets etc. And it can be a lot of fun.
But this is counter to the idea of tests of skill where players need control over their actions not dependent on chance.
Each choice has its merits and works better with different types of gameplay.
The exceptions being the very very few gamers who do it first, without directions to follow.
I guess the illusion of accomplishing something is good enough for most. That probably does have entertainment value.
I'm not against that, to each their own.
It would just be nice if the MMORPG industry also offered that "something more" that many of us seek.
Once upon a time....